Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) are essential components of all WASH programmes, including SWM. One of the key objectives of MEAL is to guide the programme so that it continues to be appropriate and responsive to the needs and vulnerabilities of the affected population. MEAL helps to ensure that an SWM programme is going according to plan, achieving its stated goal, meaningfully involving all key stakeholders and acting on lessons learned so that the programme remains relevant and its quality improved. All SWM team members must ensure that MEAL is incorporated into the response and implemented in coordination with others working in the WASH and associated sectors. MEAL should be as participatory as possible, focusing on ‘Do No Harm’ and ‘leaving no one behind’ so that everyone affected can voice their opinions and input to SWM project design and processes (X.2 and X.9). 

Monitoring 

Monitoring is the systematic and continuous checking of an SWM intervention. It ensures that SWM is achieving its aims (without doing unintended harm), allocated funds are being used effectively, feedback is heard and acted upon and strengths, weaknesses and gaps are identified and changes made accordingly. In an acute emergency, the monitoring system must be simple, fast and flexible. 

Examples of key SWM elements to monitor regularly may include (but are not limited to):

• Types and amount of waste generated
• Geographic areas covered by the intervention
• Presence of solid waste accumulating around designated neighbourhoods or communal public collection points
• Appropriate and adequate waste storage at the household level
• Segregation practices and efficiency
• Access to designated solid waste collection points at an acceptable distance from dwellings
• Collection and transportation methods and frequency
• Appropriate and adequate waste processing, treatment, use and disposal options
• Availability and usage of personal protective equipment and documentation of health issues X.4
• Community awareness and public complaints mechanisms
• Operational (e.g. equipment shortages, staff issues, logistics) and environmental (e.g. water contamination, air quality) challenges

Existing national standards and indicators should be used to develop key actions and indicators. If national standards do not exist or are too broad, refer to the Sphere Handbook for guidance. Sphere’s WASH technical chapter includes three dedicated standards for SWM with corresponding indicators. The selection of key actions and indicators depends on the context and response phase; it may need further adaption. Indicators measuring the programme objectives should be developed as early as possible.  

Assessment P.3 findings inform the design of the objectives and indicators for the SWM intervention. This initial information helps to establish a baseline for each indicator so that monitoring can track any changes by the end (‘endline’) of an intervention. Additional specific information may be needed to fill gaps in the baseline. In an emergency, the context can constantly change and monitoring is essential to adapt the programme in response and measure progress.

Monitoring should also track the effective and efficient use of funds and whether the programme is having its intended impact. It is vital to monitor community engagement and participation, ensuring that all community members, including vulnerable groups, are consulted and represented in all programme aspects. Data should be disaggregated by age, gender and disability, at a minimum. 

Different methods and tools can be used to collect monitoring data. They include regular inspections (of, for example, waste collection points, transportation routes, and disposal sites), observations, focus group discussions, community meetings, transect walks, community mapping, checklists and surveys and GPS tracking for waste collection vehicles. Channels (such as mobile apps for real-time reporting) can be provided for the community to report on issues, provide feedback and suggest improvements. Using different methods helps to capture different perspectives; collecting qualitative and quantitative data from various sources is recommended to triangulate and cross-check information. 

A specific monitoring plan should be developed at the beginning of the programme with a timeframe, budget and a clear indication of staffing and responsibilities. The plan should clarify the purpose of collecting the information - who will use it, how, when and why. The community should participate in the monitoring process instead of being treated solely as monitoring subjects. Ideally, share the monitoring plan with different stakeholders, such as the community, partners, donors and other organisations. Advocate to the coordination platform or WASH cluster to establish an SWM monitoring system (as it may otherwise be overlooked). Establish a systematic and accessible feedback and complaints mechanism to encourage regular feedback from the community on what works and what doesn’t, and to ensure no harm is done in the process.

Evaluation

Evaluation is a systematic and objective examination of the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, sustainability and impact of the SWM response.  It draws lessons to improve policy and future practice and to provide accountability. It can be carried out at various points in the project cycle.

Evaluations are carried out for several reasons, including to gather evidence, learn from successes or challenges, assess value for money and be accountable to key stakeholders such as donors and, especially, to the affected population. 

Programme plans should develop a logframe with indicators to enable an evaluation of the inputs (resources used), activities (what was done), outputs (what was delivered), outcomes (what was achieved) and impact (long-term changes). Key SWM performance indicators should be defined such as collection coverage, response time, waste processing rates and reduction in health hazards. An evaluation may assess the impact of waste management activities on public health, environmental quality and community well-being or use a comparative analysis (comparing current performance with baseline data and historical data) to identify areas of improvement. 

Accountability

Accountability enhances the quality of the response, verifies that resources are used appropriately and transparently and requires responders to meet certain standards. It is an obligation to demonstrate that the work complies with agreed rules and standards. SWM responders take responsibility for their work and for engaging with communities, authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that they are informed and benefit from efficient and effective programming.

The roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in waste management, including government agencies, contractors, and community groups, must be clearly defined and communicated. Reporting protocols should regularly detail activities, achievements, challenges and financial expenditures. Affected people have the right to be included in SWM response planning, implementation, monitoring and feedback (X.2 and X.9). Information about, for example, waste management plans, activities and outcomes must be shared with all members of the community through locally relevant channels such as community meetings, newsletters and social media. An inclusive, accessible, open and transparent system for gathering and addressing SWM-related feedback and complaints from the community and workers should be in place to enable timely and fair resolution. Participatory MEAL engages men, women and children affected by a humanitarian crisis, ensuring that they are kept informed in a timely way and able to make decisions about the SWM programme.

Learning

Learning draws lessons from previous or ongoing interventions to adapt and improve waste management activities, future plans and approaches. Learning processes can be difficult to establish in humanitarian contexts. However, even in the acute response phase of a complex humanitarian response, some exchange of information, knowledge and views is possible. Learning captures and documents best SWM practices, identifies new challenges, disseminates information about innovative approaches and uses the findings to learn lessons and improve future responses. Focused, additional analyses can further develop the learning from monitoring and evaluation, for example undertaking specific SWM research to complement its findings. The main goal is to learn what works or does not work and why. Acknowledging mistakes and failures can contribute significantly to learning and building trust. For example, identifying why the affected population has not successfully adopted the desired SWM practices (such as waste segregation or safe disposal waste practices) is essential learning with which to adapt the overall SWM programme. 

Knowledge Management is a crucial element of learning; it includes the documentation, centralisation, comparison, synthesis and sharing of information and guidance. Knowledge and experience can be disseminated in numerous ways, ranging from global knowledge management initiatives like the WASH Hub to organisation-specific knowledge management units and databases. Knowledge can be shared through the written word - and interactions such as personal communication, meetings, videos or workshops.

The creation of a dedicated SWM technical working group and/or community of practice is an opportunity to collaborate and coordinate with other SWM actors and exchange technical and contextual knowledge. Lessons learned contribute to real-time knowledge exchange to improve programme quality.