IDS webinar
CLTS and Sustainability
2015
Sustainable
Sanitation and
Hygiene for All
2Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SSH4A) in SNV countries across the world
13 full-fledgedSSH4A
countries
A bit of history
3
More than 20 years of work in Sanitation and Hygiene, we want to move beyond:
• One size fits all:
• One technology option for all households
• One software approach for a whole programme or
country
• Pilot, pilot and pilot again:
• Emphasis on finding the silver bullet
• Working in the “world according to WASH”:
• Weak integration with reality of local governance
• Weak perspective on sustainability and change
Technology choice
Demand creation
Ownership
Sustainability
Local governance
Scaling up
( September 2008)
Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All =
“ Sustained Behavioural Change”
Sustainable sanitation and hygiene for all
We are able to obtain sanitation & hygiene
services
We claim our right to sanitation& hygiene
We want sanitation & hygiene
We understand about different sanitation &
hygiene options
We do
This requires these 4 dimensions.
BUT“We want” should always
come first.
(September 2008)
Two questions
6
Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All
How to ensure long term support for household and school sanitation and hygiene?
Access to water and sanitation is a human right
• Local governments are
the duty bearers of (a
progressive realization
of) the right to water and
sanitation…
How to build capacity of local government and their partners to implement sanitation and hygiene at scale with quality?
August 2010
1) Capacity of local governments to
steer demand creation with quality
2) Capacity of facilitators to implement
quality demand creation
1) Steering:
• A plan
• Resources
• Agreement on quality standards
• Monitoring
• Engage leadership
• Ensure the entire area (district) and all groups are reached
• Choose the right times in the year for the right activities
9
(pha)CDHCLTS (PHAST)CDHCLTS
Sanitationdemandcreation
Pace of scaling, do you start in all wards at once?Can you ensure follow-up?
2) Capacity of facilitators to implement with quality?
• Does not lecture
• Ensures proper timing
• Ensures participation
• Respectful, inclusive
• Knows how to adjust to different
context
• Solid knowledge of technical aspects
• Ensures timely post-triggering
• Has strategies to include vulnerable
groups
Quality of facilitation, learning and monitoring should go hand in hand
• Cascading ToT’s are a risk and not sufficient to ensure quality.
• On-the-job coaching and regular reflection is needed to learn respond to
different situations in villages.
12
Triggering, follow up visits and ODF Claims in Siaya district
• The type of support to
facilitators changes over time.
• Example Kenya of facilitator
reflections…
3) Private sector capacity to engage in
sale of sanitation hardware and services
to BoP
4) Availability of affordable sanitation
options for the poorest wealth quintile
• Some households move directly from OD to improved sanitation
• Supply chain development should start before demand creation, to ensure a
timely response to demand at community level
• At community level “WE WANT SANITATION”
should always come always first
• Provide informed choice, not one-size-fits-all
• Be very careful with perverse incentives.
• Costing and business models are as
important as technology
13
(SanMark)VCABusiness models
Sanitationdemandcreation
The process of informed choice is essential to avoid practical barriers to sustained use
• The quality of the toilet (above and below
ground)
• Water
• Knowledge of all household members on
how to use it
• Access to emptying options/ services when
the toilets fills (people don’t use it because
they are afraid to fill it)
• Susceptibility to flooding
SAFI latrine action research, what do men, women and children want?
Two types of SAFI latrine: Water Offset Pit (WOP) and Dry Offset Pit (DOP)
• People appreciate: safety, durability, no sight of shit in the pit, easy to clean.
• Squat pan with no urine splash (especially women)
• Rural households consider the cost $86-160 affordable if it is durable and safe
15
• Production in one place and sold as a
package
• Superstructure with local materials
Challenges:
• Huge demand, slow development of
supply chain has become a major
constraint!
• Keep ensuring informed choice (not
only SAFI)
Healthoutreach
Health structure
Formative research
Diverse HP tools
• Thinking about long term hygiene promotion beyond the programme…
(embedding BCC)
• BCC strategy with focus and linked to district sanitation plan
• Too many behaviours and no alignment just makes “noise”.
• Using motivators beyond health
• Do your homework before you start!
• Local fine-tuning of universal drivers and
messages
• Long term change requires time and dedication.
5) Capacity of local government to
implement evidence-based hygiene
behavioural change communication
Pro-poor support
District sanplans
MonitoringLocal
Alignment
6) Alignment of local stakeholders
around sanitation
7-9) Participation and influence of
vulnerable groups
• Seek quality in multi-stakeholder dialogue and alignment (see score card)
• Shared evidence base and shared district sanitation plans
• Critically review the influence of vulnerable groups and take targeted
measures to improve their voice
• Discuss about reaching all and supporting the poor, without creating
perverse incentives and distributing donor money
• Align with national and district monitoring, AND add direct household survey
data to contrast17
Political buy-in, commitment, leadership
18
Regional joint commitment
District joint commitment
Village joint commitment
Sector alignment in Luwingu district (Zambia)Score Remarks
1. A multi-stakeholder dialogue has started (on rural
sanitation)
2 D-WASHE committee exists but do not
meet regularly.
2. All relevant (local) government sector stakeholders
are involved in the dialogue.
1 The D-WASHE do not hold meetings on
regular basis.
3. All relevant (local) donor (or funding) agencies are
involved in the dialogue.
2 The donors; World vision, Self- help, Irish
AID, DAAP are involved in dialogue.
4. Relevant civil society and private sector stakeholders
are involved in the dialogue.
1 Private sector is not involved in sanitation
demand creation.
5. Information and data (evidence base) are shared in
the group.
1 Information is only shared on request.
6. Sector priorities (for rural sanitation) are set jointly
by stakeholders.
0 Sector priorities for rural sanitation are not
set jointly.
7. Sector targets (for rural sanitation) are set jointly by
stakeholders.
0 Sector targets are not set jointly as the
district does not plan together.
8. Plans (for rural sanitation) are made jointly. 0 Stakeholders make individual plans
9. Approaches (to rural sanitation) are aligned. 1 Approaches are not fully aligned.
10. Standards and norms (related to rural sanitation)
are aligned.
1 Not fully aligned.
Average score 0.9
THE BIG NEXT STEP
How much do we invest in horizontal, vertical and functional scaling?
• Solutions for
flooding areas
• Solutions for
disabled, ultra-poor
• Etc.
Can sustainability of sanitation only be achieved if all of this is perfect?• No!
• We need collaboration to address these issues
• We should support communities so that they do not fall
back into the dependency mode
• We need good practice of the line agencies:
Regular monitoring
Pro-active learning among the organisations
Backed-up by law and order
21We need solid data on progress to provoke discussion and
keep learning
This means:
Sustained access and use to a toilet
Sustained cleanliness and maintenance of toilet facilities
(including safe final disposal of faeces when the pit is full)
Sustained personal hygiene practices such as hand washing
at critical moments
22
Focus on sustained sanitation and hygiene
behavioural change by women, men and
children in rural households.
Access to sanitary facilities at baseline (in programme areas)
89%
48%
68%
35%
4%
13%
6%
10%
4%
21% 6%
22%
3%
12%
2% 18%
5% 16% 15%0% 1% 1% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ghana Kenya Nepal Tanzania
environmentally safe (4)
improved and flymanagement (3)
improved (2)
unimproved (1)
shared (1b)
OD (0)
Understanding wealth differences in access to sanitation…
in rural Lampung programme areas (Indonesia)
24
65%
35%
11%1% 1%
25%
30%
15%
5% 2%
7%
23%
38%
33%31%
2%
10%
33%
57%57%
0% 2% 3% 4%9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
4. Environmentally safe toilet
3. Improved toilet without accessto flies
2. Improved toilet but accessibleby flies
1. Shared or unimproved
0. OD and No Toilet
Hygienic use and maintenance of toilets at baseline (in programme areas)
53%48%
54%
21%
11%
52%
2%
4%
33%
35%
41%
2%2%
1%
2%7%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mozambique (Moz OD) Zambia Bhutan
functional, clean and privatetoilet (4)
functional and clean toilet (3)
functional toilet (2)
toilet in use (1)
no toilet or not in use (0)
HWWS (baseline) and Safe disposal of sludge (mid-term)- in programme areas
67%
6%
10%
13%
4%
21%
19%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ghana Uganda
Safe emptying&disposal or toiletless than 3 years old(4)Safe emptyingunsafe disposal (3)
Unsafe emptying (2)
Storage no emptying(1)
Does not know (1b)
No toilet (0)
87%
98%
5%
2%
4%3%
1% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Basedth(Cambodia)
Ethiopia
HWWS runningwater (4)
HWWS handsnot touchingwater (3)
HWWS (2)
HW station, nosoap(1)
No HW station(0)
In summary: do we think sufficiently about after the finish line?
27
1. Building capacity for
sustainability in the
programme
2. Maintaining sanitation and
hygiene in the local
agenda
3. Address practical
problems affecting
sustainability
4. Monitoring progress