School Water, Sanitation and HygieneSNV Experience

Call to Action – WASH in Schools MeetingThe Hague, May 2011

About SNV

INGO –

Established in 1965

-Operated in 40 countries

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

structureResource

allocation & management

Poor WASH situation in

Schools

Severe lack of facilities

A major barrier to hygiene

education

Facilities become

abandoned or unused

Not attractive to

use by children

Heavy burden for effective

O&M

Rapid deterioration of facilities

Overcrowded

Inadequate facilities

(quality and quantity)

Weak Governance StructureUnclear role; responsibility and ownershipUnclear 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

consultationWeak leadership and guidance from

LGAs and Village GovernmentLow 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

18

Education Sector Development

Committee (ESDC) (Meets 4 times/year)

School WASH Technical Working Group

(SWASH-TWG)Co-Chairs: MOEVT & MOHSW

Supporting DPs: UNICEF & SNV(Meets 6 times a year)

Household Sanitation & Hygiene Technical Working Group

(HHSH-TWG)Co-Chairs: PMO-RALG & MOHSWSupporting DPs: WSP & WaterAid

(Meets 6 times a year)

Education Sector Development

Committee Task Force(Meet 4 times/year)

Education Sector Cross Cutting Issues Technical Working

Group (Meet 4 times/ year)

Health Sector(HSSPIII)

Technical Committee – Health SWAp

(Meets twice/ 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) National Sanitation & Hygiene

Technical Committee (NSHTC)Chair: MOHSW

(Meets 4 times a year)

National Sanitation & Hygiene Steering Committee

(NSHSC)Chair: MOHSW

(Meets 2 times a 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 Sub-

GroupCo-Chairs: NEMC &

MOHSW(Meet 6 times/year)

MOHSW Management

Committee(Meets weekly)

Thematic Working Group:

Urban Water Supply & Sewerage

Component (Meets 8 times

a year)

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?

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

Call to Action - Why WASH in Schools?

Thank You!

1