This "Sustainability clause in funding agreements with the Dutch government" came up again during a discussion at the 20th SuSanA meeting on 22 August which I attended via the live streaming. Soon the video from the meeting will be available and I can point to the exact time of the conversation. It came up in the context of failures of sanitation systems (see also here: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/183-mo...ow-also-on-wikipedia).

Meanwhile, I already copy here a twitter conversation I had with Stef Smits from IRC during the meeting:

++++++++++

Stef Smits ‏(@SmitsStef) :
GIZ's Arne Panesar commending dutch govt for its sustainability clause. Will GIZ put pressure on german govt to do the same?

Elisabeth von Muench (‏@EvMuench) :
Might be only words though, who will be there 10 years later to really check if it's still sustained...

Stef Smits ‏@SmitsStef:
Recipients need to report every 2-3 years using a sustainability check during 10 years

Elisabeth von Muench :
Does that mean the recipients get money from Dutch govt. for monitoring for a 10-year period?

Stef Smits :
Recipients need to include that into account in their proposals. In addition there are independent audits

Stef Smits :
Would be good to get DGIS to share all the details on the sanitation part. Am more familiar with water part of it

Elisabeth von Muench ‏:
Good idea. Can you help me track someone down at DGIS or IRC who knows about sanitation part?

Stef Smits ‏:
The person to contact is Dick van Ginhoven

+++++++

Do we have any evidence so far that such "sustainability clauses" result in better, more sustainable, sanitation systems? At least, perhaps, they get people thinking...
(The report that Giacomo attached in the post above this one is very useful, by the way)

Dear FH Mughal,
This report prepared by some ex-colleagues might answer some of your questions. I haven't read it myself yet but first thing on the list for tomorrow morning

www.ircwash.org/resources/experiences-su...nability-instruments

Best,
Giacomo

Dear Joe,

Yes, that paper is interesting. Your point: “for example residents limiting access to others because of worries that other people will make it dirty,” is in fact very important, though on the surface, it may not appear so important.

You may not believe me, but it is fact here, especially in offices, commercial establishments, and public places, that the toilets are locked, so that no one use them, and make them dirty.


Dear Giacomo,

I appreciate your point of sustained efforts and sustainability. Here in Pakistan, the aspect of sustainability is least considered in sanitation. In that context, I consider your point important, and well-taken.

Towards the end, you have made an interesting point: “Nowadays some institutional donors such as the Dutch development funds have a sustainability clause that requires the need to specify how interventions are going to be sustained for 10 years.” Could it be possible for you to share that sustainability clause of Dutch development funds, and other donors with us? It would be useful in local contexts.

Regards,

F H Mughal

Note by moderator:
This post was originally in this thread about failures in sanitation:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/183-mo...ents-the-netherlands
+++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the link FH Mughal! I really appreciate the focus of Improve Int. on failures as a pretext to actually learn something and improve our programmes.
Looking at this overview one thing really stands out for me, regardless whether it's a behaviour change or a more technological problem: it seems so painstakingly clear that external-led interventions without sustained effort have a high failure rate after a while. Whether it's resorting to old practices of open defecation (i.e. failure of behaviour change) or unusable latrines due to lack of maintenance (i.e. technology failure) it is obvious that no single intervention will have eternal effects.
What does this mean? Well in my view, if we want to achieve long-lasting change we must accept that sustained efforts will be needed and thus budgeted in the project/programme/policy. Behaviour change will require follow-up messages and maintenance works needs to be scheduled in and budgeted for!
This is hardly anything new. Nowadays some institutional donors such as the Dutch development funds have a sustainability clause that requires the need to specify how interventions are going to be sustained for 10 years. I believe USAID will also be experimenting with this, a move I fully support.

Best,
Giacomo