Hi Paresh -

Thanks for your reflections and questions. 

Comparison of alternatives would be part of  "Selection of relevant approaches" within the cyclical process at the center of the copied diagram.  The bullet sits within Visioning and target setting, which is part of an iterative process that considers Costing and Financial Analysis. When considering the range of service level targets (basic to safely managed) and the different approaches for service delivery, several approaches might be needed across a geography and across the service chain.  The selection of approaches should absolutely consider and compare competing alternatives that are most appropriate for a particular context. 

And yes, definitely agree on the need to engage all relevant stakeholders.  That is the very first question, under the very first step of the roadmap - Are the right stakeholders engaged?  The purpose of establishing a clear planning process is to help different stakeholders orient to the same roadmap. 

In terms of specific cases, I would welcome others to share as well.  Within Water For People, several cases are included in Annex 1 that highlight the various service delivery approaches being applied as a result of evidence-based, district-wide planning process.  Cases in Rwanda and Uganda are likely the best for understanding how decisions and investments were made for decentralized treatment infrastructure.  You can find relevant resources in our WASH Room -  thewashroom.waterforpeople.org/resource-library/  with an option to search sanitaiton in the country of interest. 

Really appreciate you taking the time to share your reactions and help highlight key points. 

Thanks,
Kelly

Thanks Alec for posting the roadmap and also informing us more about Agenda for Change. 

I found the roadmap (diagram copied below) very similar to planning process suggested by CLUES and city sanitation plan. There
is one major difference though; other planning toolkits include a step to assess and compare potential  alternatives (technology and  operational arrangements) to achieve the targets and vision. I was wondering where does this step fall in the roadmap process? 

Also, given a district is likely to have multiple local governments (rural and urban), an important step is to get all the stakeholders on board and agree to collaborate and create common systems. In India, atleast in one case, such collaboration has happened post-facto. Dhenkanal municipality in Odisha has signed MoU with nearby panchayats and allows them to use its treatment facility. A cluster approach for locating and using FSTPs is also being tested in Andhra Pradesh (if I recall correctly). It would be great if could highlight a case where such collaborative planning led to infrastructure creation and management of services. 

Regards
paresh

Hi Elisabeth,

Thanks for driving my attention back to this thread, appreciate your interest to learn more!

The reasons for establishing Agenda for Change are well outlined in our Joint Principles , and our founding directly coincided with the beginning of the SDG era in 2015. There was a collective recognition amongst our founding members that international NGOs (and others) working on WASH needed to fundamentally shift their ways of working to ensure permanent water and sanitation for all by 2030. In agreeing to work together, with one voice and a common agenda, the collaboration seeks to encourage and influence the broader WASH sector to move away from traditional implementation project cycles and instead adopt systems strengthening approaches, with a key focus on building and supporting government leadership at national and local levels.

Throughout our first 4-5 years, we focused our activities largely at the global level - building trust, developing our shared ways of working, and raising awareness about systems strengthening approaches across our membership and beyond. However, in 2019 we began making a shift back to our original focus which is to catalyze country collaboration for system strengthening (more here and here ). We do this through four main pathways: catalyzing collaboration (with seed funding), regularly convening systems leaders, serving as matchmakers for technical assistance and learning, and building the evidence base for collaboratively strengthening WASH systems. We also seek to align ourselves with similar networks/alliances to share our work and develop opportunities for collaboration across our members or partners (e.g., MWA, SWA, RWSN, SuSanA, and the SWS Partnership).

The Osprey Foundation remains our primary and foundational funder. In addition, Latter-day Saint Charities, The Waterloo Foundation, and the Vitol Foundation have supported our Global Hub and/or our members' collaborative work in certain countries (see more here ).

All best,
Alec

Hi Alec,

Thanks for alerting us to this roadmap. I think we haven't had previous posts about the "Agenda for Change" yet (washagendaforchange.org/). Would you like to introduce us to your organisation by telling us a bit more about it?

On your website it says:

Established in May 2015, Agenda for Change is a collaboration of like-minded organizations (“Members”) that have adopted a set of  common principles  and approaches. We work collectively to advocate for, and support national and local governments in, strengthening the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) systems required to deliver universal, sustained access as outlined under Sustainable Development Goal 6.

This sounds very similar to SuSanA, so I am curious what the similarities and differences are (I guess one difference is that SuSanA focuses more on sanitation and only in a small way on water supply). What was the particular motivation for establishing it in 2015? Also, I am always interested in how things are funded, so my question is: who is funding your work? (see also my recent forum post about funding of the SuSanA discussion forum moderation  here )

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to share an important new resource from Agenda for Change: "A district-level roadmap for universal access to sustainable sanitation services," developed in collaboration with Aguaconsult, Helvetas, IRC WASH, WaterAid, and Water For People.

This sanitation roadmap was developed to address a gap in available guidance, tools, and case studies specifically focused on sanitation services. In this document, you will find a description of the scope and main differences between water and sanitation services; a step-by-step process for developing a WASH district roadmap focusing on sanitation service delivery; examples of some Agenda for Change members’ district-wide approaches to sanitation services in 20+ countries; and a list of useful resources for sanitation services.

I invite you to take a read, and please help us to share widely with the SuSanA network!

• ENGLISH:  washagendaforchange.org/blog/new-report-...tainable-sanitation/
• ESPAÑOL:  washagendaforchange.org/es/blog/new-repo...tainable-sanitation/

All best,
Alec