Arno, I am sure somebody from WSSCC will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the data is derived largely from people who have undergone CLTS training, so not many toilets built.

The numbers are impressive. 10 million people in 13 countries now ODF thanks to GSF-funded projects. Question is what these data are based on. Actual ground-truthed data or funded programmes?
Wondering if WSSCC or the beneficiary countries provide monitoring data on these projects in terms of whether the toilets have been built and inspected, level of use and permanency? Do the JMP-published surveys corroborate these data?

Review of various posts on sanitation shows that the construction of toilets alone, is not sufficient, in themselves, to improve sanitation, or ending the open defecation. The power of toilets will be visible only when there is behavioral change.

A recent post, jointly authored by Chris W. Williams, Executive Director, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC), and Christian Holmes, Deputy Assistant Administrator in USAID's Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, and the Agency's first Global Water Coordinator, titled: “Tapping into the Power of the Toilet,” (available at www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-w-williams/...oilet_b_8592332.html), gives some solutions, and some basic facts.

In brief, some of the points in the post are:


• The Millennium Development Goals’ target to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to basic sanitation fell short by almost 700 million. One in three people still live without access to adequate sanitation, 1 billion people defecate in the open, and 748 million people live without access to improved drinking water.

• An estimated 1,500 children die every day from diarrhea largely caused by a lack of access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene -- more than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined.

• Poor sanitation alone may also be responsible for as much as half of the world's stunting problems, due to diarrhea and related malnutrition. And poor sanitation prevents people from attending work and school due to illness, causing numerous negative economic impacts.

• The good news is that governments around the world are paying greater attention to the sanitation crisis, and recognizing that sustainable, appropriate, low cost, and culturally appropriate technologies exist, and are an important component of a broader system-based approach needed to safely manage sanitation waste.
(This may be true in some countries; however, in most poor developing countries, the governments are not paying any attention, as there is no political will – F H Mughal)

• Governments are also starting to work with local communities to allocate resources and address the basic needs of their people. This means prioritizing sanitation in national development plans and strategies, and providing budget support to meet these goals.
(This is one solution – the governments need to work with local communities – F H Mughal)

• Investing in WASH is not only about saving human lives and dignity, it is essential for sustainable investments in human development.

• Previously, it was assumed that building toilets was sufficient for achieving total sanitation. However, we have learned that in practice this is not the case. All too often large sums of money were spent on building toilets for communities that were either poorly maintained or never even used.

• 100 per cent latrine coverage is not achievable with this approach (building toilets) nor is it enough to mitigate sanitation and hygiene-related diseases. Not surprisingly the answer lies in an a more sophisticated and comprehensive systems-based approach that includes stopping open defecation through sustained hygienic behavior change at scale while increasing the ability of communities, towns and cities to safely manage sanitation waste and prevent it from contaminating the environment and causing diseases.

• WSSCC's financing arm, the Global Sanitation Fund (GSF), gathers and channels donor funding to community-led programs in Africa and Asia. Thanks to GSF-supported programs, close to 10 million people in 13 countries no longer defecate in the open - and more people join their ranks every day. This is evidence that behavior change is an effective way to improve sanitation at scale in countries with very high rates of open defecation in a relatively short period of time. Sanitation is also a sound economic investment, for every dollar invested in sanitation, 5.5 dollars are gained in return.


The main thrust, for achieving success in sanitation, is on behavior change. Global Sanitation Fund – Progress Report 2014 shows good progress for India.

While in Pakistan, there are no sustained efforts for behavior change in sanitation, the fact is that the sanitation scenario continues to be poor in Pakistan, especially in the rural areas.

F H Mughal

Hi Okechukwu

Thanks for the insight of the GSF-funded programmes.

But Dr Meshack Ndirangu the Country Director of AMREF, the executing agency of the USD$ 5 Million GSF contract was quoted as having said “……, AMREF Kenya will have the objective of moving 755,400 people from open defecation to using basic latrines, help more than 200 villages to be certified open defecation free, and move a further 377,700 people from basic latrines to improved sanitation facilities. In addition to this, the implementing organizations will have to work to improve the capacity of 500 officers from the government and private sector. Once this is achieved, it is estimated that Kenya will have reached the 2020 target by 80% in the selected sub-counties.”

Kindly note the time frame – 5 years. In Kenya, the progamme will also promote handwashing with soap and adoption of appropriate hygiene practices; increase access to sanitation and adoption of hygiene behavior.

I’ll have to study and do some research from the material you have put forth and especially the websites to understand the GSF results.

Best regards / Mwaniki

Hi Mwaniki,

Thanks for your feedback and for sharing the article. Please find responses to your comments below:

“It is important that the WSSCC/GSF team urgently needs to review their statistics in the countries of operations because the ODF figures are not representative. To anybody outside Africa, these reports are deceptive as it shows that we do not have toilets here at all.”

Please note that GSF results represent what GSF-funded programmes have achieved within target communities in need, which represent a very small percentage of the overall demographic in our countries of implementation. Our results by no means reflect the overall sanitation and hygiene situation throughout our countries of implementation. We are by no means implying that 173 million people in Nigeria practice open defecation. As of December 2014, the number of people living in targeted areas of the GSF-funded programme in Nigeria was 278,156 people and not the entire Nigerian population of approximately 177.5 million people (the 177.5 million figure is sourced from the World Bank ).

For information on the number of people living in targeted areas as of December 2014, please refer to the country profiles in our 2014 GSF Progress Report . In those profiles, you will also see a ‘Facts’ section that provides overall statistics on the sanitation and hygiene situation in each country, sourced from the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, UN Data and the World Bank. In Nigeria for example, the percentage of people practicing open defecation was 23% in 2014 as presented in the 2014 GSF Progress Report (page 41). According to the 2015 report of the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme on sanitation and hygiene the total open defecation figure is now 25% (page 68).

“I would like to know what statistical model they used to obtain these results. It is of great concern because, suppose you were a Nigerian, how would you feel to be told that the whole of 173 million of the population in that country exercise open defecation?”

For your remark on the situation in Nigeria, please refer to my comments above. Regarding our statistical model, please refer to the ‘GSF Results’ section on page 4 of the 2014 GSF Progress Report , which includes a specific section on attribution and verification of results.

As highlighted in the ‘GSF Results’ section, GSF results are based on reports submitted to the GSF Secretariat by Executing Agencies (EAs) (based on information received from Sub-grantees). Sub-grantees perform regular self-reporting and EAs report to the GSF every six months according to country specific monitoring systems set up and managed by the respective EAs. Periodic spot checks by EAs and Country Programme Monitors have been carried out as per agreed regular monitoring procedures, and have been followed by independent outcome surveys and mid-term evaluations (typically after the first three years of implementation).

The GSF is aware of the many challenges faced regarding monitoring, results verification and evaluation, and it is actively working to address them. For example, the GSF is working to strengthen and standardize its results framework and monitoring systems and processes across countries of operation through various means, such as gathering input from various stakeholders, commissioning independent surveys and evaluations, and designing and implementing action plans (based on the input, surveys and evaluations). Results of independent outcome surveys and mid-term evaluations of GSF-supported programmes will be shared with the general public shortly.

Please refer to page 10 of the 2014 GSF Progress Report for more information on monitoring and evaluation. Furthermore, our next full-year Progress Report (to be released by the second quarter of 2016) will provide more information and improved explanations on our results framework, how we verify results and challenges faced.

“Look at the reports about Kenya which are even worse as at June 2015.
People living in ODF environments - 0
People with handwashing facilities – 0
People with improved toilets – 0
40 million people in Kenya without toilets? Nonsense. Which means that I in particular do not have a toilet and go elsewhere. Of course am furious about these reports.”

Again, it is worth reiterating that GSF results represent what GSF-funded programmes have achieved within target communities in need, which represent a very small percentage of the demographic in our countries of implementation. Our results by no means reflect the overall sanitation and hygiene situation throughout countries of implementation. We are by no means implying that there are 40 million people in Kenya without toilets. As shown in the 2014 GSF Progress Report (page 27), the Kenya programme is a relatively new programme that began in November 2014. As of December 2014, the 5-year programme aimed to eventually work in communities consisting of 1.92 million, which is a very small percentage of the total population of about 44.86 million (the 44.86 million figure is sourced from the World Bank ). Furthermore, the ‘Facts’ section in the Kenya programme profile within the 2014 GSF Progress Report shows that the percentage of people practicing open defecation in Kenya was 13% in 2014, according to UNICEF/WHO. According to the 2015 report of the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme on sanitation and hygiene, this figure is now 12% (page 64).

As is the case for all GSF-funded programmes, results typically start to be achieved between years 2-3 of the programme. Year 1 and the early part of year 2 typically encompass putting staff, systems, procedures and equipment in place, while learning from other more established programmes.

It is worth re-iterating that the GSF does not aim to singlehandedly solve the overall sanitation and hygiene problem in its countries of operation. What the GSF is essentially aiming to do, as mentioned in my previous comments in this thread, is demonstrate viable approaches to sustained sanitation and hygiene behavior change and work with governments and other partners to look for ways to scale up these approaches.

Please do not hesitate to consult the 2014 GSF Progress Report , the 2015 Mid-Year Update and the GSF news/resources section on the WSSCC website to learn more about the context in which we work in our countries of implementation, how results are verified, challenges faced and other aspects.

Kind regards,
Okechukwu Umelo
Media and Communications Officer, WSSCC/GSF

Hi Nanpet & Okechukwu

Thanks for your responses to my observation.

It is important that the WSSCC/GSF team urgently needs to review their statistics in the countries of operations because the ODF figures are not representative. To anybody outside Africa, these reports are deceptive as it shows that we do not have toilets here at all. I would like to know what statistical model they used to obtain these results. It is of great concern because, suppose you were a Nigerian, how would you feel to be told that the whole of 173 million of the population in that country exercise open defecation?

Look at the reports about Kenya which are even worse as at June 2015.

People living in ODF environments - 0
People with handwashing facilities – 0
People with improved toilets – 0

40 million people in Kenya without toilets? Nonsense. Which means that I in particular do not have a toilet and go elsewhere. Of course am furious about these reports.

I would like to point out that that such statistics influence the economic growth of countries. In this case, the results are giving negative impacts on the African economies such as in the tourism sector. When tourist agents in Europe or the Americas view these reports, the attitude here is that we do not have toilet facilities in Africa at this moment in time which is not the case. The businesses are then cancelled and the countries lose revenue or foreign exchange to be more precise.

Am happy to report that Concern Worldwide also operates in Kenya mainly in the rural areas where they work with the nomadic communities. I think they do a fantastic job with the people.

President Muhammadu Buhari speech during the commemoration of Nigeria’s 55 years of independence as reported by the BBC on October 3, 2015 is enclosed in the attachment.

Best regards / Mwaniki

Hi Mwaniki,
I can share your sentiments and ‘suspect’ of results that can emerge from such a large population like Nigeria, especially when you put such a small progress of 154+ thousand people against 173+ Million. However, I would like to say that with the GSF supported programme in Nigeria we are beginning to prove the skeptics wrong. We are working in 6 Local government Areas in Cross River & Benue States, engaging traditional, religious and political leaders at the local levels to support community initiatives to end open defecation. This is blossoming into small movements of communities and groups of communities seeking to make a change for themselves with no subsidy (from the government nor the programme). One approach we use that is building collective pressure and increasing the demand for change is our support to hosting periodic (once in 2 months) meetings, where communities that are ODF offer their support to those lagging behind; community members themselves act as the consultants, telling of strategies and approaches they are employing to get entire communities ODF. This peer review, the dedication of trained local staff and the buy-in from local leaders is in no small measure adding to the results Okechukwu presented in his (earlier) contribution and I can tell you it is no fluke.
If you know Nigeria well – there are other players in the sector, who have been there longer than the GSF programme. Yes, we are only in 2 out of 36 states and a small piece out of the lot, but we are a replicable model and we are nurturing it to grow beyond what it currently is.
Kind regards
Nanpet Chuktu.
Programme Manager - Concern Universal - Executing Agency, GSF-Supported RUSHPIN Programme, Nigeria

Hi Mwaniki,

Many thanks for your contribution and interest in this topic. It is first worth clarifying that the approximately 10 million people living in ODF environments represents all 13 WSSCC Global Sanitation Fund (GSF)-supported countries combined. For more information on the results of each GSF-supported country, including Nigeria, click here .

The GSF-supported programme in Nigeria (Rural Sanitation & Hygiene Promotion in Nigeria, or RUSHPIN) is an initiative of the Nigerian Government through the National Task Group on Sanitation, facilitated by an international NGO and implemented by local governments and civil society organizations. From the programme’s inception in late 2012, RUSHPIN has worked to prioritize sanitation and hygiene. To date, RUSHPIN has helped 156,193 people create the conditions to live in ODF environments. In order to eventually achieve large-scale results, the programme works to demonstrate viable approaches to sustained sanitation and hygiene behaviour change (such as those highlighted in my previous response to this discussion thread) and collaborate with local governments to promote and mobilize support for improved sanitation and hygiene.

In June 2014, the Federal Government and the State Governments of Cross River and Benue signed a Memorandum of Understanding collectively committing an additional $5 million to expand the programme from three Local Government Areas (LGAs) to six additional LGAs. To date, these commitments have not yet been delivered.

It is therefore great to hear that President Buhari directly addressed Nigeria’s sanitation crisis; this is an indication that the issue of open defecation is being given top-level priority. The WSSCC/GSF team would be happy to receive any additional information you may have on Buhari’s Independence Day address relating to sanitation.

Kind regards,
Okechukwu Umelo
Media and Communications Officer, WSSCC/GSF

Dear Mr. Umelo,

Thank you for your informative response. I appreciate.
I'll consult the Progress Report for more details.

Kind regards,
F H Mughal

Dear Mr. Mughal,

Thank you for your interest in our work. The GSF model includes a number of approaches that have been essential to our progress. They include our community-based implementation methodology, our local delivery mechanism and our work with local implementing partners. Together, they are the key determinants of the GSF’s progress. More information and links are provided below.

Implementation methodology of the financing mechanism
Perhaps the strongest determinant of GSF results is the implementation methodology used to reach large numbers of households in a relatively short period of time. The GSF model offers flexibility for countries to develop their programme within the context of their own institutional framework and according to their own specific needs, sector capacity and stakeholders. GSF is one of the few funds for government-led, donor-funded sanitation and hygiene programmes. It can serve as a catalyst to the wider sector in-country, serving as a model which is replicable for others interested in large-scale behaviour change programmes. The model most often used is the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach, which governments, agencies and NGOs have used in more than 40 countries for over 20 years.

Decentralization
The ability of national sanitation and hygiene programmes supported by the GSF to have results at scale is closely tied to how programming is aligned with the way governments decentralize or devolve public administration. This is particularly so because of the implementation methods inherent in the model. GSF-supported programmes apply a local delivery mechanism that engages households in thousands of villages, which enables people to make informed decisions about their sanitation and hygiene behaviour that can improve their health, education and productivity.

Role of implementing partners
The practitioners of NGOs, local governments and health extension programmes are the front lines of GSF. How they internalize CLTS and adapt a method of implementation that reaches thousands of villages is a key determinant of success. Prior to serving as Sub-grantees of the Executing Agency contracted by WSSCC, most implementing partners have not applied methods of CLTS at scale. This is especially true for NGOs whose units of intervention were individual communities, rather than entire districts or regions. They develop techniques for applying CLTS in multiple contexts and working with district and regional governments, as well as learning from and contributing to the efforts of other implementing partners.

Read more about these determinants of success on pages 7-8 of the 2014 GSF Progress Report .

Other viable approaches that cut across GSF-funded programmes include:

• Development of a country Programme Coordinating Mechanism
• Procurement of a Country Programme Monitor to monitor the implementation of the approved country programme, with a focus on financial verification and systems and results verification
• Baseline data collection as a basis for reviewing assumptions, setting targets and developing detailed implementation strategies
• Capacity development interventions targeting selected Sub-grantees to ensure effective programme implementation
• Mobilization of regional and local government authorities in targeted areas, and other partners, to ensure sustainable results and ownership by those duty bearers responsible for service provision
• Sub-grantees working with communities through participatory planning and monitoring processes at the community level to set and report against targets
• Community mobilization activities and continuous follow-up to create demand for improved sanitation and to stimulate improved hygiene behaviours
• Support to the private sector, particularly local entrepreneurs, to establish a supply chain ready to meet the demand for improved sanitation and hygiene services;
• Support to hygiene messaging and media campaigns that create demand and help establish supply chains
• Developing learning and communication pathways using Sub-grantees, CPMs, and existing government structures, with the aim of being results-based and ensuring continuous programme improvement.

Read more about how the GSF adds value through its approaches in the 2014 Progress Report and the brochure, ‘10 reasons to partner with the Global Sanitation Fund’ .

Many thanks again for your interest in the GSF.

With best regards,
Okechukwu Umelo
Media and Communications Officer, WSSCC/GSF

Hi Okechukwu

Am sorry to say that I doubt reports on WSSCC achievements to date. The 10 million figure is suspect considering it’s only the other day when President Muhammadu Buhari was pleading with Nigerians during the commemoration of that country’s 55 years of independence to stop open defecation.

When such matters reach the head of state, you treat that as an emergency. According to WSSCC’s, reports show that only 156,193 Nigerians are living in ODF environments, that’s 0.0009% of the population which was reported as 173.4 million in 2013. If that’s the actual statistics, then almost 99.999% of the Nigerian population is doing open defecation.

And is it really possible in the Nigerian case?

Kind regards / Mwaniki

Dear Mr. Umelo,

Thank you for your enlightened response. I'm particularly delighted to note your
demonstration of viable approaches to sustained sanitation and hygiene behavior change.

I'm anxious to know what these viable approaches are. Hopefully, their application in Pakistan, and in countries outside of those 13 countries, will help in minimizing OD percentages.

Could you please highlight those viable approaches here, for my benefit, and for the benefit of other forum users.

Regards,

F H Mughal