Dive deeper on risk-informing WASH

Email icon Back to Search
Artists Merinda Walters blue piece called Interconnected waters

Insights on 'risk-informing' WASH services

 

This 'Dive deeper' series give readers a chance to learn more from Water for Women's experience and should be read in conjunction with our more detailed Impact Report.

 

 

Background and story

A key part of WfW’s shift to climate resilience was to integrate climate risk and resilience into WASH governance systems (EOPO1). The main intent of this work was to strengthen capacity to assess WASH-related climate risks so that WASH services were systematically risk informed. This encouraged inclusion of appropriate climate risk management and resilience measures (that is, adaptation) (EOPO2).[1]

A core part of integrating climate risk and resilience into governance systems is to incorporate climate risk assessment into WASH services delivery planning. This typically involves strengthening and adapting existing planning tools to include climate risk elements, and building the technical capacity of duty-bearers (that is, responsible stakeholders) to apply them. In some cases, it can involve developing or adapting dedicated climate risk and vulnerability assessment tools for this purpose.

Across WfW, various approaches were employed to incorporate climate risk assessment capacity into WASH services delivery planning.[2] Features of these approaches were investigated as part of a Learning Agenda exercise to reveal how WASH governance systems commonly integrated consideration of climate risks and resilience and what lessons and promising practices were emerging from WfW.[3] Key promising practices that emerged from the WfW experience are listed below.

Water for Women also investigated how the application of these risk-informed WASH processes and tools translated to changes in WASH services (i.e. adaptation).[4] WfW’s experience was that the extent of adaptation of WASH service investments due to this risk-informed process varied greatly across projects, in line with the context and location-specific nature of climate change risks.  For example, within infrastructure design and construction, there were technical changes that responded to specific climate hazards, such as building toilets to withstand flooding or siting them away from flood-prone areas.

In some settings adaptations were substantial, such as switching water supply systems in schools from rainwater tanks to pumped groundwater. In other settings adaptations were less significant, such as modifying the operation and maintenance practices of WASH infrastructure to be more responsive to flooding and consequent landslides, but otherwise maintaining the same engineering design. Moreover, in some cases, the risk-informed process showed that the existing approach or design for providing WASH services was already optimally climate resilient and that no adaptations were required. 

A further insight from WfW was that the economic useable life of the majority of WASH services investments was relatively short – less than 20 years.[5] This meant that the degree of climate change uncertainty facing WASH services planning is lower than for many other development investments (such as port or airport infrastructure) with longer life spans. An implication of this is that the benefits of making a given WASH investment highly robust to climate change impacts may not always outweigh the additional upfront costs of adaptation, especially if these additional costs are high and/or key climate variables are changing rapidly. In such cases, it may be more cost-effective to opt for a less robust design and plan to adapt or replace the investment more often (although the proportion of CSOs that took this approach is unknown). This insight is important because – as expressed by numerous Partners (e.g. Plan Solomon Islands) – there are large opportunity costs[6] of allocating resources to make WASH services more climate resilient.[7] Given financing for WASH is very constrained, efficient pathway to building climate resilience in the WASH sector are essential.

A final key reflection on WfW experiences is that there was insufficient time to fully implement reform work in this area. Experience from other programs aimed at integrating climate risk management capability into governance systems – including DFAT-funded programs such as Governance for Resilient Development in the Pacific (Gov4Res) – is that this type of (governance-related) change takes a long time (>5 years). To do this work effectively typically requires several iterations of developing, piloting, training, collectively evaluating, and refining risk assessment processes and tools, and a participatory and collaborative approach with duty bearers.

For most CSO projects, WASH service planning tools were adapted or developed to consider climate risk, training was provided, and the tools were applied to pilot project settings. Critically, these tools were not evaluated to establish whether they were fit for purpose and fit for context, and how they should be refined and improved. Further investment over a longer period of time is required to achieve system changes that can support efficient and effective climate-resilient inclusive WASH development.

Key lessons and recommendations

A key pathway to achieving climate-resilient inclusive WASH development is through integrating climate risk assessment capability into WASH governance systems. This enables all WASH investments to be systematically risk informed and for climate change adaptation measures to be incorporated into the design of WASH services and interventions as appropriate. 

Water for Women produced some important lessons about how to integrate climate risk assessment into WASH governance systems and thereby risk-inform WASH services. These include to:

  1. embed climate risk and resilience considerations into existing inclusive WASH planning, budgetary, and implementation processes
  2. strengthen and adapt existing tools first and only create new ones when clearly needed
  3. consider women and marginalised groups separately within risk assessments, and meaningfully involve representatives from these groups in the conduct of this risk assessment work
  4. use a combination of scientific and customary data in climate risk analyses (see below box for examples).

When these risk-informed WASH planning processes are applied, a wide range of adaptation responses can be identified in line with the context and location-specific nature of climate change risks. An analysis of these options is a critical part of the process in order to determine which response is most appropriate at a given time and with existing resources.  An important insight is that it is not always necessary or desirable to make large adaptations, especially if the expected economic useful life of the investment is short. In many cases, only small or sometimes no changes are needed to effectively and efficiently contribute to climate-resilient inclusive WASH development.

In addition to adaptations to WASH services and infrastructure, addressing the vulnerability aspects of climate risk by building adaptive capacity to respond to climate hazards must be addressed. Reducing these vulnerabilities is another aspect of building climate resilience and has been explored through WfW, particularly as it relates to GEDSI.   WASH services may or may not look any different, but other aspects of the WASH system change.

Finally, it is also important to recognise that there is still much reform work still to do in the WfW CSO project contexts to ensure risk assessment processes and tools are fit for purpose and fit for context and properly embedded in systems. Governance reforms to integrate climate risk assessment capability into WASH governance systems are often complex and take a long time to achieve (>5 years) – much more time than was made available in the Extension Phase of WfW.

Programming and investing in climate-resilient inclusive WASH must be cognisant of and designed around the understanding that risk-informed governance systems are a key pathway to achieving climate-resilient inclusive development and that governance systems change takes time.

[1] In order to efficiently and effectively make WASH services more climate-resilient (EOPO2). It also helps ensure WASH investments reliably contributes to broader climate resilience.

[2] The FC encouraged CSOs to take the opportunity for trialing and testing different approaches in the time available in the Extension Phase.

[3] Note that the research adopted a ‘strengths-based approach’.

[4] That is, the nature and extent of adaptations incorporated as a result of applying the risk-informed planning process.

[5] One key exception relates to investments in ecosystem assets such as forests in water catchment areas. These investments (such as tree planting) take many years before the full benefits are realised, and generally are ‘useful’ for a long time (>50 years).  

[6] One such opportunity cost highlighted is less provision of basic WASH services which, in some settings, may provide access to more WASH services in aggregate.

[7] Another important implication of this is that the climate science inputs to climate risk assessments and the level of sophistication needed in analysing risk and uncertainty are reduced, which makes it more feasible to institutionalise assessments.

 

Building on existing local knowledge | Climate change exacerbates known hazards.

WfW projects included examples of using climate science to risk-inform WASH programming and of a growing understanding of the challenges inherent in accessing downscaled climate modelling. Meanwhile, partner reporting showed that many communities are already facing the most important climate-related risks (floods and water scarcity). Climate change will exacerbate these risks, but duty bearers and communities already have experience of them and useful knowledge about how to reduce them, which WASH programming can leverage.

Experience of known climate hazards was extensive during the Extension Phase, including major floods in Pakistan and Timor-Leste, cyclones in Vanuatu and drought in PNG and Nepal. Communities living in these locations understand what happens to their WASH services during extreme weather. Sarlahi in Nepal provides an excellent example of this. SNV Nepal’s project was grappling with water scarcity due to ongoing declining groundwater availability. In response, the government invested in deep boreholes that improved immediate access to water and should increase water security as rainfall becomes more variable.

iDE’s target area in Cambodia provided another example of dealing with an existing hazard that climate change will amplify. The iDE project worked in communes around the Tonle Sap lake. The lake floods annually, and communities live above the water in houses on stilts and use boats for transport. iDE reporting noted that ‘because climate change increases the frequency and irregularity of heavy storms and floods, increased toilet abandonment and dysfunction are likely to increase in climate-vulnerable regions.’[1]

The Cambodia example also highlighted that annual or cyclic variability in rainfall, water levels or tidal surges can be larger than the changes that climate change will introduce in the near term – that is, during the service life of WASH assets. That means needing to deal with floods and droughts now, not just when climate change makes them worse in the future.

Water for Women supported the Australian Government development assistance goal of improved health, gender equality and well-being in Asian and Pacific communities through climate-resilient and socially inclusive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services. Commencing in 2018, Water for Women civil society organisation WASH projects and research across 16 Asia Pacific countries supported systems strengthening, the delivery of improved WASH services and infrastructure, increased gender equitable, disability and socially inclusive WASH access, and widespread knowledge and learning for lasting impact.

Phase 1 of Water for Women was delivered from December 2017 to December 2022 and exceeded the target of improved WASH access for 3 million direct beneficiaries, reaching 3,602,999 people. Between January 2023 and June 2025, Water for Women was funded for an extension phase with a strong learning focus to improve understanding of how to transition to climate-resilient inclusive WASH. The Extension Phase reached a further 798,816 direct beneficiaries with climate-resilient inclusive WASH services, taking the total number of direct beneficiaries to 4,401,815 for the seven-year implementation period (2018–24). A further 7,278,692 people benefitted indirectly from both phase.

Water for Women also worked in public and private spaces, including 1,106 schools, 576 healthcare facilities, and at the household (721,871) and community (11,122) level. The leadership of women and marginalised people increased across 1,285 WASH committees and private sector organisations, with 21,725 representatives taking up active leadership or technical roles. The Australian Government’s total investment in Water for Women was AUD159.9 million from 2017-25 (including program inception and finalisation).

The 'Dive deeper' series give readers a chance to learn more from Water for Women's experience and should be read in conjunction with our more detailed Impact Report.

 

0 Likes

Comments

Contact Us