The magnitude of the sanitation crisis means that sanitation and hygiene solutions must be delivered sustainably, and on a large scale. This requires the close involvement of government at all levels. A new case study outlines eight lessons from the Global Sanitation Fund-supported Uganda Sanitation Fund in coordinating, planning, and implementing Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) at scale through a decentralized government system.
Download the case study or read the feature article on wsscc.org.
Local government health workers and latrine owners proudly display an improved latrine in Lira district, Uganda.©WSSCC/USF
Posted in Africa, Progress on Sanitation, Publications
Tagged CLTS, Follow-up MANDONA, Global Sanitation Fund, GSF, Local governance, Uganda, Uganda Sanitation Fund, WASH, WSSCC
The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) Community of Practice on Sanitation and Hygiene in Developing Countries and the Centre of Excellence in Water and Sanitation at Mzuzu University (Malawi) are holding a joint 3-week thematic discussion on linking water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) to other development sectors. The LinkedIn hosted CoP has over 6,200 members each working in WASH and other related sectors; this thematic discussion will be an opportunity to bring together sector practitioners and researchers to share knowledge, learn from each other, identify best practice and explore how WASH and other development sectors can collaborate in this SDG era.
The thematic discussion will take place on the CoP; with a coordinator moderating the discussions. The discussion will be split into three inter-linked sub-themes and conversation leaders will frame and prompt debates each week on:
- 24 – 30 October – Theme 1: WASH and Nutrition – At a grassroots level, WASH and nutrition are not often combined, what are some examples of successful merging of these themes? What about the health impact and the perceptions and views of communities? If you had one area of WASH and nutrition which makes the biggest impact to focus on, what would it be?
- 31 October – 6 November – Theme 2: WASH and Disability – What are the barriers to accessing WASH people with disabilities in developing countries? Is standard CLTS inclusive? How can schools in developing countries be more accessible? What are some examples of successful merging of these two themes?
- 7 – 12 November – Theme 3: Climate Change and WASH –What are some of the local strategies in place to strengthen climate change resiliency and WASH objectives? If an ODF community build a pit latrine by cutting down old growth trees, have we made a positive or negative impact at a community level? Are there more innovative ways looking at not only the environment and human dimensions of these problems? What are some examples of successful merging of these two themes by field practitioners?
Join us for the discussion with some of the following thematic experts:
- Megan Wilson-Jones, Policy Analyst: Health & Hygiene, WaterAid for WASH and Nutrition discussion
- Adam Biran and Sian White, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Mavuto Tembo, Mzuzu University, Malawi
Weekly summaries of discussions will be posted on CoP as well as a synthesis report of overarching findings at the end.
To participate in the discussion, please join here:
WSSCC Community of Practice: www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=1238187
We look forward to some constructive and in-depth discussions!
Posted in Sanitation and Health, Uncategorized
Tagged climate change, Community of practice, disability, Discussion, LinkedIn, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Mzuzu University, Nutrition, sanitation, WASH, WaterAid, WSSCC
By Richard Gledhill, ICAI lead commissioner for WASH review
62.9 million people – almost the population of the UK – that’s how many people in developing countries DFID claimed to have reached with WASH interventions between 2011 and 2015.
It’s an impressive figure. And – in our first ever ‘impact review’ – it’s a figure the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found to be based on credible evidence.
We assessed the results claim made by DFID about WASH, testing the evidence and visiting projects to see the results for ourselves. We concluded that the claim was credible – calculated using appropriate methods and conservative assumptions.
But what does reaching 62.9 million people really mean? Have lives been transformed? And have the results been sustainable?
Through successful WASH intervention, communities access a new service that improves their quality of life, and also learn about equity and inclusion.
Blog by development expert Suvojit Chattopadhyay
The abysmal state of access to safe water and sanitation facilities in the developing world is currently a major cause for alarm; 580,000 children die every year from preventable diarrheal diseases. This is due largely to the 2.5 billion people around the globe who do not have access to safe sanitation. Not only can an effective WASH intervention save lives, it can also engineer changes in the social fabric of communities that adopt these behavioural changes. This points to a key attribute of a successful WASH intervention – that through these programmes, communities not only access a new service that improves their quality of life, but they also learn from being part of a concrete intervention that emphasises equity and inclusion.
Let me explain how. Safe sanitation is essentially ‘total’. In a community, even one family practising open defecation puts the health of other families at risk. Also, unsafe sanitation practices pollute local potable and drinking water sources in the habitations. Together, this can undo any gains from partial coverage of WASH interventions. This much is now widely accepted by sanitation practitioners around the world. However, there remains a serious challenge when it comes to the implementation of this concept.
When a community is introduced to a WASH-focused behaviour change campaign, there are often variations in the levels of take-up in different families. This could be because of several barriers – financial ability, cultural beliefs, education levels, etc. In response, external agencies have many options. They can focus more on families in their behaviour change campaigns, offer them material and financial support or incentives, or exert peer pressure (which may in some cases become coercive, etc).
However, the best approach – whether facilitated by an external agent or not – is for a community to devise a collective response. The issue should be framed as a collective action problem that requires solving for the creation of a public good. In many instances, communities have come together to support the poorest families – social engineering at its finest. At its best, recognising the needs of every member of a community will lead to a recognition of the challenges that the typically marginalised groups face. It is this recognition that could prompt a rethink of social norms and relationships.
Read the full article on the WSSCC Guardian partner zone.