Final remarks

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for the input into our thinking process. I hope that many can benefit from the contributions. I also want to thank those that were observers of the discussion.

I think that there are a few general points that can help summarize the comments made by the different participants. The trends that emerge from the discussion are:
 Single/simple indicators are better than an array of options, particularly for program implementers and donors.
 Appropriate water treatment and storage may be important regardless of the type of service households have.
 Behavior determinants as well as contact with information sources may be programmatic indicators and could be used more for monitoring than for evaluating the behavioral outcome of POU interventions.
 It is important to measure water quality and not only water quantity.
 There are different aspects of POU that need to be taken into account in the construction of an indicator, mainly: the recontamination of water from protected sources that may occur as water gets transported to the household; the handling and storage of water at the household once treated at the household; and the use of that water by those whose disease morbidity and mortality we need to reduce.
 The discussion paper’s distinguishes three types of POU behaviors: transportation, treatment and storage. However, it ignores consumption. If POU will have an impact on diarrheal disease, children should be drinking the treated and properly stored water. The connection between effective water management may prove no relationship to diarrheal disease if it ignores who is consuming the treated and properly stored water.
 Experts should come to a conclusion on what correct storage options are and these recommendations should be incorporated into the definition of the indicator and the measurement of that indicator.
 If agreement is reached in this regard, eliminating boiling from the mix of technologies tracked may not make sense.
 The questions developed so far to measure effective water management must correctly address water storage. They may not necessarily due so. And in the case specifically of SODIS, water treatment may not be done daily and modifications need to be made to the questions to ensure that the treatment modalities take into account the local context. In some places, families may use more than one water treatment technology, so SODIS may not be use daily as it is part of a mix of water treatment technologies used.

We will develop these points and send a summary of comments by mid February. You may provide input again at that time if you did not have time to follow the discussions. We will send the summary to participants as well as others that participants have suggested to include in the discussion (e.g., WAWI partners).

Final input will be used to modify the discussion paper used to launch this conference.

Thank you again for participating.