Femke Maurits Supervisor: Dr. M. A. Hordijk
11093706 Second supervisor: Dr. M. Rusca
femkemaurits@gmail.com Second reader: C. Alda-Vidal
An analysis of CSO partnerships in the sanitation sector of Lilongwe, Malawi
Msc International Development Studies June 2016
Pursuing Partnerships
Alone we can do so little;
Together we can do so much
i
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Michaela Hordijk, for her constant support, feedback, and for inspiring and organising my thoughts. I would also like to thank my second supervisors and mentors dr. Maria Rusca and Cecilia Alda-Vidal for their guidance and assistance throughout the process with their experience and profound knowledge of the subject. Great many thanks for all organisations and stakeholders who took time and interest to help me with this research, without them this thesis would not have been. Thank you ActionAid Malawi, CCODE, CICOD, CPAR Malawi, DAPP Malawi, Lilongwe City Council, Lilongwe Water Board, MATAMA, Plan Malawi, Pump Aid Malawi, RedCross Malawi, The Federation, TSP, UNICEF Malawi, WaterAid Malawi, World Bank Malawi, World Vision International Malawi, and all involved
residence from area 56. Lastly, I would like to thank my co-researches for their support, collaboration, and friendship.
ii
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore partnerships between civil society organisations (CSO), and to emphasise the importance of a comprehensive framework for CSO partnerships. Partnerships in the development industry are a contentious topic, as some of the main criteria for a genuine partnership do not seem compatible with the dynamics in which development organisations operate. This study reflects on the characteristics linked to mutuality, equality, and input appreciation which are often associated with
partnerships, and explores how these elements are practised inreality. In this thesis, a framework is composed based on literature to study CSO partnerships in Lilongwe, Malawi. Partnerships in the sanitation section are chosen as a sub-category, because in this development sector CSOs form close relationships with each other, in the absence of strong government or private actor involvement. In this setting, international and local non-government organisations, and community based organisations have formed partnership to achieve common goals and objectives and are collectively aiming for a better sanitation situation in the low income areas of peri-urban Lilongwe.
Through in-depth interviews with CSO members and other stakeholders, including government officials, this study projects an image of the mutual relationships between the organisations. A household level survey in two low income areas has included the intended beneficiaries into this study. These methods have revealed the underlying dynamics of these partnerships; the practices and outcomes that are the foundation for
development efforts in the city. This study found out that with regard to the framework used to assess the partnership, it is not possible to conclude that a genuine partnership is established in the case study. Many different aspects influence this conclusion, both elements from within the partnership and external factors. This thesis further argues that the current model for CSO partnerships is insufficiently formulated.
Development organisations are constructing partnerships based on vague conceptualisation of what is perceived as ‘good practice’. Therefore this thesis concludes with a proposed partnership model for CSOs, based on an extensive literary review and in-field observations.
iii Table of contents Acknowledgements...i Abstract...ii Table of contents...iii List of acronyms...v List of figures...vi Introduction...1
Actors in the sanitation sector...2
Partnerships between civil society organisations...2
1. Theoretical framework...4
1.1 Partnership in development cooperation...4
1.2 A comprehensive definition...5
1.2.1 The promise of partnership...5
1.2.2 A critical perspective on partnership...6
1.2.3 The partnership paradox...7
1.3 Partnerships in WASH...7
1.4 Partnership unpacked...9
1.4.1 An analytic model of CSO partnerships...9
Concluding remarks...11 2. Research design...12 2.1 Research questions...12 2.1.1 Sub-questions...12 2.2 Conceptual scheme...13 2.3 Operationalisation of concepts...13 2.4 Methodology...15 2.4.1 Unit of analysis...15
2.4.2 Methods and techniques...15
2.4.3 Data analysis...17
2.4.4 Limitations...18
2.4.5 Ethical considerations...18
3. Partnerships in the sanitation development sector in Lilongwe...20
3.1 CSO landscape in peri-urban Lilongwe...21
3.1.1 Description main actors...23
3.1.2 The Water and Environmental Sanitation Network...24
3.2 CSO approaches for improving access to sanitation...24
3.2.1 Behavioural change approaches...25
3.2.2Technical designs for sanitation facilities...27
3.2.3 Capacity building activities...30
3.3 Main challenges in the sector...30
3.3.1 Lack of funding...30
3.3.2 Vacuum in service provision...31
3.3.3 Landownership...32
Concluding remarks...33
4. Partnership practices...34
4.1 Mutual agreements of understanding...34
4.1.1 Mutual respect...34
iv
4.1.3 Free exchange of knowledge...36
4.2 Equality in a power balance...36
4.2.1 The decision-making process: size matters...37
4.2.2 Influence in strategy formulation...37
4.2.3 The donor-recipient dichotomy...38
4.3 Acknowledgment and appreciation of input...39
4.3.1 Resource recognition...39
4.3.2 Those who stand for nothing, fall for everything...40
4.3.3 Indispensability...41
4.4 Observed challenges for the partnerships...41
4.4.1 The who, the where, and the what of development efforts...41
4.4.2 Friend and foe...43
4.4.3 The role of the government...42
4.5 Hitting hidden barriers...43
5. Partnership outcomes analysis...44
5.1 Relational outcomes...44
5.1.1 Level of autonomy and organisational freedom...44
5.1.2 Added value: aiming for synergy...45
5.1.3 The power of numbers...45
5.2 Partners’ performance assessment...46
5.2.1 Compliance of agreed roles...46
5.2.2 Satisfaction: a ‘good enough’ perspective...47
5.3 Reflection of a progressive development perspective...48
5.3.1 Building the capacity of a future development approach...48
5.3.2 The disposition of ownership...49
5.4 Impact outcomes and measurable outputs...49
5.4.1 CLTS in the urban context...50
5.4.2 A community report...51
5.5 The limits of good intentions...54
6. Conclusions and discussion...55
6.1 Theoretical reflections and further research...57
Literature list...61
Annex...66
I Interview and respondents list...66
II UNHIDE-INHABIT Cities household survey on risks and sanitation in Lilongwe, Malawi...67
III Overview of methods deployed during fieldwork...74
v List of acronyms
CBO Community Based Organisation
CCODE Centre for Community Organisation and Development CICOD Circle for Integrated Community Development CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CPAR Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief CRS Catholic Relief Service
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DAPP Development Aid from People for People HDI Human Development Index
IGO Intergovernmental Organisation
INHAbIT Investigating Natural, Historical and Institutional Transformations in Cities INGO International Non-Government Organisation
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LIA Low Income Area
LNGO Local Non-Government Organisation LUPPEN Lilongwe Urban Poor People’s Network LWB Lilongwe Water Board
MATAMA Mineral Appropriate Technology Applicable in Malawi MDG Millennium Development Goal
NGO Non-Government Organisation ODF Open Defecation Free
SDG Sustainable Development Goal SDI Slum/Shack Dwellers International TSP Training Support for Partners
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNHIDE Uncovering Hidden Dynamics in Slum Environments UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VIP Ventilated Improved Pit latrine WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WESNET Water and Environmental Sanitation Network WUA Water Users Association
vi List of figures
Figures
Figure 1: Trends in global sanitation coverage and MDG target (%), 1990–2015...1
Figure 2: Use of improved sanitation and MDG target in 2015, and percentage point change from 1990 to 2015...1
Figure 2.1: Conceptual scheme...13
Figure 3.1: Naming patterns in stakeholder analysis...21
Figure 3.2: Network overview of sanitation development CSOs in peri-urban Lilongwe...22
Figure 3.3: The design of a VIP...28
Figure 5.1: Total of desired aid in areas 49 and 56...54
Figure 6.1: The partnership process towards ownership...61
Maps Map 3.1: Map of Lilongwe: area 56 highlighted...24
Map 3.2: Comparison water connections in area 56 to neighbouring areas...25
Pictures Picture 3.1: [left] Example of a traditional pit latrine with concrete slab [right] Example of a traditional pit latrine without a concrete slab... ...27
Picture 3.2: Inclusive VIP latrines [left] outside of a public VIP with rainwater collection system [right] example of the inside of a cubical for people with disabilities…...29
Picture 3.3: [left] A Skyloo in area 56 from the outside [middle] The outside of a Skyloo, showing the urine diversion drop hole and the opening of the decomposition vault [right] A Skyloo from the inside...29
Tables Table 2.1: Operationalisation table...14
Table 3.1: Overview of main CSOs in the sanitation sector...28
Table 5.1: Development preferences on sanitation in area 49 and 56...53
1 Introduction
In 2015 the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF collaboratively published a report checking on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) articulated for the progress of sanitation and water provision, as the MDG era came to a closure. Whilst there are major improvements are observed in the water sector and the MDG on water was met, the sanitation sector was lacking behind as the MDG was missed with almost 700 million people (see figure 1) (WHO & UNICEF 2015, 5). The countries who failed to meet the MDG target were chiefly under developed countries, where on average only 27% of their current population gained access to improved sanitation since 1990 (see figure 2) (WHO & UNICEF 2015, 5). As the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) were officially launched last September it is of importance that more data is collected on
sanitation in order to support the accomplishment of SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation.
This research has been undertaken in the framework of the collaboration between the UNHIDE (Uncovering Hidden Dynamics in Slum Environments) and INHAbIT Cities (Investigating Natural, Historical and Institutional Transformations in Cities). UNHIDE is sponsored by the Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation (DGIS) and is implemented under the MoU between University of Amsterdam and UNESCO-IHE. INHAbIT Cities is sponsored by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 656738 and is implemented by King's College London. Similar to previous research conducted under the above framework, the fieldwork of this study is located in Lilongwe, Malawi. Lilongwe is the capital of the country and has experienced a high
Fig. 1: Trends in global sanitation coverage and MDG target (%), 1990–2015 (source: WHO & UNICEF 2015)
Fig. 2: Use of improved sanitation and MDG target in 2015, and percentage point change from 1990 to 2015 (source: WHO & UNICEF 2015)
2 population growth due to urban migration and has since been expanding into peripheral areas, which often lay beyond the reach of public services and goods. These factors form an interesting case study area, in
combination with lacking information and statistical data on sanitation infrastructure and service delivery. According to the Lilongwe city council (LCC) only an estimated 9% of the population is connected to the sewer system and 20% is served with a septic tank (JICA 2010). This suggests that alternative solutions and service delivery systems for sanitation must be in place in the city. This research aims to collectively map the situation and infrastructure on sanitation and hygiene in the city by gathering information from different stakeholder perspectives.
Actors in the sanitation sector
While the demand for sanitation infrastructure is growing, the formal provision of these services has stagnated. There are several actors in a dispute to evade the responsibility of the sanitation sector in urban Lilongwe. Different official documents have come to paradoxical conclusion, and have identified either the Lilongwe Water Board (LWB) or the Lilongwe city council (LCC) as the overall responsible agency (Public Health Act of 1969; Government of Malawi 1995; Ministry of Water and Irrigation 2006). Neither has fully accepted the responsibility. Previous research has pointed out the important role played by non-government organisations (NGO) in the provision of services now neglected by above named actors (Hadzovic Pihljak 2014, 78). In the national sanitation policy of 2006 NGOs and international donors are named as key stakeholders in the sector (Ministry of Water and Irrigation 2006). It is therefore assumed that non-government agencies have significant influence on infrastructure, design, location, and other development efforts in relation to sanitation and hygiene, yet nothing is known about their specific role in the sector. This has been the motivation to centralise these organisations as the subject of this research. More precisely this study explores the partnerships formed between these non-governmental organisations, as most development efforts are the production of the collaboration between these organisations. Thereby, partnerships between development agencies have been structured in SDG 17 on global partnerships, which aims to enhance North-South and North-South-North-South cooperation in order to better achieve the other sustainable development goals1. Analysis of non-government actors in the sanitation sector through a partnership perspective is thus engaging both SDG 6 and 17.
Partnerships between civil society organisations
This thesis makes use of the comprehensive term ‘civil society organisations’ (CSO). CSOs are defined by the 2007-2008 Advisory Group on CSOs and Aid Effectiveness as all non-market and non-state organisations with a shared interest in the public domain2. In order to establish sanitation facilities, these CSOs engage in relationships with other CSOs, public agencies, and private actors. These relationships are often labelled partnerships, a specific kind of relationship that entails mutual respect, equality in decision-making,
1 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/globalpartnerships/
2
3 reciprocity procedures, and trust (Brinkerhoff 2002c, Fowler 2000). Research done on partnerships often focuses on the outputs and impact outcomes as a result of cooperation. Although useful to analyse produced change, it overlooks the mechanism that constitute to the partnership itself. In this research the partnership practises themselves are central and which outcomes these have for the relationship between partners. This has led to the following research question:
How are partnerships practiced by civil society organisations and what are the outcomes of these partnerships in the sanitation sector in Lilongwe, Malawi?
This study thus contributes to the theoretical gap with a contemporary perspective on partnership analysis. This is relevant as partnerships are becoming more central to (alternative) development strategies to improve service delivery in cities in the global South (Batley 2006; Eales 2008; Rusca 2009; USAID 2013). Besides a different perspective, this thesis is theoretically advancing because of the specific attention given to CSO exclusive partnerships. Existing literature often focuses on multi-stakeholder partnerships, and frameworks are adjusted on situations where public and private, both local and international, play an important part. This fails to notice the unique partnerships CSOs developed among themselves, especially in situations where public and private actor support is low. This research aims to disclose the dynamics that entail those partnerships, which could contribute to the improvement of partnership practices. Besides the academic relevance of this research, this is foremost an analysis of existing partnerships in Lilongwe and this thesis aims to provide a reflective tool for those stakeholders adopted. This thesis is produced with the assistance of many people with the sincere concern to create progressive and mutually supportive partnerships, and with the purpose to be beneficial for the partnerships studied, and the sector in general.
4 1. Theoretical Framework
The following chapter discusses the theoretical aspects of this thesis and entails a disquisition of the theories that form the basis of this research. Partnership is the prime concept of this thesis and is central in the following chapter. This chapter starts off by placing this concept in the context of development cooperation. Secondly it debates the definition of partnership, give a critical perspective on the use of the concept, and discuss the resulting paradox between principles and practice. Thereafter it explores partnerships in the specific context of sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Lastly, an analytic model for partnership assessment is introduced. This model is based on different scholars and presents the framework for this research.
1.1 Partnerships in development
Partnerships in the development sector are relationships established between agencies and actors with the aim to achieve (common) development goals. The outcomes of this relationship are translated into immediate development implementations. In this research the relationship between civil society organisations is central. CSO is an umbrella term for all organisations whose mission is primarily focused on improving social or ecological conditions and who have no regulatory tasks and no government components3. There are different categorisations of what organisational type belongs to which sub-group. This study has made use of the above broad definition of CSO, and this term is used throughout this thesis to address all those types. CSO includes multilateral organisations, intergovernmental non-profit organisations, international non-government
organisations (INGO), local non-government organisations (LNGO), and different community based
organisations (CBO), like grassroots organisations and social movement groups. These different organisations are working together under different conditions, but with the mutual aim to strengthen their efforts in reaching their (common) goals and objectives.
The term partnership has gained popularity since the late seventies and has gained considerable momentum since being included in the MDGs (Bailey & Dolan 2011, 31). There are many different
constructions on which partnerships can be based; joint venture partnerships, strategic partnerships, advisory partnerships and many more (CCF National Resource Center 2010). These different types of partnerships can be roughly divided in two categories: project-based partnership and long-term commitment. The former is created with the purpose to carry out projects together. Their activity is focused on projects that draw on the expertise or the specific resources of various stakeholders (UNESCO 2005). The second partnership is a long-term commitment, in which partners team-up for a longer period of time with the aim to achieve common goals and objectives.
5 1.2 A comprehensive definition of partnership
Although much has been written on partnerships, no official definition is generally accepted. Many authors suggest that a partnership differs from other institutional relationship types, because it is value-based in nature. But different scholars, institutions, and organisations uphold different values and expectations towards the partnership relationship. A summary of these characteristics are given in the following section. The indicators ascribed to partnerships in this section describe a desired and somewhat romanticised picture of the concept. The subsequent section introduces the main critiques on partnership, to challenge this view.
1.2.1 The promise of partnership
The term partnership has positive connotation in the literature; it suggests equality, respect, reciprocity and ownership (Gutierrez 2008 in Bailey & Dolan 2011, 33). Frequently described characteristics of partnerships in the literature are commitment to common goals, reciprocity, mutuality, transparency, and participation (Fernando & Hilhorst 2006; Bailey & Dolan 2011; Brinkerhoff 2002a; Fowler 2000). By addressing certain characteristics of partnerships, Fowler (2000) argues that a partnership relationship goes beyond other relational types and presents a superior working relationship. According to Fowler these distinctive qualities are long term shared responsibility, reciprocal obligation, equality, mutuality and a fair balance of power (2000, 3). Brinkerhoff (2002c) agrees with Fowler’s statement, and puts forward that at a conceptual level partnership exceeds other types of cooperation, because partnership evoked a sense of equality of partners and entails the mutual interest of all actors. Brinkerhoff (2002b) elaborates on her statement, and argues that partnerships perform beyond other relational forms, because of the synergistic results it produces. She states that partnerships should deliver outcomes which are larger than the sum of the contribution of all partners involved. Brinkerhoff’s (2002c, 1) definition on partnership development combines most of the concepts commonly used in partnership literature:
“Partnership is a dynamic relationship among diverse actors, based on mutually agreed
objectives, pursued through a shared understanding of the most rational division of labour based on the respective comparative advantages of each partner. Partnership encompasses mutual influence, with a careful balance between synergy and respective autonomy, which incorporates mutual respect, equal participation in decision-making, mutual accountability, and transparency”. This definition of partnership is applied throughout this research, and will be construed more in-depth in section 1.3. More specifically aimed at the subject of this research, scholars have debated that the ideal North-South NGO partnership often emphasise the need for respecting the autonomy of local partners, giving them the freedom to set the final agenda for their own work, and providing capacity building and flexible funding to foster their autonomy and capacity (Elbers 2012, 19).
6 1.2.2 A critical perspective on partnership
The section above elaborated upon the perception of partnership as an optimistic approach, and rather a way people would like to see partnership perform than how partnerships are actually acted upon. Organisations make use of the concept to refer to a wide range of different types of relationships, often without a sufficiently rigorous assessment being applied either to its meaning or to its substance (UNESCO 2005, 11). In reality, the relationship between institutions is often not based on mutual interest and sharing of knowledge and
resources. The formulation of the definition of partnership has been rather idealistic and has romanticised the reality in place. This raises concerns, as the current definition and conceptualisation of partnership are contradicting each other. Instead of fostering equality as in theory, the current partnership model in practice continues to promote a top-down model of governance (Bailey & Dolan, 2011). This immediately raises the concern of power issues, and how partnerships can hide power differences (Elbers 2012). The term 'partner' is often misleading, since it suggests a relationship of equality (Smillie 2001). Fowler adds that current
processes of partner relations are far from being transparent or stable (2000, 3). This fuels the inaudibility of how interests are played out and for whose benefit. Brinkerhoff (2002c, 2) argues that partnership is in danger of constituting a ‘feel good’ remedy for governance, without formulating a pragmatic notion of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of partnerships, nor a clearer understanding of its mechanisms.
Some critics have argued that there has been an overstretched application of the term partnership in development cooperation, and other terms might fit CSO cooperation better. Fowler (2000) suggests that the term partnership should be refrained from while describing aid relationships that do not embody any of the core principles linked to partnership. Instead more classical labels of development co-operation should be used to describe more accurate the actual situation, for instance development collaboration. The overuse of partnership can have negative implications for both the relationship as the production of outcomes. By applying the term too often for situations that do not add up to the conceptualisation of partnerships, the term is becoming a ‘something nothing’ (Malhotra 1997). It should be emphasised that partnership is not a neutral term and that the poor conceptualisation of partnerships or bad management of partnerships can ultimately do more harm than good (Bailey & Dolan 2011, 34).
By awarding the term to situations that do not adequately perform partnership, it runs the risk that no sincere efforts are made to improve these relationships. When the label ‘partnership’ has been used to describe a relationship, it comes across as if the relationship has already achieved the perceived mutuality and equality. Subsequently, attempts to actually achieve those values are downscaled and the term becomes contra
effective. The universal application of partnership is a mystification and distraction of the issues that occur in partnerships, at the cost of alternatives. Non-delivery on the aspiration of partners can cause even more dissatisfaction with the delivery of aid (Fowler 2000, 8).Far more care needs to be exercised in the use of the term to prevent abuse creating greater mistrust.
7 1.2.3 The partnership paradox
The section above elaborates on the ongoing struggles that partnerships are facing, including the discrepancy of what a partnership should be, and what the actual partnership represented. This contradiction in principle and practice is referred to by Willem Elbers (2012) as the partnership paradox. The same phenomenon is encountered by Katherine Welle (2001) who observes a difference between a conceptual version of partnership based on solidarity and a reality in which partnership is lead by efficiency. In other words, the partnership paradox entails the contradiction between what is meant and what is actually practised and this is problematic on a few points. As discussed above, it runs the risk of harming the relationship and to deteriorate the situation. But the partnership paradox also raises insecurities about international aid agencies’ abilities to achieve local ownership, their added value in the aid system in general, and the correspondence between their private values and practices (Elbers 2012, 24). It questions the position of international organisations in the South in regard to official donors, and how they contribute to Southern aid initiatives in a way not provided by governmental aid (Elbers 2012, 24). Besides the external effects, the organisational identity is under pressure, as core values that hold the company together, are not practiced in the field. This can have negative
connotations for the organisational structure and for the international relationships the Northern NGOs have formulated (Brinkerhoff 2002b; Elbers 2012).
The question forthcoming from the partnership paradox is what causes this discrepancy between principle and practice. Which inabilities or motivations obstruct the implementation of a genuine partnership between international and local development organisations? Perhaps international and local development agencies are so inherently different, that it is impossible for a partnership between those organisations to live up to its expectations. Such a reality goes even beyond the partnership paradox and proposes a North-South contradiction in which both northern and southern organisations counter and oppose one another.
1.3 Partnerships in WASH
The following section discusses previous research conducted on partnerships in the WASH sector, and aims to provide an overview of partnership models encountered in the sector. Specific literature on sanitation
partnership is scares and therefore most studies referred to in this section were conducted in a water context. Although different in their implementation, water and sanitation are still closely related. Hence these studies on water partnership form essential background information.
Partnerships between civil society organisations often have a complementing character, wherein different organisational identities come together and compliment each other’s assets (Fernando & Hilhorst 2006, 298). This is coherent with previous research conducted on partnerships in the WASH sector. Often comparative advantages can be recognised for each type of organisation, taking into accounts the specific characteristics and specialties of each partner (Brinkerhoff 2002b). In the development sector this division is often between northern and southern aid agencies; the former providing financial and technical support and
8 the latter being responsible for implementing development programmes (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2004). The same is recognised in the water sector where the private sector and/or the public utility are responsible for the financial and technical details, while software activities in the communities are often taken up by a (local) NGO partner (Rusca 2009, 11). This is backed-up by Hardoy et al. (2005), who studied the possibilities of partnership-based management in regard of water and sanitation provision in urban settlements. This study expresses the particular and unique strengths each partner delivers in a partnership, and highlights the importance of organisational commitment, partners working closely together, and shared decision-making. Katherina Welle (2001) describes in her case study about rural water and sanitation provision in Ghana, that there are two different kinds of partnership ideals in place; the partnership relation based on solidarity, and one based on Western values of efficiency and results. She concludes that neither version is fully successful, nor genuinely aligns with the core values of equal partnership. An important trend in the WASH sector analysed by Sahlooy (2003) is the decentralisation of service provision, moving away from pure public provision and the emergence of autonomous WASH corporations. Most related to the case study area of this thesis is the research conducted on partnerships in the water sector of Lilongwe by Maria Rusca (2009). It emphasises the role that small scale providers like NGOs have in service delivery, and the more prominent the role of these providers have become in the last decennia with regard to alternative supply systems. This is compatible with the public-private partnerships described by Sahlooy (2003) as a result of decentralisation, and the vision Hardoy et al. (2005) describe as a possible solution for water and sanitation issues in informal urban settlements. Kathy Eales (2008) describes some main differences between water and sanitation that could influence partnership approach. Firstly, the sanitation sector is more fragmented between different sections, like toilet construction and solid waste disposal. This results in multiple micro service suppliers, making it more difficult to link different segments and to establish strong partnerships between the stakeholders. Additionally Ealers (2008) argues that the sanitation industry is often overshadowed by poor accountability and fragmentation, further complicating possible partnerships in the sector. Concluding, Ealers (2008, 10) remarks that the sanitation sector should be cautious in assuming that existing models, like small-scale providers in the water section, would work for their sector. She argues that key features of partnerships in sanitation should be mutual respect and recognition that the whole can be greater than the sum of the attributes and competencies of all partners (Ealers 2008, 11). Especially because sanitation is
multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral, an effective partnership would require extraordinary commitment to enter those areas where needs are high but responsibilities and accountability are not defined (Ealers 2008, 11).
A shared observation made by the above authors, is that they all emphasise that the success of
(alternative) service delivery in water and sanitation, is dependable on the full cooperation and commitment of all stakeholders involved. This includes CSOs, private actors, and the public sector. This thesis focuses solely on the partnerships build up between civil society organisations, and reflects a situation in which public or private interference is lacking and CSOs are the primary responsible agencies of service delivery
9 1.4 Partnerships unpacked
This thesis tries to find a middle ground between the promises and practices of partnership. It argues that development partnerships can have a positive significance on the relationships structured between CSOs, and when practiced correctly will serve the interest of all actors equally. Yet, this research has taken into account that the rhetoric and reality of partnerships are often paradoxical (UNESCO 2005) and has embedded this assumption in the approach used throughout the research. The product of partnerships is often measured in outputs and outcomes. With regard to the WASH sector, this could translate into output (e.g. how many hygiene workshops have been given and how many people have we reached with toilet X) or impact outcomes (e.g. awareness raised and behaviour changed). Both these common outputs and outcomes are difficult to measure in the research location, which will be explained in section 2.4.4. Moreover, this study looks foremost at the relational outcomes. This entails the implications partnership practices have on the
relationship itself, rather than its external effect. Previous research conducted on partnerships has regularly placed the focus on evaluating the value of partnership by the outputs and impact outcomes it produces. Brinkerhoff (2002b) argues against such narrow attention by stating that partnership is both the end and the means to partnership outcomes. Relational outcomes are best measured through long-term partnership agreements, which are featured in this study.
1.4.1 An analytic model of CSO partnership practices
This research makes use of a conceptual analytical model based on the framework published by Jennifer Brinkerhoff. This framework is developed without a specific relevance to the development sector. Therefore the ideas and influences of other scholars were added, to provide a specific North-South view on CSO partnerships. Hence the framework4 used in this study is the result of the combined efforts to define a valid model on how to assess partnerships in development. It is a relative framework since the importance of each of the elements inside the model must be seen as circumstantial and the ideal-type partnership might be impossible to implement (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 224). For this research, the partnership model is divided into three phases; pre-partnership, partnership practice, and post-partnership. In the first phase pre-partnership conditions are discussed. In this phase the motives to enter a partnership should be examined (Brinkerhoff 2002c) and those pre-requisites and success factors needed in order to accomplish a genuine partnership. These factors should be evidently present at the start of a partnership, remain during the partnership, and entail among others; trust in partner’s competence, the willingness to share power, and the pronunciation of clear roles and related expectations.
The second phase is the actual implementation of the partnership. In this research this phase is labelled partnership practice, and embodies Brinkerhoff’s (2002b) elements of ‘degree of partnership’. The assessment of this phase for this research is built on three fundamental values: mutuality, equality, and input
4
10 appreciation. Firstly, mutuality is described by Brinkerhoff as a horizontal coordination as opposed to more hierarchical systems which are dominated by one or more partners (2002b, 217). Mutuality does not imply equality per se, but highlights the unique organisational identities which complement each other. Through the partnership all partners combined deliver more than each of them individually. This will lead to the added-value of a partnership and the achievement of common objectives (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 217). In Brinkerhoff’s model, reciprocal accountability is a variable for mutuality. In this research not specific to accountability, but reciprocity in general is a component of mutuality, as these were commonly mentioned in development partnerships (Bailey & Dolan 2011; Fowler 2000). In Brinkerhoff’s framework, equality is a sub-dimension of mutuality, but for this research equality has been taken as an individual variable, as it is also often displayed in development literature (Bailey & Dolan 2011; Fowler 2000). Equality motivates the relationship to
encounter all partners as equal and encourages a balance of power (Fowler 2000). It steers towards democratic procedures and joint determination of program activities and procedures (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 225). Lastly, input appreciation has been made a key value in this research, based on the writings of different scholars. While engaging in a partnership, both partners hold different values and assumptions (Elbers 2012), yet these need to collide and merge into something new. It would be desirable if all these values and notions of
knowledge are represented equally in the partnership. However, some perspectives can be valued more than others, which relates to the North-South contradiction described in sub-section 1.2.3. This could possible result in what Bryant (1998) describes as the debate about the relative merits of local and Western knowledge. One element subdivided in input appreciation is Brinkerhoff’s (2002b) notion of indispensability, including the recognition of unique strengths of each partner. These values were previous assigned with mutual respect, but it seemed fit for this research, which has a specific focus on synergic outcomes, that these factors have a more prominent role under the concept of input appreciation.
Besides the above concepts and variables inspired by Brinkerhoff (2002b), adopted in the theoretical framework of this study is also ‘capacity building’. Activities to enhance the capacity of partners is becoming more important in development partnership and have been put as one of the main activity of northern
organisations (Elbers 2012; Smillie 2001; Welle 2001). It relates to Elbers (2012, 24) question concerning exactly Northern NGOs legitimisation is for being present in situations with plenty of local development organisations. Private (northern) agencies are presumably better able than international or official donors to build the capacity of local organisations, due to their close relation and shared civic values. They are able to adjust capacity building efforts directly for their partners need, and provide long term support on location (Elbers 2012, 21). By building the capacity of local partners, INGOs are transferring their knowledge and experiences to local organisations. This makes the local NGOs and CBOs more capable to take over the ownership of development efforts. The phenomenon ‘ownership’ is clarified more in the next paragraph.
The third phase is an evaluation phase that looks at the outcomes of the partnership relation. As highlighted at the beginning of this section, this research looks at the relational aspects and performances of a partnership, thus it focuses at the relational outcomes. The post-partnership period does not mean that the
11 whole partnership is over, but is merely an evaluation period in which it is possible to look back to partnership outcomes, thus partnership assessment should be seen as an evolving process (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 220). The evaluation in this research is done on the basis of two pillars; the relational outcomes and partners’
performance. The first includes the added-value and the ability of a partner to meet its own objectives (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 226). This last indicator relates to what Elbers (2012) describes as the level of autonomy of each partner inside and outside the partnership. The second evaluation tool is partner’s performance, in which all partners reflect on prescribed roles in the pre-partnership phase and how these roles and
responsibilities were enacted (Brinkerhoff 2002b, 227), or more generally; to see if promise and practice corresponded. An important addition to the Brinkerhoff model from a development perspective is the objection of ownership. Ownership is defined by Ulrich Müller as the idea that societies as well as persons assume the responsibilities for their own development. A motivation of self-confidence that allows for better mutual cooperation and thus ownership creates favourable conditions for a partnership, in which both partners share the same rights and recognition (2009, 6). As proposed in the previous paragraph, capacity building could strengthen local organisations to better able them to take ownership over the development efforts of their specific sector. International organisations have been present so long in the South and have become so firmly rooted, that it is unthinkable for them not to be there. This is problematic, as more approaches are aiming towards limiting the presence of northern agencies in the South. Therefore, a partnership in development should focus on building the capacity of its local partners, with the intention of ownership (Elbers 2012; Welle 2001).
Concluding remarks
Partnerships have become an intrinsic element of CSO collaboration, but often the term does not deliver the promises it makes. Problematic is the incoherency of factors ascribed to partnership. The analytical model composed in the previous section aims to combine those different points of view and merge them into a framework in which CSO partnerships can be assessed. This framework is the guideline throughout this thesis and will be systematically discussed. Critical notions, like the partnership paradox, are often present below the surface and are a threat to the partnerships and the organisations themselves. The framework used in this research has taken into account those critics and has adopted elements that should counteract on those issues. This includes the concepts of capacity building and ownership, which were added for their unique value to North-South partnerships in a CSO context. These concepts embody a perspective on development aid that moves away from vertical towards a horizontal dialogue between northern and southern partners.
12 2. Research Design
The following chapter gives an overview of the components that have determined how this research was conducted, starting off with introducing the research- and sub questions. Thereafter the conceptual scheme and operationalisation table will presented and the additional changes made on the proposal versions will be discussed. Further on the methods and techniques used during this research for data collection and analysis will be thoroughly elaborated upon. In the final part of this chapter the limitations and ethics during this research are discussed.
2.1 Research questions
At the core of this research lay the partnerships formed between civil society organisations. There are two main stages in which these dynamics have been studied: the partnership practises and the partnership outcomes. The combination of these elements has led to the following research question:
How are partnerships practiced by civil society organisations and what are the outcomes of these partnerships in the sanitation sector in Lilongwe, Malawi?
2.1.1 Sub-questions
As a tool to answer the main research question, three separate sub-questions are formulated. Sub-question one is an overlapping question, discussed in the following three empirical chapters, but mostly to chapter three. Sub-question two is the subject of chapter four, and sub-question tree is discussed throughout chapter five.
1. How do different civil society organisations in the WASH sector interrelate and form partnerships? 2. How are these partnerships practiced, especially with regards to mutuality, equality, and input
appreciation?
13 2.2 Conceptual scheme
2.3 Operationalisation of concepts
The operationalisation table before the fieldwork study strongly represented the partnership framework based on Brinkerhoff (2002b) presented chapter one, which was a northern model not yet fully adjusted to a
southern development sector. Therefore the preliminary model has been adjusted to better fit the local situation. Firstly, the pre-partnership period as defined in chapter one, was not included in this study. It was impossible to look into affairs as they were before entering into the current partnerships, hence the elements belonging to the pre-partnership could not be included. Another absent element that has been removed from the framework is ‘representation’. Representation was far less an issue in CSO partnerships in WASH, as there was simply not so much public output. Although signs were placed and announcements were made about CSO activity, this did not reach such a level that it was significant to have an effect on the partnership relation. Besides that, the activities undertaken by the organisations were moreover software, thus physical output was even smaller. Two main concepts that are important to this research, but not mentioned in the table are capacity building and ownership. This is due to the fact that these concepts are both partnerships practices and outcomes, making them both the means and the ends. It would be not be sufficient enough to categorise capacity building as a partnership practise, as the capacity that was built through these efforts can also be
14 regarded as both a relational and impact outcome. This is similar for ownership, which it is primary seen as an outcome of the partnership, but in its achievement is also practised among the partners. The definition of these two concepts can be found in chapter one and section 3.2.3. Lastly, the notions of outputs and outcomes in target community are not included in this table. These terms have been discussed before in section 1.4, and their weight in this thesis will be explained more in section 2.4.4 on the limitations of this study. Below in table 2.1 the results of the adjustments can be seen. This framework provides the structure for this thesis.
15 2.4 Methodology
In the following section the methodology used to conduct this research is discussed. Firstly, the target of this research is elaborated upon; the unit of analysis and the unit of observation. Thereafter it will go in-depth on the methods and techniques used during this research. Lastly, it discusses the ethical considerations and limitations of this research.
2.4.1 Unit of analysis
In this research CSO partnerships are the unit of analysis. Because of the specific context of the sanitation sector in Lilongwe, it has been decided to focus on the partnership between CSO, excluding their partnerships with other private or public actors. In the next chapter the specific conditions that motivated this decision will be discussed. The umbrella term CSO mean all development organisations involved in the service provision of sanitation. Three different types of CSOs are included in this research: INGOs, LNGOs, and CBOs. The members of these organisations are the unit of observation for this research.
In the theoretical framework, Brinkerhoff’s (2002b) approach for partnership evaluation was discussed and this method has provided the basis for the performed fieldwork. While Brinkerhoff’s method and the preliminary planning of this study planned on using different case studies, this research eventually did not make use of a case study method, but explored the partnerships by mapping the organisations active on sanitation. The nature of the unit of analysis made it more beneficial to do an analysis of the whole sector through their network. Four factors weighted in the decision to favour mapping the network over a case study selection. Firstly, the organisations’ documentation on precise development programmes and projects started in the past, were difficult to obtain and therefore precious time would be lost in a short-term field research. Secondly, the amounts of organisations currently active in the sanitation sector were not as numerous as initially anticipated, which made it possible to fully map the sanitation sector from a non-government
perspective. Thirdly, the partners engaged in certain programmes or projects were more fluent than expected, causing multiple organisations to be somewhat part of a partnership over a longer period of time. This made selecting CSOs to a specific case study difficult. Lastly, to productively execute a case study of the sanitation sector, each selective case would have contained three to four organisations, in which three to four employees could have been interviewed. In reality, it appeared that in each organisation, there was often only one staff member occupied with WASH in general, which largely limited the amount of possible informants. The aim to gather a diverse set of data from a heterogenic group of informants would have been a shortcoming. These four arguments have also influenced the decision to focus solely on long-term based partnerships over project-based partnerships, as the second were difficult to isolate from other ongoing activities.
16 The organisations researched in this network study are selected based on their partnership
involvement in the provision of sanitation facilities and the promotion of sanitation and hygiene practices. Sanitation facility provision means all activities surrounding the design, placement, instalment, and
maintenance of sanitation facilities. These can be both traditional and improved facilities, and covers different kinds of latrines, soak-ways, and toilets (Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, 2010). Other
activities that form the basis of partnerships are advocacy, capacity building, or behavioural change methods5. 2.4.2 Methods and techniques
This thesis research used a mixed methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative research methods. By applying a mixed research design, the added-value of each typology is utilised. A mixed methods approach enabled this research to reach a professional layer for in-depth information, and a large group of sanitation users on the ground for data based on experiences. The components of mixed method research as selected by Cresswell and Plano Clark was used in this research; sampling, gaining permission, collecting data, recording data, and administrating data (2011, 171). Qualitative research methods were applied to all three sub-questions, and a quantitative survey was used to explore sub-question three more broadly. The fieldwork phase of this research was conducted in ten weeks, which can be categorised in four phases, each accompanied by a set of methods. The first phase was an exploratory inductive phase in which first contacts were created and introductory meetings took place. During this phase, multiple field observations were undertaken in low-income areas (LIA) in which CSOs are active. Specifically area 56 was visited; a neighbourhood which is used as an example for the sanitation situation in peri-urban Lilongwe in this research, and will be introduced more detailed in section 3.2.
In the second phase of this research semi-structured and unstructured interviews were conducted with key informants. These semi-structured interviews were set up by preparing a list of topics and short questions which could be addressed during the interview (Boeije 2010, 62), and which formed the guideline to obtain information. These interviews provided an insight into the network of partnerships and in-depth knowledge on partnership practices. Unstructured interviews were based on topic lists only, and give a certain freedom to the interviewee to focus on those topics that are interesting to him or her (Boeije 2010). By handing over the lead of the interview to the informant, certain topics were covered more than others. This served as indicators about what was important for the informant and what they regarded as challenges or advantages. Both techniques delivered useful and insightful data, which after preliminary data analysis led to interesting follow-up leads. In this research phase, most informants selected worked in the development sector. Therefore a specific kind of informant was sough and a selective sampling technique was used. Purposefully sampling (Cresswell & Plano Clark 2011, 173) in qualitative research is the intentional selection of participants with experiences in the central phenomenon, or with a key concept which is being researched. One of the techniques of purposefully sampling is the maximum variation sampling, wherein different individuals are
5
17 chosen who are expected to hold different perceptions on the subject of research (Cresswell and Plano Clark 2011, 174). As elaborated above, this research has mapped all CSOs, thus has managed to reach those organisations active in the sanitation sector of peri-urban Lilongwe. In the qualitative part of this research 22 CSOs were reached, of which 12 were currently active in sanitation programmes.
In the third phase the research followed-up on interesting information provided in the first set of qualitative results. Based on preliminary analysis of the interviews already conducted, some topics and themes were selected to be researched in more depth. During this phase either new informants were interviewed, or former informants were interviewed a second time on new arisen topics. In this phase the focus shifted from CSO members to additional stakeholders, including government employees, health workers, and local chiefs.
During the last phase of this research a collective survey was undertaken with the other members of the UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities research team. This household level survey was conducted with the aid of three research assistants. The survey was conducted in multiple areas of the city, selected on basis of income level, available infrastructure, and urban planning status (planned, unplanned, or traditional housing). This survey aimed to capture the different aspects from the urban landscape and the people who inhabit those areas. The wider scope of the survey included six different areas; this study included just two areas based on the CSO activity in those neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods are area 49 and 56, and a total of 187 respondents were reached in these areas. They were reached through stratified sampling. In this sampling technique, respondents are selected as a subset of the population, by sharing a common characteristic; in this case their living area. This survey helped to quantify and triangulate some of the collected data. The survey includes questions specific to this research, but it also includes questions related to the other researchers employed under the UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities framework. This provided a more complete data set, and helped to create a more holistic view of the sanitation situation. Besides the importance this survey has to the theses, it will also provide more information for the UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities project. It adds to the body of knowledge that this project aims to gather, and will help future research conducted in this location. In annex II, the household survey can found. In annex III, a summary of this section on methods and techniques can be found in the form of a table, which presents for every technique the amount of people reached and the added total. 2.4.3 Data analysis
Data collected through qualitative interview methods have been analysed using NVivo software, making use of open and selective coding. By using this technique the data was broken down into organised sets and the data became more manageable (Welsch 2002). The task of analysing the data in the field was accomplished parallel to the data gathering, and preliminary analysis assisted in coordinating the research. Constant comparison and theoretical selection as described by Boeije (2010, 23 & 83) and the comparison with research team members improved both the data collection and the theoretical framework. The statistical data collected through the household survey is analysed with SPSS. The statistical analysis is of a descriptive level, the outputs of the analyses run can be found in annex IV.
18 2.4.4 Limitations
This research anticipated some physical and academic limitations. The most evident limitation was the impossibility of measuring the impact outcomes and outputs while in the field. Due to difficulties with documentation and the lack of overall statistics of the peri-urban area, it is impossible to ascertain the exact outputs of the partnerships in sanitation. This is further impeded by the nature of the methodology used by the organisations. The most implemented aid is ‘community led total sanitation’ (CLTS). This is so-called
software method is not easily measured. It would already be difficult to make an accurate estimate of how many people are reached throughout these programmes, nevertheless impossible to say how many people are effectively reached. A second limitation is the application of the full partnership framework, as proposed in section 1.4.1. The framework is divided into three phases, but due to the nature of the partnerships studied, it was not possible to make an objective assessment of the pre-partnership phase. All partnerships were based on long-term relationships; the agreements and perspectives that formed the foundation of the partnership, were impossible to retrieve, as previously discussed in section 2.3. Relating thereto is the third limitation, namely that the partnership model used in this study is a Western model, applied in a Southern situation.
Consequently, the prior model on which the theory is based has changed overtime, in order to merge these two opposites as far as possible. These changes can be found back in section 2.3. Yet it is impossible in one field study to mend the original Western model as sophisticated to say that there was no lingering effect present. Hereby it is important to note that I am a researcher with a Western background and lack the experience of living in a developing country, nor have I worked at a CSO. I have experienced this lack of background knowledge as both an advantage and as a disadvantage. While it was impossible for me to place myself in the true reality of my informants, as a non-native observer I did have the possibility to apply outsider observation. By these means I could provide a more objective description of the situation observed. The last limitation this study has, are the specific conditions in which the field study was undertaken. The partnerships presented in this thesis, are not comparable to any other partnerships in a different situation or location. They are formed in relation to the specific environment of the sanitation development sector of peri-urban Lilongwe. They are subject to a unique combination of phenomena, like by-laws, funding, and infrastructure. Hence, it is not possible to predict that in a different location or in a different situation, this study will produce the same results. It therefore must be stated that it would be inadequate to say this research is transferable, nor are the results to be generalised. Yet, this is compensated by the proposed CSO partnership model (see tab. 6.1), which can be applied in a new research situation.
2.4.5 Ethical considerations
During the fieldwork period of this research, different stakeholders have articulated varying opinions in the interviews regarding the subjects discussed. It is important to view all information equally relevant, and realise the existence of multiple realities and notions of truths through the eyes of these informants. Hence, knowledge is not neutral in its existence, but submissive to influence and power. During data analysis the
19 awareness of who generates which reality and why that reality is depicted in that specific context has played a crucial part. This research therefore holds a relativist approach, wherein an absolute truth about a certain phenomenon is rejected and it is accepted that there is the possibility of multiple worldviews and alternative accounts of the same phenomenon.
An important ethical consideration made in advance, is the effect this research has on the partnerships studied for this thesis. Through enquiring about certain subjects and partnerships’ habits, it stirred emotions about the partnership previously gone unnoticed. In order to prevent harsh feelings between partners, possible consequences were discussed and full anonymity, in name and organisation, was offered. This thesis has manipulated the names and functions of all informants, to guarantee the full concealment of identities. Throughout this thesis, quotes are referred to by the type of organisation (INGO, LNGO, or CBO) and a description of the function of the informant. In the completion of this thesis, all quotes presented in this work will be run by the individual informants to assure mutual agreement on the statements made and to enhance the credibility of the results. Many organisations have expressed that they hope this evaluation could prove helpful in improving their common relations and the sanitation sector. This research has been conducted and written with those same aspirations in mind and with great respect towards the organisations.
20 3. Partnership in the sanitation development sector in Lilongwe
The following chapter presents the context in which this study is placed, and provides an overview of all stakeholders in sanitation and the mutual relationships between civil society organisations. Hence, this chapter provides a partial answer to sub-question one. It also discusses the different approaches to improve the
sanitation situation and the main challenges in the sector.
Malawi has 16.7 million inhabitants6, of which an estimated one million were living in Lilongwe in 2015 (UN Habitat 2011). Malawi is labelled a developing country by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) with a HDI of 0.445, ranking 173rd of a total of 188th countries (UNDP 2015, 218). The Government of Malawi states in line with the SDGs that it strives to “achieve universal access to safe water and improved sanitation by 2025” (Government of Malawi, 2014). Currently, in Lilongwe only 16 out of the 58 formal areas are connected to the central sewer system (JICA, 2010). All the areas connected to the sewage are located near the city centres, and do not include the LIAs in the periphery area of Lilongwe (Langkau 2016, 31). Due to the illegal status of the settlement there are not that many options for sewerage system in the LIAs, making it difficult to construct proper sanitation facilities. Adding to this, are conflicts over
responsibilities and lack of funding, which lead to the assumption that currently private and public actors are fragmenting the sector and not genuinely involved in the sector at this moment. This will be explained more thoroughly in the final sections of this chapter, but these form the motivation for this research to focus exclusively on partnerships between civil society organisations. This study does include those public and private stakeholders that are significant to the sector, as they have an influence on current affairs.
CSO presence in the sanitation sector of periphery Lilongwe has only been a recent activity. Around 2006, Water Aid, an international NGO located in Lilongwe, responded to a request from within the LIAs to solve an issue with the water kiosks in their area. They reorganised the kiosk system by introducing the Water Users Association (WUA). After this initial project they decided together with the LWB that the Lilongwe Water Board from there on would be responsible for the water supply and that Water Aid should complement these efforts with sanitation and hygiene activities. In 2008, Water Aid started the first sanitation and hygiene programmes; subsequently, more organisations have included sanitation in their urban programmes7. This makes urban sanitation a very young development branch, which has not yet attracted a lot of attention from development organisations or government. Despite the recruitment and training of different local organisation to specialise in urban WASH issues, the capacity in Lilongwe on sanitation is still in its infancy. In recent years, a noticeable increase in sanitation related activities is the direct result of partnerships in the CSO sector. With the increasing involvement of CSO in the sanitation sector, their position has become more integrated. In a stakeholder analysis of the sanitation sector in Lilongwe (see fig. 3.1 on the next page) made by David Caspers (2016) the NGOs are now as many times mentioned as relevant stakeholders as the LCC.
6
http://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi
7
21
3.1 CSO landscape in Lilongwe City
To provide a clear overview of the network of non-government organisations in the sanitation sector, the schematic network overview on the next page (see fig. 3.2) has been composed. In this overview, the local organisations currently occupied with sanitation programmes and projects have been given primary colours; international organisations have been given the colour blue, local organisations are represented by the colour yellow, and community based organisations are marked in red. The colour markings are consistent with the conceptual scheme. Besides the organisations currently active in peri-urban Lilongwe, the organisations that used to be involved on urban sanitation are also included in the overview. These organisations have played an important role in forming the partnerships’ relations as they are today, and some are still related through the Water and Environmental Sanitation Network (WESNET). These former organisations have either moved their activities to another region, or have (temporarily) stopped their activities on sanitation. These
organisations are coloured pink in the overview. Lastly, two intergovernmental organisations (IGO) have been included in the overview, UNICEF and UN-Habitat, which have been given the colour green.
22 F ig . 3 .2 : Ne two rk o v erv iew o f sa n it ati o n d ev elo p m en t CS Os i n p er i-u rb an Li lo n g we
23 3.1.1 Description main players
From this network overview, ten organisations were the most relevant important to this research. An overview is given in the below table (see table 3.1), including a short introduction of these organisations, and what role they (often) play in the partnership.
24 3.1.2 The Water and Environmental Sanitation Network
Besides the organisations mentioned in the network overview, there is another important actor in the WASH sector of Lilongwe. The Water and Environmental Sanitation Network (WESNET) is a membership based civil society network that aims to coordinate and unite the NGOs working on water, sanitation, and hygiene matters in Malawi8. Their head office is located in Lilongwe and all member organisations are in some extent connected to this network. It is run by a board of directors and performs a range of tasks for the WASH industry, including; management of learning alliances, advocacy and lobbying, compliance of quality standards, and establish effective networking among its members9. The role of WESNET in the sanitation sector is elaborated on throughout this thesis, and will be discussed more thoroughly in the final chapter, with regard to suggested recommendations.
3.2 CSO approaches for improving access to sanitation
In the following section, an overview is given of the different methods and approaches of CSOs to establish better sanitation and hygiene in LIAs. Examples and photos in this section are drawn from observations and research undertaken in area 56 in Lilongwe. This area has been selected, due to its profound role in previous and current research for the UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities framework. A solid knowledge basis is therefore available for this area, and data analysis run on this area relates closely to the research undertaken by fellow researchers in 2016. 8 Interview F-1, 26.1.2016 9 Interview F-35, 11.3.2016
25 Area 56 is a traditional settlement and is organised under traditional chiefdom, with 36.642 inhabitants in 2008 (Sarpong Boakye-Ansah 2015), but this has probably grown considerably since. The chiefs are part of the ministry of local government and have a strong voice in allocating development efforts in their section of the area10. The area is unregulated; this causes many problems similar to many other informal settlements in the peri-urban region. The area is scarcely connected to the water network of the city, especially when compared to the middle- and high income areas of the city (see fig. 3.2) (Velzeboer & Vidal unpublished). Most households are not connected to the main pipelines (see map 3.2) and are dependant of water kiosks. These kiosks are constructed by the Lilongwe Water Board, organised by the Water Users Association, and operated by private actors from the community11. Unfortunately, these kiosks do not function fully and some parts of this area only receive six hours of water a day, and often less (Velzeboer & Vidal, unpublished), which created barriers in sanitation and hygiene practices (Kral 2016). From the households included in the UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities survey, 89.3% (N=84) used an unimproved pit latrine. The available toilet
facilities are often shared with neighbouring families or landlords; 87.9% reported to share their toilet facility and a staggering 55.4% shared their toilet with more than four families12. Furthermore, the area is not
connected to the sewer system and there are very few septic tanks installed (Langkau 2016).
3.2.1 Behavioural change approaches
Since a year or two there has been a general harmonisation among the CSOs and government efforts of the methodology used to achieve better sanitation. The goal to declare Lilongwe urban areas Open Defecation Free (ODF) has led both public and non-government agencies to focus on so called ‘demand driven
10 Interview F-33, 08.3.2016
11
Interview F-30, 10.3.2016
12
UNHIDE-INHAbIT Cities survey Lilongwe 2016
Map 3.2: Comparison water connections in area 56 to neighbouring areas (source: Lilongwe Water Board in Velzeboer 2015, 67)
