Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Governance Training Course

Participants can apply rights-based and sector standards to WASH governance decisions.

• Human rights to water and sanitation applied to service obligations
• Availability, accessibility, affordability, quality, acceptability and privacy assessed
• SDG 6 targets translated into national and local governance actions
• JMP service ladders used to classify drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene access
• Non-discrimination duties examined for informal settlements and remote communities
• Progressive realisation distinguished from unjustified service inequity and neglect

Participants can diagnose how incentives, power and institutions affect WASH reforms.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies influence, interests, authority and potential alliances
• Political-economy analysis tests incentives behind stalled WASH sector reforms
• Problem-driven iterative adaptation frames feasible institutional change pathways
• Actor incentives assessed through formal rules, informal norms and resource control
• Power-interest matrices prioritise engagement with decision makers and affected groups
• Reform coalitions designed around shared service outcomes and feasible commitments

Participants can design participation and accountability arrangements for inclusive WASH services.

• Stakeholder engagement plans define purpose, representation, timing and feedback channels
• Community scorecards structure dialogue between service users and providers
• Grievance mechanisms specify intake, escalation, resolution and closure procedures
• Gender analysis identifies barriers affecting water collection, safety and participation
• Universal design principles address accessibility for persons with disabilities
• Citizen report cards compare user experience, satisfaction and service expectations

Participants can evaluate governance choices for reliable and equitable water services.

• Service delivery models compared: public utility, community management and private operators
• Asset ownership, operating responsibility and maintenance accountability clearly separated
• Service-level agreements define continuity, water quality, response and reporting requirements
• Non-revenue water governance links metering, billing, maintenance and accountability
• Customer service charters establish rights, obligations and complaint response standards
• Water Safety Plans connect catchment risks, treatment controls and verification

Participants can govern sanitation as a complete service chain rather than a construction activity.

• Sanitation service chains traced from containment through treatment and reuse
• Containment options assessed against soil conditions, density and flood exposure
• Emptying markets examined for licensing, worker safety and affordability barriers
• Transport controls prevent illegal discharge and protect public health
• Treatment capacity matched to sludge volumes, loading and operating capability
• Sanitation Safety Planning identifies hazards, control measures and verification points

Participants can organise institutional responsibilities for sustained hygiene outcomes.

• Hygiene behaviour determinants analysed using the Behaviour Centred Design framework
• Handwashing service requirements include water, soap, location and maintenance
• Institutional roles aligned across health, education, water and social protection
• Menstrual health management provisions assessed for privacy, materials and disposal
• Behaviour-change strategies distinguish enabling conditions from communication activities
• Hygiene indicators track facilities, supplies, behaviours and institutional responsibility

Participants can prepare evidence-based WASH priorities aligned with sector plans and local needs.

• Theory of change links governance actions to measurable service outcomes
• Problem trees separate immediate failures from institutional root causes
• Multi-criteria analysis ranks investments using equity, risk, cost and feasibility
• Local WASH plans align infrastructure, operations, behaviour and institutional actions
• Sequencing distinguishes urgent service restoration from longer-term system reforms
• Assumptions logs record dependencies, uncertainties and external decision points

Participants can develop financing options that account for capital and recurring service costs.

• Lifecycle costing separates capital, operation, maintenance, renewal and support expenditures
• Tariff structures assessed for affordability, cost recovery and consumption incentives
• Public finance roles distinguished from household payments and development grants
• Subsidy designs target vulnerable users without distorting service incentives
• Costed action plans assign funding sources, timing and responsible entities
• Financial sustainability tests compare projected revenues against recurrent obligations

Participants can specify regulatory and contractual mechanisms for WASH provider performance.

• Economic regulation addresses tariffs, service standards and investment obligations
• Technical regulation sets drinking-water quality, sanitation and operator requirements
• Performance-based contracts define outputs, verification methods and remedial actions
• Regulatory reporting templates track service continuity, quality and customer complaints
• Licence conditions clarify operator duties, enforcement powers and reporting cycles
• Independent oversight options assessed for local government and small-provider contexts

Participants can establish WASH monitoring systems that support accountable management decisions.

• Results frameworks connect inputs, outputs, outcomes and governance assumptions
• Indicator reference sheets define calculation, source, frequency and disaggregation
• Data-quality assessments test accuracy, completeness, timeliness, integrity and confidentiality
• Disaggregated data reveals disparities by gender, disability, location and income
• Management dashboards present priority indicators, thresholds and corrective actions
• After-action reviews capture lessons following service failures and emergency responses

Participants can assign responsibilities for water quality surveillance and risk response.

• Drinking-water quality surveillance distinguishes operational monitoring from independent verification
• Risk registers record hazards, likelihood, consequence, controls and responsible owners
• Water Safety Plan teams assign catchment, treatment and distribution responsibilities
• Incident protocols define notification thresholds, public communication and corrective measures
• Microbiological testing programmes match sampling locations, frequencies and risk profiles
• Public-health surveillance links diarrhoeal disease signals with WASH response actions

Participants can incorporate climate and environmental risks into WASH governance arrangements.

• Climate risk screening assesses drought, flood, heat and storm exposure
• Source-water protection governance addresses land use, pollution and abstraction pressures
• Flood-resilient sanitation choices protect containment, treatment and nearby water sources
• Drought contingency plans prioritise essential uses, allocation rules and communications
• Environmental and social screening identifies adverse impacts and mitigation actions
• Nature-based solutions assessed for catchment management and wastewater treatment applications

Participants can establish accountable WASH governance arrangements during humanitarian response.

• Cluster coordination assigns leadership, information management and technical responsibilities
• Sphere standards applied to water quantity, access, sanitation and hygiene conditions
• Rapid WASH assessments prioritise public-health risks, access gaps and vulnerable groups
• Accountability to affected populations shapes feedback, information and participation arrangements
• Transition planning links emergency provision with local authority and utility systems
• Camp governance structures clarify maintenance, safety and representation responsibilities

Participants can adapt WASH governance approaches to different settlement and market conditions.

• Urban service governance addresses density, informality, tenancy and network constraints
• Rural management models compare committees, professional support and delegated operators
• Peri-urban planning coordinates land tenure, incremental housing and service extension
• Small-scale providers assessed for pricing, quality control and regulatory inclusion
• Fecal sludge management markets mapped across public, private and informal actors
• Area-wide inclusive sanitation coordinates citywide sanitation service responsibilities

Participants can structure procurement and partnerships around WASH service outcomes and safeguards.

• Procurement specifications translate service requirements into measurable supplier obligations
• Bid evaluation criteria balance technical quality, cost, capacity and safeguarding
• Contract management plans schedule inspections, approvals, payments and performance reviews
• Partner due diligence reviews governance, financial controls and delivery capability
• Memoranda of understanding clarify coordination, data sharing and dispute resolution
• Safeguarding clauses protect communities, workers and vulnerable service users

Participants can lead cross-institutional WASH improvements through structured change processes.

• RACI matrices assign responsible, accountable, consulted and informed parties
• Coordination terms of reference define membership, authority, agenda and reporting
• Kotter's change model structures urgency, coalition building and institutionalisation
• Meeting decision logs record commitments, owners, deadlines and escalation points
• Conflict-resolution approaches address mandate overlap, resource competition and community disputes
• Communication plans tailor governance messages for political, technical and community audiences

Participants can convert governance evidence into prioritised and feasible reform actions.

• Governance scorecards rate institutional capacity, accountability, finance and inclusion
• Gap analysis compares current arrangements with required service functions
• Root-cause analysis tests evidence before selecting governance improvement actions
• Prioritisation matrices balance impact, feasibility, urgency, cost and political support
• Action plans assign milestones, owners, resources and verification evidence
• Risk treatment plans specify avoidance, reduction, transfer and acceptance actions

Participants can communicate WASH governance findings and proposals to decision makers and communities.

• Decision briefs present service evidence, options, costs, risks and recommendations
• Problem statements distinguish observed symptoms from actionable governance causes
• Data visualisation selects charts suited to service coverage and performance trends
• Briefing notes anticipate political concerns, trade-offs and implementation constraints
• Community communication materials use clear language, accessible formats and feedback routes
• Board presentations structure decisions around evidence, accountability and required approvals

Participants can build, review and present a complete WASH governance improvement package for a defined service area.

• Service-area profile defines population, infrastructure, institutions and priority risks
• Governance diagnostic synthesises mandates, incentives, accountability and capacity findings
• Stakeholder map identifies engagement priorities, decision rights and communication routes
• Costed improvement plan sequences actions, funding sources, owners and milestones
• Monitoring framework specifies indicators, baselines, targets, sources and review cycles
• Peer review tests feasibility, equity, risk controls and implementation readiness