Learning Log 4: Research into Action, Shaping the Future of Climate-Resilient WASH

Jeremy Kohlitz, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Water for Women research partners are at the forefront of driving innovative and equitable solutions for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) in the face of climate change. By combining research initiatives with practical implementation, the Fund fosters evidence-based approaches and empowers partners to collaborate for sustainable outcomes.

Our Learning Agenda is a cornerstone of this approach, designed to facilitate knowledge sharing, learning and collaboration among our partners. As we approach the end of the Fund, we are focusing on a critical knowledge gap in climate-resilient development. To address this, we are seeking answers to two fundamental questions:

1. What does climate-resilient inclusive WASH development look like?
2. How does inclusive WASH contribute to climate resilience? 

Recently, we spoke with Jeremy Kohlitz from the University of Technology Sydney's Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS-ISF), who co-leads Learning Group 1.1. This group, comprising partners from UTS-ISF, Plan International, iDE, World Vision, WaterAid, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and the Water for Women Fund Coordinator, is exploring two sub-questions:

• How do WASH programs commonly understand climate risk and resilience?
• How can this understanding of climate risk and resilience be further developed to improve the design of WASH interventions?

Jeremy Kohlitz shares valuable insights and findings from this ongoing process, reflecting on the progress being made towards answering these sub-questions.

The Learning Agenda sub-question 1.1 asks: How do WASH programs commonly understand climate risk and resilience, and how can this understanding be developed to better inform the design of WASH interventions? Why is this question important, and how does it align with the overall goals of the Learning Agenda?

So, we ask this question because a lot of people are familiar with the term ‘resilience’, but it means a lot of different things to different people. I like to think of resilience as a boundary object, meaning it's something that people have broad agreement on in terms of what it essentially is, but they have lots of different ideas around the periphery of what resilience actually looks like in practice.

So, with this learning agenda piece, we really wanted to draw out in more detail what the Water for Women Fund partners actually mean when they say they're building resilience in their programs. We wanted to bring that out in practical, tangible terms so people can really see what our partners mean and move away from some of that abstract language. We hope that by exploring what people really mean by resilience and risk, we can shed light on the bigger picture of what resilience looks like, by portraying it in really tangible terms.

Could you share some key findings from the research so far? 

One thing I’d like to highlight from the process and from the Water for Women Fund partners is that when they think about resilience, GEDSI—gender equality, disability, and social inclusion—is a really important aspect of WASH resilience. When we look at how other actors in the WASH sector talk about resilience, they often treat it in a very physical way, as though climate change is a physical phenomenon affecting physical systems like infrastructure and technologies. 

But the Water for Women partners have a strong appreciation for the social side of climate change, recognising that not everyone experiences the effects of climate change in the same way.  Climate change is a much bigger problem for some people's WASH access than for others, and the reasons for this lie in social processes related to gender equality, disability, and social inclusion. This is something that has emerged from our research—a good appreciation among Water for Women Fund partners.  I think this is an important message for them to communicate to the WASH sector and other actors who tend to focus more on the physical aspects.

Reflecting on your experience leading this Learning Agenda process, what are some personal lessons you’ve gained along the way?

A personal lesson I've learned is the importance of cross-sectoral collaborations in addressing climate resilience issues. There's always been an understanding that development problems transcend boundaries between energy, WASH, agriculture, etc., but this becomes even more apparent when considering climate change issues. 

What’s becoming clearer to me is that we need to stop thinking of climate change problems purely as WASH problems, and instead view them as issues that cross disciplinary and development silos. We should do more to draw on lessons from other sectors, contribute to lessons in those sectors, and develop solutions in partnership with actors we wouldn’t typically consider in a conventional WASH program.

We need to stop thinking of climate change problems purely as WASH problems and instead ... do more to draw on lessons from other sectors, contribute to lessons in those sectors, and develop solutions in partnership with actors we wouldn’t typically consider in a conventional WASH program.

- Jeremy Kohlitz, UTS-ISF

In terms of climate risk and resilience, what are the primary risks identified in WASH programs? How do these risks impact water and sanitation infrastructure and services? Is there anything important that tends to be overlooked?

The key common risks identified in WASH are often related to contamination of water sources, especially due to flooding or heavy rainfall, which can cause sanitation systems to overflow and release wastewater or faecal matter into water sources. Conversely, during droughts and water shortages, there may not be enough water to operate sanitation systems. These are the most common physical risks that are identified. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Water for Women Fund partners are very aware of the social aspects of risk. Broadly in the WASH sector, however, people tend to undercount the influence of social aspects of risk, treating risk as just the result of a physical climate hazard, when in fact it’s also a product of social processes that make people more vulnerable or less likely to adapt.

Something that’s often missing is the recognition of climate change risks to ecosystems and how that affects WASH systems. Ecosystems provide services like purifying water and regulating water flow, and they are also affected by climate change. If those ecosystems are impacted, it will affect WASH services, but this risk is often underappreciated in the WASH sector.

How can WASH programs integrate local climate data and community-specific vulnerabilities into their risk assessments?

A way to collect information on community-specific vulnerabilities is by consulting local people who can speak to those vulnerabilities through their lived experiences. Everyone will have their own types of vulnerabilities, so having consultations with diverse groups—whether it be women, people with disabilities, or local government officials—is, to me, the best way to localise an approach and understand how people’s situations may make them more or less vulnerable. 

In terms of localising climate data, to be honest, it's quite difficult. Often in rural areas, especially in the countries we work with, historical climate data is lacking, and it’s hard to downscale climate projections to a very local level. That means there will always be some uncertainty. We can rely on people’s knowledge of the landscape, but climate change is altering how the hydrological cycle works, so past patterns may not continue into the future. There will always be an element of uncertainty, and I think that needs to be reflected in WASH programming—we need to operate in contexts where we don’t always have the full climate data for past or future scenarios.

Everyone will have their own types of vulnerabilities, so having consultations with diverse groups—whether it be women, people with disabilities, or local government officials—is, to me, the best way to localise an approach and understand how people’s situations may make them more or less vulnerable.

- Jeremy Kohlitz, UTS-ISF

How can we measure climate resilience in WASH interventions, and what indicators are useful in tracking progress?

I think measuring climate resilience through indicators is difficult, given that resilience is multifaceted and context specific. Factors that contribute to resilience in one area might be less important in another. Ideally, we’d want to select indicators that are backed by empirical evidence showing they contribute to resilience.  There are lots of ideas out there from experts, but often they are just that—expert opinions, without much empirical data to support them. 

More research is emerging now, and it’s important to continue building that evidence base. But we should never rely solely on indicators to inform investment or programming decisions because indicators are by their nature reductionist—they simplify complex situations.  We should use indicators as just one tool in a suite of tools to assess resilience, alongside other approaches like qualitative assessments, longitudinal studies, or other forms of research.

Are we getting closer to defining what climate-resilient WASH looks like in practice?

For Learning Question 1.1, one of our objectives was to describe or explain what resilience means to the Water for Women Fund partners in a grounded, tangible way. We didn’t want to continue using abstract concepts that are confusing or mean different things to different people. Instead, we wanted to provide practical examples of what these concepts mean when put into practice. 

We’ve received feedback from field staff in civil society organisations that they often hear terms like ‘adaptive capacity’ and ‘transformation’, but they struggle to understand what those terms mean in a practical sense. In Learning Question 1.1, we’ve provided concrete examples of these common concepts and jargon associated with climate resilience in WASH, and I hope this will help paint a clearer picture in people’s minds of what climate-resilient WASH looks like when using these concepts.

Lastly, how can the research be translated into practical actions or policy recommendations that promote climate-resilient and inclusive WASH interventions?

I think the findings from our research should be considered in the context of other research and documentation on climate-resilient WASH.  The nature of resilience means it’s never going to be something we can simply take from one document or place and apply elsewhere.  There will always be a challenge for decision-makers and implementers to infer from the information available to them what the possibilities are, what the options are, and the pros and cons of different approaches.  

Our contribution offers practical, grounded examples of what can be done. However, it will ultimately be up to policymakers and implementers to assess these examples within the broader context of their own knowledge, and then determine the best options to pursue in their specific contexts.