Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
i Acronyms
ii Executive Summary
1 Background
2 Methodology
3 Literature Review
5 Consultation Findings
Focus Group Discussions with Beneficiaries 5
Workshops and Discussions at Country
or Sub-Country Level 6
Online Practitioner Survey 8
Global WASH Cluster 9
Donor responses to the Questionnaire 10
Acronyms
Executive Summary
The emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Across all six components of the analysis,
Promotion (WASH) gap analysis project was sanitation issues were identified as the major
funded by The Humanitarian Innovation Fund area with gaps and potential for innovation.
(HIF), a program managed by Enhancing The second major gap identified by four
Learning and Research for Humanitarian groups was hygiene issues; the country and
Assistance (ELRHA) in partnership with the sub country WASH sector groups and the
Active Learning Network for Accountability beneficiary groups selected water as the
and Performance in Humanitarian Action second priority and hygiene third.
(ALNAP), and is a component of a larger
The specific issues raised have been
initiative to identify and support innovations in
consolidated into 57 different categories.
emergency WASH.
These were then ranked according to the
The project was commissioned to identify number of times they were mentioned in the
the major challenges that require innovative feedback and the priority they were given in
solutions in humanitarian WASH. It is a the workshops.
targeted effort to identify different stakeholder
The most significant gaps identified in
perspectives of the gaps and spaces for
emergency WASH were:
innovation in emergency WASH, rather
than a systematic review of the evidence 1. Latrines in locations where no pits are
around WASH programming. A total of 909 possible (urban, high watertable/flooding)
people were consulted across around 40 2. Community participation and
countries, involving individual practitioners empowerment of vulnerable groups,
and approximately 45 different organizations, including monitoring and evaluation from
spanning donors, the UN system and the outset
international and national NGOs
3. Latrine emptying and desludging
Data was collected during a six month 4. Hygiene promotion and the importance of
consultation period and draws on six understanding context, including socio-
complementary research components: anthropology issues
A review of relevant literature produced 5. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
over the last five years and sanitation marketing
Structured focus group discussions with 6. Urban alternatives for excreta disposal
eight beneficiary groups in six countries 7. Exit strategies and sustainability issues
Facilitated workshop discussion with from the outset
WASH practitioners working at the country 8. Final sewage disposal options after
and sub-national level in 12 countries desludging and treatment
An on-line survey of humanitarian WASH 9. Further development of non-toilet options/
practitioners early response/mobile
Two facilitated sessions with Global WASH 10. Hand washing hardware and promotion
Cluster (GWC) meetings and sustainability (including soap) and
Consultation with five major donor non-soap options
organisations supporting humanitarian 11. Water Treatment, particularly bulk and
WASH programming and policy point of use household filters, including
cost and sustainability issues
12. The need for low-tech WASH solutions
acceptable and sustainable by locals
Background
Clean drinking water, effective sanitation The Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) WASH
and good hygiene practices have proven Stream is managed by Enhancing Learning
to be central to saving lives and reducing and Research for Humanitarian Assistance
suffering during emergencies, effectively (ELRHA). The HIF WASH Innovation Project
controlling conditions such as diarrhoea, is funded by the Department for International
which itself kills 4,000 children daily.1 In April Development, UK (DFID). The WASH
2012, the Secretary of State for International Innovation Project5 seeks to identify the major
Development in the UK announced a doubling challenges that require innovative solutions in
of support to water and sanitation.2 The the Humanitarian WASH sector (see the Terms
January 2012 DFID strategy for promoting of Reference, Annex 1). The focus of this work
innovation and evidence in humanitarian is Humanitarian Programming and Response;
response found a clear demand for more it will only concentrate on challenges that can
innovative technologies and approaches be solved by tangible innovation. The Project
suitable for emergency situations and a strong has however agreed to keep a note of other
role for the private sector to play in innovating gaps or challenges and to share those with the
and supplying appropriate technologies for Global WASH Cluster (GWC).
humanitarian response.3
Recent research has noted that the
need for improved WASH strategies for
emergencies has generated a number of new
Definitions of WASH terminology
approaches that have been explored by relief used in the report:
organizations, leading to rapid innovation.
Sanitation:
While this may be a promising sign the same
research noted that there remains insufficient Refers to: Excreta disposal from toilets to
confidence and evidence of what works, final deposit site or treatment; Solid Waste
what doesnt and why in emerging processes, management; Drainage and Vector control.
technologies and approaches for humanitarian
Hygiene Promotion:
WASH services. Unknowns persist about
which strategies are suitable for the immediate Refers to: Community mobilisation and
emergency phase and which technologies, participation; health data monitoring;
practices, and approaches may permit a information, education and communication
transition towards more sustainable solutions (IEC); behavioural change and hygiene kit
and future resilience.4 This work is part of distribution. In this report Childrens Hygiene
larger efforts to address such concerns and and Sanitation Training (CHAST), Participatory
identify and build credible evidence around Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
innovations in emergency WASH. (PHAST) and/or Community Led Total
Sanitation (CLTS) have also been included
under hygiene promotion.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing- Water:
clean-water-and-sanitation-in-developing-countries Refers to: Ground water, water treatment,
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/water-and-
sanitation-uk-to-double-its-support water testing, and water supply.
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/193166/prom-innov-
evi-bas-appr-build-res-resp-hum-cris.pdf
4 Brown, J., S. Cavill, O. Cumming, A. Jeandron (2012)
Water, sanitation, and hygiene in emergencies:
summary review and recommendations for further
research, Waterlines 31: 11-29 5 Referred to as the project in this document
Methodology
The research for the project began in 5. A Gap Analysis Survey was created,
January 2013. It was led by Andy Bastable, tested and circulated in English, French,
Head of Water and Sanitation at Oxfam GB, Spanish and Arabic
and supported by Project Assistant Lucy
6. A request for Donor input was sent to
Russell.It is a targeted effort to identify
individual contacts in several donor
different stakeholder perspectives of the
agencies supporting humanitarian WASH
gaps and spaces for innovation in emergency
programming and policy.
WASH, rather than a systematic review of the
evidence around WASH programming. The In addition, the Regional Emergency Cluster
Global WASH Cluster assisted the project by Advisors (RECAs) were contacted with a
sending out an on-line survey to all members request to run regional workshops. However,
of the Cluster and by contacting all 35 country the RECA project itself was in the process of
Clusters to facilitate the feedback from group renewal and funding was not obtained in time
discussions. The Projects timeline is included for the RECAs to participate in the process.
in Annex 2. The project adopted a range
of qualitative research methods employed
through six complementary research
components, including:
1. A literature review conducted following
a request for relevant literature with key
actors and the GWC.
2. The collection of beneficiary feedback
obtained through Focus Group
Discussions (FGDs). To complete this the
project prepared questions, guidelines and
notes which were piloted in South Sudan
Oxfam GB. The methodology for the FGD
was subsequently refined and circulated
for replication.
3. The use of structured workshop
discussions, with a facilitation plan
developed outlining suggestions for
a one-hour workshop. This was then
circulated to WASH Clusters and Forums/
Consortiums (where no formal cluster was
present), requesting that discussions take
place as part of a planned meeting, and
feedback provided with a ranked list of During the data gathering, over 200 issues
major challenges. were raised by the various contributing groups
4. The workshop methodology was and individuals. The issues and the number
adapted and used to facilitate workshop of times they were raised by all stakeholders
discussions with senior technical WASH consulted, were compiled, analysed and
specialists at the global level, taking place triangulated to determine priority gaps and
in the UK and Switzerland. challenges. A complete list of the issues
raised, disaggregated by stakeholder group
and in order of priority is included in Annex 3.
Literature Review
A literature review was carried out and Sanitation: several sources raised the issue
the Global WASH Cluster and other key sanitation in difficult environments (high water
actors invited to send any relevant literature tables/flood, urban, unstable soils) and there
(formal or informal) to the project. Given the were suggestions about pit/latrine lining kits,
limited time and resources available for the raised latrines, sealed tanks. The need for
project, the literature review itself targeted close-the-loop approaches (eco-sanitation)
those recent publications synthesising a was mentioned. More than one source
wide range of evidence and experiences in considered the issue of non-toilet options
WASH programming, including a number of such as biodegradable bags, especially for
evidence reviews and learning reviews. Key initial onset but also for floods. Again, several
recommendations and suggestions from the sources identified excreta/sludge disposal
literature were then grouped under appropriate including storage, treatment, final disposal,
headings and an overall summary compiled, sewage, waste water and general drainage.
included below. A detailed list of the key Closely related were issues raised about
points from the literature is attached under latrine design: the need for alternatives to the
Annex 4. The list of literature reviewed is in classic plastic slab and variations (e.g. urine
Annex 5. diversion, sitting, childrens, disabled); and
durable, environmentally sound alternatives
Summary of key recommendations and for latrine superstructures. Also raised were
suggestions from the literature review issues of vulnerability, cost and the right to
Sanitation/excreta disposal, latrines and water.
solid waste management were raised 24
times; Hygiene (including maintenance) 13
times and Water 10. Other issues (including
environmental concerns and exit strategies)
were raised 4 times.6
Consultation Findings
Water (raised 53 times) was another major Hygiene Promotion was raised 30 times. There
concern, particularly with respect to poor was due recognition of the need to understand
availability in arid environments and in areas the context and cultural beliefs and how they
with shallow wells and the potential for drying might affect hygiene practices. Community
up of water resources. There was also a need participation in general and of vulnerable
identified for water conservation and water groups in particular was also strongly
harvesting technologies such as rain water highlighted; poor participation and the need
catchment as well as greater awareness by for improved awareness-raising campaigns
the community on proper water use (e.g. and approaches were identified. The need
reasonable irrigation). Low groundwater for better evidence of effectiveness was
availability was a significant challenge. raised and how to ensure the effectiveness
Further challenges and needs raised several of hygiene mobilisers. Challenges remain to
times included the need to map and share ensure the accessibility of community latrines
information and address salinity issues. for women (Afghanistan), partly because of
cultural issues and partly resulting from fear
Another frequent issue raised was the
of attack. CLTS was mentioned as an option
need for low-technology solutions which
more appropriate in an established emergency
are acceptable and sustainable by local
than in rapid onset. Handwashing uptake and
people, especially in protracted emergencies.
sustained practice was an identified concern
Examples included: how to involve the private
along with menstrual hygiene.
sector in water provision (Philippines), the
use of manual hand sludge pumps (in Haiti) Other issues raised in several of the in-country
and dry toilet design. Another discussion discussions particularly related to the need for
considered how to sustain wells/boreholes, exit strategies and sustainability. Other issues
possibly with fuel or solar energy. Additionally raised once or twice included preparedness,
maintenance of water source/supply, spare the lack of available risk mapping (Yemen), the
parts and monitoring was mentioned. One need to think long term and better stockpiling
workshop selected collapsible jerry cans as a of supplies (e.g. for water storage). The need
top priority, another asked about how to clean for good planning and leadership was raised;
jerry cans effectively. examples included the need for coordination
of approaches such as household water
treatment vs. treatment at source, or blanket
approaches vs. using epidemiology for better
targeting (Sierra Leone).
Summary of the findings across the data collection approaches, as detailed above.
Literature Beneficiary consultation
Country and sub country level Practitioners survey
Global WASH Cluster Donors
It is obvious from the table that excreta The challenge for the next phase is to
disposal is by far the most dominant gap establish which of the top 26 issues lend
identified. Gaps cover all stages of the latrine themselves to innovative solutions that are not
management cycle from construction of toilets currently being addressed by other initiatives.
to desludging and safe management to the This work will be addressed in the next phase
final disposal site. The other major issues of the WASH Humanitarian Innovation Fund
were hygiene promotion and community project.
mobilisation.
Activities
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Carry out a review of all past and current
The Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) humanitarian literature that identifies
WASH Stream is managed by ELRHA challenges in humanitarian WASH
and funded directly the Department for
Design a gap analysis flyer that can be
International Development, UK (DFID).
used by the project to inform all in-country
This project seeks to identify the major WASH cluster coordinators or WASH
challenges that require innovative solutions sectoral leads
in the humanitarian WASH sector. The focus Enable the Global Cluster Coordinator to
of this work is on humanitarian programming inform all WASH clusters of this process
and response and will only concentrate on
Design a WASH gap analysis workshop
challenges that can be solved by tangible
session to be carried out by in-country
innovation.
WASH clusters and WASH forums
Phase 1 To carry out a multi level emergency Write to and call 33 WASH clusters and
WASH gap analysis to establish global 10 WASH forums to explain the gap
prioritisation of WASH challenges. analysis session
Devise an approach to involve beneficiary
feedback on WASH gaps
Write to and call 4-5 regional WASH
networks and enable them to hold WASH
gap analysis sessions
Identify key informants that capture work
in other work streams and interview
Devise and implement a gap analysis from
a humanitarian donor perspective
Hold a 2nd gap analysis session at the
Global WASH Forum
Send out and receive at least 30 gap
analysis questionnaires aimed at WASH
field practitioners
Collate all the information from the
in-country, regional and global and
questionnaires
Write up and present gap analysis
Outputs:
A full report of all the data collected and
a synthesis of the challenges identified
prioritised by their potential impact on the
sector.
Annex 2: Timeline
The timeline for these various activities is noted below.
Hygiene
Annex 4: Detailed Results from
recognition that HP activities/software has
the Literature Review increased but potential to see if PHAST
A literature review was carried out and the and/or CLTS can be used in emergencies:
Global WASH Cluster and other key actors need more evidence
invited to send any relevant literature (formal adherence to e.g. POU water treatment
or informal) to us. Key recommendations and safe storage remains low, needs more
and suggestions from the literature were then research and perhaps new approaches
grouped under appropriate headings and an uptake and sustained practice of hand
overall summary compiled. washing including no soap, no water
In summary: options
need for rapidly deployable hand washing
Sanitation
stations for communal latrines and
There were several areas of concern regarding handwashing device in itself (that can be
excreta disposal: added to an existing household water
excreta disposal and sludge disposal container, conserves water, allows hands-
including storage, treatment, final disposal free and sufficient flow)
sewage, waste water and general drainage hygiene kits, content and timing
(sometimes delayed beyond immediate
sanitation in difficult environments (high
emergency)
water tables, urban setting, unstable soil
situations) and suggestions of pit/latrine hygiene education extended to schools
lining kits potentially and other options for and community groups
flooding (raised latrine, rings, sealed tanks) WASH for children is poorly covered in
further development of non-toilet options literature and handbooks
(biodegradable bags etc) especially for
Water
initial onset
mostly related to treatment, bulk versus
mixed message if some agencies build
POU, HHWT still shows relatively low
latrines and others promote CLTS
actual clean water, involving women
Closely related to excreta disposal but in using filters, cost, sustainability and
specifically focussed on latrines: acceptability of different water filters
(needs more investigation)
alternatives to the classic plastic slab
approaches to promote consistent,
variations in the slab (urine diversion;
correct and sustained use of water quality
sitting; childrens; disabled)
interventions
durable, environmentally sound
water resource knowledge, (hydrological
alternatives to the classic plastic sheeting
parameters+)
and wooden poles superstructure (also
important for privacy issues) Another significant area of concern is
raised latrines which enable urine diversion sustainability and exit strategy:
and septic tanks emergencies happen within a context
Closely linked to both of the above were the of longer-term development and we
specific issues raised by an urban context: should think about exit strategies and
sustainability issues from the start i.e. solid
need for close-the-loop approaches e.g. waste, latrines, social marketing but also
eco-sanitation long term maintenance of facilities by the
vulnerability issues, cost, the right to water communities
environmental concerns, wasted water
at pump, poor drainage, maintaining and
encouraging tree cover
Other topics raised included: information
management/coordination; integration with
other sectors; drought response; research on
gender; long term planning for cyclical; use of
KAP studies.
Agency Responses:
Annex 5: Literature Review
SCF initial response, January 2013
References
Tearfund initial response, January 2013
Below is a list of the papers included in the
literature review: IFRC initial interview response, January 2013
Alam, K. (2008). Flood disasters: Learning CARE initial response, January 2013
from previous relief and recovery operations.
ALNAP Lessons Paper. Available at: Other useful references
www.alnap.org/publications/pdfs/ALNAP- Davis, J. (1988) From emergency relief to
ProVention_flood_lessons.pdf long-term water development, Waterlines 6:
29-31
Johannessen, A (2011) Identifying gaps in
emergency sanitation: Design of new kits Djonoputro, E.R., Blackett, l, Rosenboom, J.W.
to increase effectiveness in emergencies, and Weitz, A. (2010), Understanding sanitation
two day workshop 22-23 February 2011, options in challenging environments,
Stoutenburg workshop, Netherlands Waterlines 29: 186-203
Oxfam GB (2011) Urban WASH lessons Harvey, P.A. and Reed, R.A. (2005) Planning
learned from post-earthquake response in environmental sanitation programmes in
Haiti. Available at: http://policy-practice. emergencies, Disasters 29: 129-51
oxfam.org.uk/publications/urban-wash- Nawaz, J., Lal, S., Raza, S. and House,
lessons-learned-from-post-earthquake- S. (2010) Oxfam experience of providing
response-in-haiti-136538 screened toilet bathing and menstruation
Brown, J., S. Cavill, O. Cumming, A. units in its earthquake response in Pakistan,
Jeandron (2012) Water, sanitation, and Gender and Development 18: 81-86
hygiene in emergencies: summary review Smout, I. and S. Parry-Jones (1998) Lessons
and recommendations for further research, learned from NGO experiences in the water
Waterlines 31: 11-29 and sanitation sector: Water and NGOs
Bastable, A., and J. Lamb (2012). Innovative workshop, 21 January 1998. Available at:
designs and approaches in sanitation when http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/
responding to challenging and complex Lessons%20Learned/Front%20page.htm
humanitarian contexts in urban areas DFID Research (2010). Providing better
Waterlines 31: 67-82 access to water in urban settlement, 25 Nov
Wolfe Murray, M. (2010). Islamabad workshop 2010. Available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/
April 2012: preparatory note, summary note, project/5334/default.aspx
full report and PowerPoint presentation of Green, D. (2013) What do 6,000 people on
findings as presented by DFID to the Pakistan the receiving end of aid think of the system?
WASH Cluster Duncan Green blog article Jan 2013, available
Oxfam GB (2012). Public Health training: PHPs at: www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13492
and PHEs workshop, May 2012
ACF International (2012): Policy: Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene 2011, Sector WASH:
ACF France: Strategic Frame 2011
Teafund (2012) Water Advocacy, Sanitation
and Hygiene: Lessons learnt from Tearfunds
global water, advocacy, sanitation and hygiene
programme 20072012
- Latrines - Urban
As to be expected, a lot of comments about Comments on urban issues confirmed the
the challenges of digging a latrine because increasingly well documented issues: lack of
not being allowed, rock, soil, snow, space space to dig latrines and dispose of excreta/
etc. There were several comments about sludge, inability to dig for various reasons and
maintenance, sustainability and cleaning and sanitation in general. Then there were other
the link with having latrines more at family issues: waste management, the challenge
or even household level (depending on the of large, modern urban water and sanitation
context). Maintenance was also linked to the infrastructures, construction of minimum DWS
cash4work schemes which then ceased and networks in urban areas, quick fill-up rates of
potential lack of willingness. This links with the latrines and a plea that cholera interventions in
emergency development discussion outlined urban environments could be better mapped
below in thinking more laterally. by GPS to determine clusters of cases and
thus target the areas most at risk. There was
Then there was the call for the development
a general suggestion that it is not clear and/or
of more models, some mentioned issues
standardised what technology or approaches
around using water for anal cleansing, others
are most appropriate for urban WASH and
about being more eco-friendly, one about
a specific request for the design of kits for
the material used for the slab. There was
emptying latrines in urban areas, manually or
mention of access for disabled. One asked
semi-automatically could end up repeating
for consolidation of various latrine designs
what is under sanitation and/or latrines.
for semi-permanent elevated latrines as were
begun in Haiti. There was also the suggestion Hygiene Promotion
of flat packed raised toilets; mobile kit
Some commented that HP wasnt as
latrines; portable latrines; even floating
prominent as it should be [it is] of paramount
latrines.
importance that management ensure that
Lighting was another issues raised especially hygiene is a component just like water and
linked with gender based violence (GBV). And sanitation, one said there was a need for
there was a call to improve the superstructure advocacy to greater integrate HP into all plans.
a) for environmental reasons and b) because In contrast, one commented that we should
of its importance for women in certain better evidence the actual impact, especially
contexts (Pakistan for example). of HP NFI kits. Many felt that community
participation and empowerment should be
Finally there was a reference to the need
the first priority especially to better involve
to accurately assess the need for latrines
youth, the disabled and men. The importance
before embarking on programmes doomed
of engaging with women and girls was
to failure (alternatively setting up a defecation
raised as well as elders. There were several
field away from the site and water points);
comments about an enabling environment,
reference to the need to further develop non-
national and sub national capacity building,
toilet options such as biodegradable bags
strengthening of community institutions
or boxes, including if they would be mobile;
to encourage ownership, supporting local
and one reference to CLTS which resulted in
NGO in a harmonised approach, using
the subsidised latrines being neglected and
schools more effectively, putting a safety
consequently unusable.
plan in place, promoting health clubs. One
example given was the healthy village and
healthy school programme in DRC referring
to rural communities. One of the challenges
raised was the low commitment of some
stakeholders, including low national capacity
and/or local participation.
Sustainability and maintenance was raised And several comments related to the
which is linked to the above suggestions environmental aspect, with concerns about
about better involvement of and ownership by more need to consider it, integrate it, use
the beneficiaries and providing training. This low-tech options, pollution of groundwater
included HHWT which should be affordable and a comment was about the need for water
and applicable to the local cultural context. conservation and others about alternative
Behaviour change was raised and the ethical power (e.g. solar pumps) being more
concerns as well as the fact that it takes time appropriate.
including finding appropriate resources which
Then there were many specifically concerned
should be stockpiled. Also, how to maintain
about maintenance and sustainability long
behaviour change long term and measure it.
term, maintenance of both facilities and
- Children and vulnerable groups sustainability of behavioural practice, how to
ensure things dont always go back to how it
Comments ranged from how to improve
was before the emergency, for example.
the participation of vulnerable groups,
to specifically talking about children and Finally, a few respondents related the need for
youth and how to reach them and involve more attention on preparation and resilience
them, through WASH in schools and other against emergencies.
spontaneous sites, CHAST, within a CLTS
Spare parts networks needed - Community
approach. And the specifics of babies and
have to be trained on how to operate and
infants excreta disposal, consulting mothers,
maintain the facilities, to do this they need to
compostable nappies and/or liners. Then
be involved in the project at the onset. Need
there were comments about womens needs
for availability and accessibility of spare parts,
for proper screening around latrine and/
hence the need to put in place a spare parts
or shower units, so they can wash properly
network, perhaps through close collaboration
during menstruation and to consider providing
with NGO, Governments and business at
a separate bowl for washing menstrual items,
different levels.
a rope for hanging line etc. There were also a
couple of comments about access to latrines
for young (small) people and the disabled.
Water
Then there were the usual concerns about
household water treatment, water quality
including a suggestion about trying low-
carbon desalination and tackling salinity in
general and there were comments about
manual drilling, wells, trucking/tankering
issues and the need for better training of NGO
personnel.
Other issues
There were numerous comments about
the need to better integrate emergency
development, need for better understanding,
thinking long term from the start, use of local
knowledge that is already there.
Several respondents raised the importance
of exit strategies as important to stability
and ownership by the local community (or
government) suggesting that this should be
through greater participation at the start,
avoidance of dependency, what to do when
payments stop (for promoters, cleaners, waste
disposal etc)
Other comment - Funding periods not Defining KAP studies how to overcome
realistically extending to or structured to issues of lack of time during early phases of a
realising behavioural change. Also, it seems response and possibly combine questions in
that ECHO and OFDA are tightening even KAP surveys with those in rapid assessments
further on emergency WASH response, so that meaningful KAP baseline data can be
and so the possibility of incorporating more gathered right at the start. Defining statistical
sustainable approaches which link to longer- analysis appropriate for KAP studies.
term sustainability (ie the LRRD approach) is
Data Collection and Management Test new
eluded.
platforms/technologies for quickly collecting
Training and Human Resources - There and analysing Household level survey data.
were several points made about the lack of Methodology for quickly collecting information
trained Emergency WASH staff in-country; and analysing it. A more standardised survey
some called for better opportunities for process. This may or may not require or
cross training with development personnel include technology such as smartphones.
or between countries. Another contribution
A suggestion to support training of the
referred to poor quality drilling expertise and
community in operation and maintenance, to
the inadequacy of short borehole drilling
make spare parts accessible by establishing
courses.
a spare parts network through collaboration
Other comments: with NGOs, government and business.
To have minimum training and provide a Ideas on organisation of camps as people
minimum knowledge to people who work arrive to make the response more effective
in WASH Decongest the camps and have smaller
Capacity building of local partners/national groups with more space. Make groupings
training initiatives based on initial social tied (language, religion,
ethnicity, village of origin) and return to the
Several contributors would like to see more extended family. Maintenance can be done by
preparation and prepositioning of materials, these groups and help required for draining.
especially in cyclical disaster areas. Other The ethnological/sociological is important in
single comments included limited or absent early response, thus allowing to find more
participation of beneficiaries and their pragmatic solutions and stick to reality.
priorities in baseline assessments, corruption
and the need for audits. Capturing WASH innovation globally - This
is about not having to reinvent the wheel for
Research into impact of gender sensitive / each response and to widely disseminate
womens empowerment programming in viable solutions whether they are appropriate
emergency WASH programme (as a way of in a particular context, region or globally. The
addressing gaps in the sector / evidence). online shelter library is an example but the
idea is to have a forum which would generate
Evaluation, engaging with academia to help
sharing across the globe in a way which the
evidence base
cluster (or clusters in other sectors) cant be
Any innovation requires robust evaluation. As expected to.
a sector, the emergency WASH community
could work to develop an innovative way Other comment: Emergency and early
to engage academia to be more involved recovery require different innovations and
during emergencies to help us to evaluate approaches, both should offer good value and
our work and provide recommendations to where possible lasting solutions.
improve emergency response activities. It is a Transparency and respect for humanitarian
struggle to get academia involved to evaluate commitment.
work conducted in a real-time manner.
Especially if we are considering new technical Community dependency on donors, high level
innovations we should think aboutways of corruption in service delivery process.
to improve the way evaluations are done in Ensuring quality audit and monitoring of
emergency and to work more closely with activities to ensure funds are properly used
academia. New technical innovations
should not be scaled up until they are
evaluated.
UNHCR
Annex 9: Detailed Results from
1. Sanitation in first phase emergency
Donor Questionnaire 2. Sanitation in flooded and rocky soil
OFDA contexts as well as urban situation
1. Evaluation, engaging with academia to 3. Handwashing facilities and their
help evidence base monitoring in communal toilets
2. New ways to measure behaviour change 4. Household water treatment
activities such as handwashing
3. Data Collection and Management
ECHO (summary of most relevant
4. Sanitation option in difficult environments, contributions from various offices)
including handwashing
Durability is often forgotten in
5. Innovative means of communicating with constructions and appropriate local
beneficiaries technology (ie stabilised soil blocks;
6. Develop and evaluate new methodologies bamboo reinforced concrete; biogas
for conducting hygiene promotion latrines; use of moringa plant)
Emergency excreta disposal, especially
in floods and potential of biodegradable
UNICEF
bags
1. Failsafe way of monitoring water tankering
Sustainable excreta disposal and low-
2. A better structured link to academia for cost sewerage options and checking in
evidence wastewater treatment happens elsewhere
UNICEF is also currently looking into: in the country so removal from the living
environment may be more important that
- new collapsible jerrycans treatment
- chlorine generators Suggested check-list for incremental
- cholera toolkit sanitation upgrading and similar for
- support to menstrual hygiene wastewater treatment
- archiving of cholera outbreak data (no Low-cost latrines, innovative construction
reference exists globally) models needed especially in floods in Asia
- urban integration of humanitarian WASH More innovation in software activities, HP/
with urban stakeholders trainings (ie IC leaflet with information
about disaster preparedness and HP
- training and orientation
messages alongside basic maths formulas
- residual chlorine testers so kept by school children for reference)
Tools to facilitate interaction between
nutrition/health including monitoring (ie.
DFID real time mapping of cholera in urban
1. Household excreta containment (especially areas), could be GIS/excel sheets
in urban contexts) and off-site excreta Better water treatment (ie water solar
disposal distillation in South Vietnam)
2. Promotion of sustainable supply and use Suggested selection matrix/guidance
of soap regarding the chain of public health
3. Household water treatment especially for priorities (from separating excreta from
very turbid water the immediate living environment, down
4. Creating and costing a benchmark quality to environmental protection) alongside
household WASH kit common constraints/considerations (ie
5. Simple solar water heating host government standards/norms/existing
practices, knowledge, acceptance)
6. Capturing WASH innovation globally
May 2013