Capacity Building for Urban Sanitation Development Main Report



Download 0.87 Mb.
Page12/17
Date conversion03.05.2018
Size0.87 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17

Recommendations

  1. In the Hand Washing Campaign it is recommended to include special messages and BTL sessions for men addressing their responsibilities for financing the means to practice safe hand washing and include gender in media scenes, audios and support materials. Impact measurement should preferably compare effectiveness and costs of ATL and BTL interventions.


  2. Suggestions to adjust the National Sanitation Awareness Campaign are to have the couple as decision-makers on sanitation, including on the community dimensions, to tailor BTL activities and materials also to the conditions and needs of the poor, and to link information and promotion to community pilots such as CLTS, participatory learning and action planning and community-managed monitoring.

  3. Gender images in the media should go beyond stereotypes of women doing the sanitation work in the households and men making the decisions at domestic and community level. Instead, they should include men in domestic roles for sanitation and hygiene, such as financial support, adopting good practices themselves and co-educating their children, and include women in joint decision making with men at domestic and community levels.

  4. Informed choices on upgradeable technologies and designs with costs and other implications (e.g. O&M, management, financing options) should be given to men and women heads of households. Suggested steps are included in the report, including on local welfare classification for solidarity action.


  1. The position of single women (now over 13% of all adult women on average and probably higher in urban areas and among the urban poor) deserves special attention in media campaigns and in linkages with poverty alleviation in city pilots. The ISSDP program offers excellent opportunities for poverty alleviation through at least 12 different links with their income generation.
  2. Sewerage services can be made more affordable for the poor by giving a range of technical options, designs and materials, adjust connection financing and tariffs and involving poor local women as money collectors and trained craftswomen for promotion, making and repairing water and sewerage connections.


  3. For on-site systems, male and female heads of families should get informed choices on types of systems (individual, group or community-managed), types of technologies and design, with implications for costs, operation, maintenance and management. Suitable and very low-cost participatory materials can be adjusted from existing tools and used with FGD at community/ neighbourhood levels.

  4. In involving the private sector in community level services (e.g. Sanimas, MCK and SWM), preference should be given to communities having their own enterprises and/or working with informal sector male and female workers, to ensure that the systems are not only profit oriented, but combine profit with community service to all, including poor households.

  5. For community-based sanitation and SWM, various models with gender equality and poor-inclusive perspectives already exist. They deserve to be further analysed, documented and showcased (in visual and textual form) in the media, ISSDP websites and reports and at sector events. Proven approaches should be more explicitly included in city strategies (“White books”) and action plans.

  6. Hygiene promotion through Community Health Clubs is preferably based on existing female and male (or mixed) groups such as religious groups, PKK groups and youth clubs. Contents will need adjustment to local situations and include also community management of sanitation and hygiene. Men should be encouraged to participate through male channels and peer pressures, e.g. through the ulama and be addressed on male responsibilities and tasks in sanitation and hygiene.

  7. At RT level, the men’s groups and Musrenbangs should invite the women’s groups when they plan to discuss community or neighbour problems, because many women met demanded and felt capable to share male’s decision-making activities.
  8. Health, PKK and Dasa Wisma cadres are the most indicated facilitators for community hygiene promotion. They need hands-on capacity building in participatory methods and gender and poverty sensitive facilitation techniques to ensure that their training reflects their actual work in the field. This involves the use of an Equitable Training Model instead of the usual Cascade Model (Pelatihan Berjenjang). Participatory materials should preferably remain with the groups so that members are able to replicate the learning activities, e.g. with families, neighbours and peers.


  9. Schools are important places of learning and of transmission of infectious diseases including those related to water supply, sanitation and hygiene. It would therefore make sense when the cities in the ISSDP would include conditions and uses of school water supplies, sanitation and hand washing facilities (with soap!) and the implementation of school hygiene education in their assessments and identify and address gaps and weaknesses in their strategies and plans. A draft form for assessment including on gender equality has been included in the report.

  10. ISSDP staff, the Pokjas, the individual infrastructure agencies and local communities can greatly boost poverty alleviation by linking sanitation with increased paid work opportunities for poor men and women. The report identifies 13 opportunities. SWM strategies should include improving working conditions for poor waste pickers (men, women and children) and protect them and poor community members from negative impacts of commercial sector privatisation. An example in case is the loss of animal food for the 100+ cows of waste picking families ‘grazing’ on the Solo city dump.

  11. It is recommended to check ISSDP’s work rules and regulations and institutional arrangements for inclusiveness of gender and poverty aspects, such as regulations obliging house owners to provide sanitation for renters and institutional arrangements for the facilitation of gender and poverty specific community managed services and hygiene promotion.

  12. Review and documentation of pilot projects can provide inputs for Phase II development of step-by-step manuals for gender and poverty equitable approaches to community managed sanitation and hygiene, SWM, drainage and waste water disposal.
  13. One of the activities yet to be undertaken is to define, in cooperation with the cities on which aspects and how the impacts on gender and the poor will be assessed and reported. The report suggests information on six types of indicators. Some of the information can result from gender-specific reporting.


  14. During phase 2 of the program an explicit gender policy for its program work and internal management should be formulated. Four ways have been suggested in which gender equitable and poor-inclusive approaches can be included in the progress reports. A rolling table on capacity building and sector events participation by sex, level, location, function and nationality can give insights in equal opportunity approaches. The suggested presence of a demand for gender training in the Pokjas and Local Government cities deserves further attention in phase 2. Taking advantage of the experience gained during the pilot workshop held for Pokja Denpasar during phase 1 (see Annex 4), in phase 2 special Pokja training events focussing i) introduction of gender issues in sanitation and ii) development of gender and poor inclusive approach for urban sanitation and iii) identification of potential pilot projects where these approaches could be field tested.

  15. Routinely and systematically asking the ‘who’ question when dealing with any human activities (“Who is involved in what, how/where/when and to what effects? Men, women or both? Are poor men/women also involved? ”) can help to bring out major gender and poverty aspects and trends.
  16. An important step in the transition from city planning to implementation will be the formation of a small working group which will write a ten to fifteen page outline proposal for a bankable and rolling inter-city implementation program for the urban poor. The outline proposal would consist of the clubbed city action plans for community managed low-cost infrastructure and services in sanitation, hygiene, SWM, waste water disposal and drainage in low-income neighbourhoods that is poor-inclusive, environmental friendly and gender equitable. Testing ecosan toilets would be especially suitable in Payakumbuh. Part of the proposal may be the on-demand scaling out of city sanitation strategy development and action planning by the current Pokjas to other cities in a limited number of provinces. Because 2008 will be the International Year of Sanitation, it is recommended that the working group is formed directly after the National Sanitation Conference and completes the outline proposal.


Colophon
This document was produced under the Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program (ISSDP) which is a sub-program of the Water and Sanitation Program (WASAP) Trust Fund and co-funded by the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of Sweden.

ISSDP is implemented by the Government of Indonesia together with the Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP).

DHV BV in association with PT Arkonin Engineering MP, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, PT Mitra Lingkungan Dutaconsult, PEM Consult and Yayasan Indonesia Sejahtera have been contracted to provide a range of technical services to implement ISSDP

Your letters, e-mails, enquiries can be forwarded to:

ISSDP

Jalan Cianjur No.4



Jakarta 10310, Indonesia

P.O.Box: 1317 JKP 10013

Phone: +62 21 31903909

Fax: +62 21 3924113

E-mail: info@issdp.or.id

For information, please also check our website: www.issdp.or.id

Client : BAPPENAS / WSP-EAP

: Co-Funded by the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of Sweden

Project/Program : Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program

Category : Master document

Total Length of Report : 37 pages

Author(s) : Dr. Christine Sybesma

Reviewers and Contributors : Ria Moser

Report Status : Final

Team Manager : Menno Oppermann / Jan Oomen

Date : March 2008 / October 2009 (revision 1)


Annexes

Annex 1 City Characteristics 40

Annex 2 Participatory Tools 41

Annex 3 School, MCK and SWM Assessment Forms 53

Annex 4 Pilot workshop: Gender and poor-incusive approaches 64

ANNEX 1 City Characteristics

City

Size

Settlement Density

Immi-gration

Non-legal Settlement

Economic Condition

Ecological Risks

Sanitation


Solid Waste

Piped Water

Supply

Culture, Gender

Governance

Institutional Leadership

CBO & NGO

Surakarta

L

Average

Some

Some

Average

Low: no major problems

25% sewerage,

Highest level.

1? sanimas





70%

Open

In Javanese culture man decides.



Pro-private sector




Strong CBOs at RT level

NGO(s present



Blitar

S

Low

Limited

Low

Average

Low: no major problems

Mixed.

4 Sanimas






30%

Less open

In Javanese culture man decides.



Mixed: Citizen Charter, Mayor elected on sanitation agenda, but legalization an issue

Second out of 6: Supportive mayor




Denpasar

L

Low -Average

High

High

Good except for migrant colonies

Medium: Solid waste blocks drainage

Of 7 sanimas, 2 functional.

Reason: non-payment



Decentra

-lised


community managed, recycling, Cross subsidy rich-> poor

75% , but

very low conti

nuity


Hindu & Muslim

Hindu women many religious tasks.

No women in community meetings


Mixed.

NGO in Pokja



Technically strong NGO

Well organised autochtonous CBOs;

Strong NGO


Banjar-masin

L

High

High

High

Average-low, but boom going on

High: Floods

Many hanging toilets




90%

Very strict

Muslim. No women in meetings



Low. Top-down

(City Facilitator: poor-inclusive



Stongly supportive mayor

NGOs on TB control


Paya-kumbuh

S

Very low

Limited

Low

Average-low

Low: Higher land

Many hanging toilets: fishponds

Many informal collectors,

Recycling?



50-60%

Strict

Muslim. Matriarchal: women influence in home



High accountability

High: Lady champion on sanitation

(Hlth Dept)



Agricultural CBOs

Few NGOs


Jambi

L

Low -Average

Limited

Low

Average

High: Poor drainage

Lowest coverage, all household toilets





One third: 15%

Two third:

55-60%


“melting pot”

Women can come to local meetings, sit mixed & speak



Low: conservative, top down, PW dominant

Lowest of 6

Active Puskas Mas

NGO??


S=Small: 100,000-150,000 inhabitants L=Large: 400,000+ inhabitants

Annex 2

Participatory Tools

ANNEX 2A 4WS Project - Participatory Methods and Tools
Welfare Classification and Social Mapping with Neighbourhood Group3

I. Materials Large white or brown sheets

Felt-tipped pens in different colors



II. Steps of activity

  1. Check if the group is representative. If needed, ask participants to collect others. If needed, divide group into two sub-groups (e.g. males and females, adults and adolescents, separate sub-clusters, etc.).

  2. Explain that the activity is done to help the neighborhood improve their sanitary conditions.

  3. Ask the group(s) to split into three. Each group draws a family: Group 1: a family very unfortunate in life Group 2: a family very fortunate in life. Group 3: an in-between family (average type)

  4. After they have all finished, ask the sub-groups to present and explain their drawings to the whole group.
  5. Now give them a new sheet and ask the whole group to draw the borders of their neighborhood and some major features (e.g. main roads, water sources, school and/or clinic (if present in neighborhood) etc.


  6. Ask the participants that belong to group 1 to draw in their house, and then group 2, and then group 3.

  7. Now ask the group to choose the symbols for marking the different types of toilet in their neighborhood. Ask those concerned to draw the appropriate mark at her/his house.

  8. Also ask the participants to encircle those houses where the family has recently suffered from diarrhea.

  9. Discuss the map. Who has fallen ill with diarrhea? (E.g. young children, infants, elderly)

Why? Encourage sharing of knowledge in the group on ORT in cases of diarrhea.

  1. Discuss who has no, or an unsanitary toilet. Why? What may be the effects? Also discuss continued open defecation by some groups (e.g. children, or when people work in the fields) and the effects of these practices.

  2. Discuss what can be done to achieve that everyone in the neighborhood have and use safe sanitation, e.g.

    1. Those who have no or unsanitary toilets build a sanitary toilet

    2. Those who cannot afford go for a cheaper, up gradable model (Here, the activity links to the activity of the sanitation ladder)

    3. Costs of toilet models can be reduced (see sanitation ladder; ask suggestions from group)

    4. The neighborhood helps those unable to construct, e.g. elderly, sick, widows, very poor

    5. Families can start or use a savings and loan society to finance latrine construction/upgrading

    6. Local service societies assist those who according to the group's own indicators are poorest

    7. Local government assists those who according to the group's own indicators are poorest, etc.

    8. Everyone uses latrines and discourages open defecation. Excreta in field are covered (cat method)
  3. Assist the group to arrive at a consensus on the actions that will be taken and who will do what. If relevant do the sanitation and solid waste ladders first and then go into action planning.


Notes:

  1. Groups can also mark the areas with open waste disposal in their map. This links to the solid waste ladders.

  2. The drawings and map stay with each group. They use the map to monitor progress by marking in any improvements. If so wanted, this can be done on transparent sheets that are laid over the baseline map to monitor and review periodic progress.

  3. Monitoring data from the neighborhood map are fed into monitoring system at community/project level.


ANNEX 2B Transect Walk of Excreta Disposal Habits
I. Purpose

  1. To investigate where adult women, men, adolescent boys and girls, children under 12 and infants/babies defecate

  2. To visit the places and note and discuss any disadvantages for each groups, e.g. dirt, bad smell, flies, dogs, pigs, disrespect, lack of privacy and safety, health risks

  3. To discuss how it can happen that bits of stools get onto faces and into the mouths of people, e.g. flies sitting on stools and then on food and around the mouths of children, infants and babies, infants and babies crawling in yards where stools have lain or have been spread by animals and then sucking their fingers, etc.

  4. To reach a conclusion about what the householders and the community can do to put an end to all open defecation sites

  5. To discuss the roles that adult men and women, male and female leadership, male and female youths, schoolchildren and –teachers etc. can play in making these improvements

  6. To discuss how also old, sick, invalid and very poor people could have and use a toilet
  7. To form a representative group (or use or adjust an existing one) that will do the detailed planning and preparation, implementation, monitoring and management of any sanitation project(s) that the community may decide on, either now or after more/other participatory learning for action activities.



II. Materials needed

  1. A representative group of community leaders (male and female), adult men and women, male and female youths, schoolchildren and –teachers, etc., as large as possible

  2. A locally decided transect walk route that starts with a yard and compost heap where child stools may be deposited and then walks on to streets and gutters where older children may defecate and the common defecation sites that different kinds of people use

  3. Paper on which to draw the line of the walk and note down details of who defecates there, how many, when, what risks are involved etc.


III. Implementation with community

  1. Help local leadership to plan the route and organize the group at a suitable time. Ask them to collect more people if there is not a good representativeness.

  2. Preferably the leadership explains the purpose and asks for one or more people who can record the findings

  3. During the walk, help generate discussions on type of people using each site, reasons, risks and advantages etc. Stimulate that women and poor people can speak out

  4. At the end of the walk, facilitate a discussion about the findings. Help women, girls and poor people speak out. Assist the community to reach a conclusion about making the community open defecation free and maybe even set a (realistic) target date.

  5. At this time, or after the stool load calculations, the community may be ready to make a preliminary (outline) plan and/or form/use/adjust to get a representative committee which can do the detailed planning etc.


ANNEX 2C Stool Load Calculations & Infection Routes with

Gender & Poverty Aspects

I. Purpose


  1. To help people realize and calculate how many tools they together dispose in the open

  2. To help them become aware how together they are actually swallowing/ eating a part of these stools

  3. To help the community decide to put an end to open defecation of all its members (including the stools of babies) and begin to plan and organize for this goal with equitable roles of women and men and solidarity and equity for the poorest and weakest community members


II. Materials needed

  1. A representative group of community leaders (male and female), adult men and women, male and female youths, schoolchildren and –teachers, etc., as large as possible

  2. Paper and felt pens, or counters such as matchsticks, beans or small pebbles

  3. Small pieces of paper and felt tipped pens for the group(s) to draw pictures of the 6Fs: faeces, flies, fingers, flood, fields and fluids (=water sources), and at the mouth, or person who may inadvertedly swallow some of the stools;

  4. Pieces of string, thread or wool, or sticks to lay out the connections (alternatively the links can be drawn in the paper). Glue and large sheets of paper to glue the drawings and threads in place.


III. Implementation with community

  1. This activity can be done directly following the transect walk or as a separate exercise. It is done with as large and representative group or groups as possible. Where mixing is culturally less acceptable, the groups can split up in sub-groups.

  2. Help the group(s) pick a local counter for marking the total number of stools that the households produce.
  3. Assist the group(s) to measure first how many stools a family of a typical size and composition produces in one day. Then help them calculate how many this family produces in a week, month, and year. Consolidate the findings between groups using the mutual visiting and sharing process described before.


  4. Now help the group(s) to consider what the number may be for the total excreta load of the community/neighborhood, that is, for all households together.

  5. Once the loads have been calculated, facilitate a discussion how some of these excreta can reach the mouths of women, men and children. Help them make the drawings of the 6Fs and the receiving mouth/person and lay them out on the ground and then lay out the links going from the Feaces (first F) to the mouth via the 5 other Fs.

  6. At the end, facilitate a discussion about who is at risk where and why (e.g. women in home, children in yard, men in fields) and who is causing risks where and how (men, women, adolescent boys and girls, children, babies etc.)

  7. Finally discuss what can be done to cut off these risks (burying stools/disposing in a toilet with water seal or fly cover, wash both hands at critical times (= when stool particles can get onto them and when they may be eaten) with soap or ash and firm rubbing) and what the roles and responsibilities of women and men are that this is done by everyone in the family.

  8. Finally discuss which people may have problems in having and using a toilet and/or washing hands with soap, what they could do and what others can do to help.

  9. Reach agreement about what the community will do and use the knowledge from this and other activities to develop a community sanitation and hygiene action plan which is gender specific and equitable and shows respect for and solidarity with the poorest and weakest groups.

ANNEX 2D 4WS Project - Participatory Methods and Tools

Cause-Effect Analysis for Sanitation with Neighborhood Groups4
I. Materials Large white or brown sheets

Felt-tipped pens



II. Steps of activities

  1. Check if the group is representative. If needed, ask participants to collect others. If needed, divide group into two sub-groups (e.g. males and females, adults and adolescents, separate sub-clusters, etc.).

  2. Explain that the activity is done to help the neighborhood improve their sanitary conditions.

  3. Ask the group(s) to draw a small circle in the centre of the large sheet and draw a toilet, or write the word for toilet in the circle. Now ask the group(s) to reflect which effects having a toilet have for the adult women and adolescent girls in the family. Ask the group members to write down or draw a small picture of the first effect that they note in a second circle and link this circle to the first one.

  4. Now ask the (sub) group if this effect is leading to other effects and to draw/write each effect in a new circle connected to the second one. Continue to facilitate the links between cause and effects until exhausted.

  5. Ask the group if the toilet may have effects for any other types of people, who have not yet been mentioned they may come up with pregnant women, old women and men, adult men, children, sick people, invalid people. Help the group to think of, and note down any specific chain of effects for each of these category.

  6. When the cause- effects chain appears to be exhausted, facilitate a discussion on the type of benefits that they have come up. Assist the group to reach a conclusion about the valuation of a toilet.
  7. If more groups take part (e.g. separate female and male groups), ask each group in turn to go over to the other. Ask this second group to present their diagram to the first group and discuss the outcomes. After finishing reverse the process and facilitate consolidation and conclusion.


  8. Inform the group(s) that now that they have reached a conclusion on the many effects of a toilet for all family members and villagers, the next step will be to look at what types of toilets (technologies, designs) they could install and what the costs and the advantages and disadvantages of each option can be.

ANNEX 2E Sanitation Ladder (Technology & Material Choices)

I. Purpose

  1. To know existing beliefs and taboos regarding to sanitation practices.

  2. To help communities to identify sanitation practices and existing systems in their community.

  3. To help communities to understand constraints that they face in setting up sanitation facilities.

  4. To show that improvement can be a step-by-step process.

  5. To know communities willingness and ability to pay/contribute towards improvement.

  6. To help communities to select option(s) for improving the disposal of human faeces (considering the constraints faced).

II. Time 1 - 2 hours.

III. Materials needed

  1. 10 – 20 cards showing different methods of human excreta disposal. The cards will need to show disposal methods appropriate to the community which they can afford. The tool kit contains some sample cards.

  2. Paper and pens

  3. Marker pens, large sheets of paper.

  4. Tape and glue for fixing

IV. Process:

  1. Ask the participants to form groups of 5 – 8 people. Divide the group according to gender (when necessary).

  2. Give each group an identical set of cards which show different ways of disposing of human faeces.


  3. Give the group the task, using these words: “ Look at each of the cards and arrange them in an order which starts with the most unsuitable/inconvenient faecal disposal method at the bottom and ends with the most suitable/convenient method at the top. The arrangement will look like the steps of a ladder.”

  4. It may be useful to have some paper and pens so that group members can draw any technical option or behavior that they want to include and which are not in the card set.

  5. Give the groups about 20 minutes to make their ladders. Then visit each group and give it the next task: “Now, decide where the community is now and where they would like to be from now onwards, how to get there and when they plan to reach the desired step/ladder. Ask community to discuss what are the benefits and disadvantages of the desired step/ladder. Community may wish to write the good things and bad things about moving to different steps on the ladder on separate pieces of paper and attach these to the ladder.”

  6. When the group has completed this, ask each one to explain its Sanitation Ladder to the rest or the participants.

  7. After the presentations, encourage a group discussion covering:

  • The similarities and differences in the way options have been arranged as steps

  • The similarities and differences in terms of where the groups have placed the community now and in future

  • The options that have been identified as best for the community

  • The advantages of each option

  • The difficulties obstacles that would make moving up the ladder difficult

  • How these decisions were reached
  • What information the group thinks might to be able to compare options more effectively.


  1. Encourage the groups to agree on one sanitation ladder

  2. Explain to the group that the next activity will help it to develop an action plan to get from where it is now to the situation or situations it would like you move to in the future.

  3. Facilitate a group discussion with the group on what it has learned during this activity, what it liked and what it did not like.

V.OUTPUT To insert




1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page