Transcript Water Services Monitoring

School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
SNV Experience
Call to Action – WASH in Schools Meeting
The Hague, May 2011
INGO – Established in 1965Operated in 40 countries
About SNV
Agriculture
Renewable
Energy
WASH
WASH in Schools in SNV
• Cambodia: “Unlocking Toilet Doors, Unblocking Student’s
Access to School Sanitation” Initiative and WASH in
Schools advocacy.
• Lao/Ethiopia: CLTS in Schools via fun games and songs
• Tanzania: From School WASH mapping to policy changes
and advocacy for WASH in Schools.
Structure of the Presentation
About School WASH Mapping
Achievements
Challenges Ahead
School WASH Mapping - Background
• A joint initiative by SNV – UNICEF- WaterAid in 2,300
schools in16 districts (2009)
• Purpose: To get a comprehensive picture of WASH
situation in all schools in the selected districts; to explore
the underlying causes of the (poor) situation; and to
develop strategies for improvement
• Physical mapping: Data collection
• Governance and Validation Inquiry
• District Feedback Meetings
• National Stakeholders Workshop
Overall Situation in 16 Districts
Public and Primary vs. Private and Secondary
Facts and Figures
 11% of schools meet the minimum standard in pupil/DH
 6% (or 174 schools) has no latrines
 20% (or 562 schools) has over 100 pupil per drop hole
 6% of the existing latrine is rated as “good standard”
 9% of all school is rated as having “clean” latrines
 1% has soap, 4% has adequate water; 6% has HW facilities
 4% school has facilities for children and adults with disabilities
 48% of latrines for girls has no door
 43% have never been inspected on WASH situation by LGAs
 Latrines have never been emptied in most school
Underlying causes
Facilities
(quality and
quantity)
Governance
structure
Resource
allocation &
management
Poor WASH
situation in
Schools
Severe lack of facilities
Overcrowded
A major
barrier to
hygiene
education
Facilities
become
abandoned
or unused
Rapid
deterioration
of facilities
Inadequate
facilities
(quality and
quantity)
Not
attractive to
use by
children
Heavy
burden for
effective
O&M
Weak Governance Structure
 Unclear role; responsibility and ownership
 Unclear and ineffective coordination on
funding and institutional arrangements at
National level
 No arrangement for O&M of Facilities
 Inadequate inspection and enforcement
 Low level of community participation and
consultation
 Weak leadership and guidance from
LGAs and Village Government
 Low level of trust between community and
village leaders
Poor Resource Allocation and Management
• Discrepancy between schools in urban and rural/remote area
• CG/LGCDG are late, fragmented; inadequate; unpredictable
• Weak transparency on resource allocation
• Top down direction on fund utilization
• No distinction between government’s fund and parent’s
contribution
• Low priority given to School WASH at all levels
Recommendations
• Focus more on quality (of the learning environment and achievement) and not
just quantity (enrolment rate)
• Strengthen national coordination and management for School WASH
• Identify champion to strengthen political support and priority for SWASH
• Strengthen SWASH monitoring, inspection and enforcement
• Explore fund flow mechanisms for SWASH from central government to schools
• Provide financial incentives for good performing schools
• Improve financial transparency at all levels
• Strengthen community involvement and ownership in SWASH
• Strengthen home and school linkages to improve the effectiveness of SWASH
From Mapping to Action: Achievements to Date
• MOU Between 4 Ministries responsible for Sanitation and
Hygiene signed in 2010 and is being operationalised
• National School WASH Guidelines to be developed by 4
Ministries with support from SNV and UNICEF (2010)
• National Strategic Plan for School WASH (2010 – 2015)
• National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy is being developed (with
higher priority and attention given to WASH in Schools)
• Thematic Working Group for School WASH established in 2010;
chaired by MOH and MOEVT; supported by SNV and UNICEF
MOHSW
Management
Committee
(Meets weekly)
Health Sector
(HSSPIII)
Technical Committee
– Health SWAp
(Meets twice/ year)
Health Promotion (Sanitation,
Hygiene, Environmental Health
Management and Climate
Change)
Technical Working Group
(EHM & CC-TWG)
Chair: MOHSW
(Meets 12 times a year)
Environmental Health &
Climate Change SubGroup
Co-Chairs: NEMC &
MOHSW
(Meet 6 times/year)
Water Sector
Development Programme
Water Sector Working
Group (WSWG)
(Meets 4 times a year)
Thematic
Working Group:
Rural Water
Supply &
Sanitation
Component
(Meet 8 time/
year)
Thematic
Working Group:
Urban Water
Supply &
Sewerage
Component
(Meets 8 times
a year)
National Sanitation & Hygiene
Steering Committee
(NSHSC)
Chair: MOHSW
(Meets 2 times a year)
Education Sector
Development
Committee (ESDC)
(Meets 4 times/year)
Education Sector
Development
Committee Task Force
(Meet 4 times/year)
National Sanitation & Hygiene
Technical Committee (NSHTC)
Chair: MOHSW
(Meets 4 times a year)
Household Sanitation & Hygiene
Technical Working Group
(HHSH-TWG)
Co-Chairs: PMO-RALG & MOHSW
Supporting DPs: WSP & WaterAid
(Meets 6 times a year)
Education Sector
Cross Cutting Issues
Technical Working
Group
(Meet 4 times/ year)
School WASH
Technical Working Group
(SWASH-TWG)
Co-Chairs: MOEVT & MOHSW
Supporting DPs: UNICEF & SNV
(Meets 6 times a year)
18
Reflection on the 6 key messages
• Contribute evidence: Yes, very much
• Increase investment : Potentially high
• Demonstrate quality : Not yet showed results
• Monitor WASH in Schools: Still weak with no
enforcement, need to be linked to performance monitoring
and incentive-based fund allocation
• Involve multiple stakeholders: Starting
• Engage those who set policies: Yes, very much
Taking WASH in Schools to Scale - Challenges Ahead!
• Low priority for WASH in Schools: A difficult trade-off
• Teachers participation: Workload vs. motivation and incentive
• Engaging community and parents participation: Building trust &
cohesion; changing of mind-set
• Enforcing minimum standard vs. fund availability
• Investing in WASH in Schools: Some for All or All for Some?
• Coordination at all levels: Agreeing on roles; responsibilities and
mandates; harmonizing guidelines and standards.
• Performance monitoring
• Uncoordinated Funding for WASH in Schools
• Political interference vs. Political support
Priority: Desks, Chairs or Latrines?
Why should there be vast differences?
What can be done to bridge these gaps?
And more equity for children?
Call to Action - Why WASH in Schools?
CLEAN AND HEALTHY SCHOOLS
•Better health and well-being for school children
•Better learning achievements, better learning outcomes
INCLUSIVE SCHOOL WASH
•More girls to attend and stay in school
•More opportunities for children with disabilities
IMPROVED SCHOOL HYGIENE AND SANITATION
•Improve hygiene practices at home
•Influence positive S&H behavior in family &
community
Investing in WASH in Schools – Investing in a
Healthier, Happier and Brighter Future
Thank You!
1