This campaign has not yet been developed, but from the mission the following lessons emerged:
Adjustment of national hand washing and sanitation campaigns to the poor
One concern that emerged from FGDs and home visits was that poor people tend to buy safe water by the jerry can and reserve this for drinking and cooking. The question of costs of extra water for hand washing and brushing teeth worried them more than the cost of soap, which they already buy and seem prepared to use more. Simple cost-benefit calculations of extra investments for improved hygiene (e.g. water, soap) vs. cost-savings from lower incidence of disease and loss of working days may help address the economic concerns about hygiene.
Ensuring that sewerage and waste water disposal expansions are poor-inclusive
In all information materials, mass campaigns and group sessions, emphasis will have to be on two-way learning. One the one hand, the program can inform people on all the special provisions made to make sanitation poor inclusive, from special adjustments of sewerage connections. (Section 188.8.131.52 and the participatory method and material for the Sanitation Ladder in the Sanitation Campaign for the Poor document of ISSDP). Both women and men need this information, adjusted to gender-specific interests and responsibilities. On the other hand, the program needs to learn from the poor households what their suggestions and experiences are, to find out what works and what does not work.
Target community-based programs through digital poverty and health risk maps
Through combining the EHRA data with secondary data on poverty, priority sections of the cities for sanitation interventions emerge. Part of the success of ISSDP is the extent to which it can enhance political will, commitment and actions to target these areas first in a combined approach of bottom up community planning and action and city support, e.g. in promoting low-cost but upgradeable technologies and designs to husbands and wives of the households in these communities.
Provide costed and self-upgradeable infrastructure information
An important part of the poor-inclusive sanitation strategy is to inform husbands and wives of the different options and models available to them, the costs involved and the possibilities to reduce costs by gradual upgrading. While mass media are a useful source of information, ample research has shown that personal contacts are effective for conviction and action taking. Group sessions with couples, using participatory methods and tools are a good option. The methods may include benefit tracking (making a cause-and-effect diagram starting from “having a toilet” and sorting of sanitation options from low to high cost and environmentally most risky to most beneficial. The materials for the latter are drawings or pictures of toilet models (without and with bathing and/or laundry provisions) and materials from different price categories, so that people can choose what they can afford now and what they may aim for. The participatory tools and guidance sheets for their gender sensitive use have been included in the manual for the Sanitation Campaign for Poor Communities (see also Annex 3). This should be backed by a brochure which summarises the information according to the interests of women and men and spread through channels reaching both (For details see gender and poverty in the the individual city strategies).
Assist communities in poor-inclusive local planning and monitoring
Community-based (or rather: community-managed) poor-inclusive planning and monitoring of sanitation and hygiene coverage consists of the following steps:
Ask a local group to make four drawings: of a typical very unfortunate household, an unfortunate one, a fortunate one and an in-between one. The drawn characteristics are the local poverty indicators;
Ask the group to draw a map of the community and give a different colour to each house of the four categories; Ask them to put in the (different types) of toilets at each house using again a colour code;
Now ask the group to make a community sanitation matrix, with the four welfare categories as rows from the left and the columns for each type of latrine and ‘no toilet’ as columns from the top; Ask them to count the number of houses in each category and fill in the number of toilets and no toilet for each group;
The household sanitation map is the start for reviewing the situation as a community health situation, to plan actions, and to register the results in the map. The first matrix serves as the baseline, quarterly or (semi) annual matrices as progress data;
In the same way, it is possible to determine on indicators for hygiene, mark them in a map using an greed symbol for each practice, and monitor progress in the map. Matrices for each practice serve as the baseline and for analysing and documenting progress
The statistics from the community maps are then linked up with the city digital map.
To stimulate progress, the Health Department can list the five or six indicators of a ‘healthy home’ and award a sign with one, two, etc. stars to each house achieving the hygiene condition/practice. Households and communities can thus gradually grow towards the 100% ‘healthy homes’ target. Additional ‘clean and healthy community’ indicators and targets can help achieve a 100% clean and healthy environment.
The sections below give the overall strategy for enhancing gender and gender equity and equity for poor women and men in ISSDP. After presentation and review and its adoption in meetings with individual cities, the head office staff, donor stakeholders and City Facilitators, the remainder of the work has gone to adjusting the approach to the individual City Sanitation Strategies. The specifics have been documented in “Gender and Poverty in the City Sanitation Strategy” of each of the six cities and the Project Digests for city-specific pilot projects under Component D.