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