Gender based violence
Recent high profile cases of women and girls being violently raped and killed in India, South Africa and elsewhere have made the ugliness of gender based violence more visible. Globally it is estimated that up to 70% of women will face gender based violence at some point in her lifetime depending on the country in which she lives.12 Gender based violence is a widespread and complex issue rooted in power differences and structural inequality between men and women, although men and boys can also suffer GBV. Experiences also vary by other social factors, including ethnicity, caste, age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability and other differentiations.3
Why is GBV important in the context of WASH?
So why are we looking at this issue from the perspective of the WASH professional? We are not GBV or protection professionals and already have large workloads and responding to the large number of people who still lack access to water and sanitation is a massive challenge.
The reality is that the risk of GBV can impact significantly on the access of women and girls and in some cases boys and men, to adequate water, sanitation and hygiene.4 In both urban and rural contexts, girls and women regularly face harassment when going to the toilet, and may delay drinking and eating in order to wait until nightfall to relieve themselves. Given the taboos around defecation and menstruation and the frequent lack of privacy, women and girls, may prefer to go to the toilet or use bathing units under the cover of darkness. [Full story/more…. ]
Site /Org background
The IDS project on Community-Led total Sanitation (CLTS), also known as the CLTS Knowledge Hub, aims to support the approach to go to scale with quality and in a sustainable manner, and to accelerate its spread in order to contribute to the health and wellbeing of children, women and men in rural areas of the developing world who currently suffer the consequences of inadequate or no sanitation. We seek to contribute to intensified momentum, expanded scale, and enhanced quality and sustainability of CLTS practice and thereby to increase access to and use of safe sanitation and hygienic behaviour.
All our activities aim to co-generate and co-create practical knowledge on CLTS and to make learning and innovations widely and quickly accessible. Through staying in touch and interacting with stakeholders on a regular basis, we try to keep up with what is happening with CLTS globally and are often able to make linkages between organisations and individuals interested and engaged in CLTS. We wish to encourage and support champions and add to the energy and momentum of CLTS. In order to raise awareness and commitment of practitioners and policy champions and support good practices and policies, the three main activities we engage in are:
- action learning, networking and dissemination,
- (co-)convening workshops for sharing and learning, and
- the CLTS website and bi-monthly e-newsletter.
IDS’s [Institute of Development Studies]work on CLTS, including the CLTS website (in its previous versions) were initially as part of the three year (2006-2009) DFID-funded research, action learning and networking project Going to Scale? The Potential of Community-led Total Sanitation . Until 31st December 2009, the action learning and networking aspect of this work continued as the project Sharing Lessons, Improving Practice: Maximising the potential of Community-Led Total Sanitation funded by Irish Aid From 1st January 2010 onwards, this work is being funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Community-Led total Sanitation (CLTS) pages:
- Gender Based Violence (kennizworld.wordpress.com)
- Ireland pledges KR8,900,000 for GBV fight (times.co.zm)
- Gender-based Violence in War times and Peace (halfofhumanity.wordpress.com)
- FROM AKIMBO | Standing Strong for a Woman’s Right to a Just and Healthy Life (womensphilanthropy.typepad.com)
is Available From WSP Water and Sanitation Program is 174 page pdf doc dated January 2010
“The study was written by Sophie Trémolet (independent consultant) under the leadership and guidance of Eddy Perez (Water and Sanitation Program – WSP) and Pete Kolsky (World Bank)…”
It starts with a quick overview of current conditions quoting from a variety of existing publications:
“…sanitation costs the economies of four Southeast Asian countries the equivalent of approximately 2 percent of their GDP…”
“In the six countries described in this study, the capital cost of household sanitation varied between US$17 and US$568, costs which often exceeded half the annual household income of the poor in the respective project areas.”
They go on to say ” The challenges of fnance – the practical decisions about who pays how much for what, when, and how – thus lie at the heart of the world’s eforts to promote health, dignity, and a cleaner environment through sanitation. Yet despite the importance of the topic, past eforts to gather meaningful data on sanitation fnance have largely failed.” Thus, the study.
The 6 cases studies are:
- Bangladesh DISHARI – based on Community Led Total Sanitation CTLS
- rural areas
- Basic latrines
- 1,630,733 people
- 2004 to 2008
- Ecuador – PRAGUAS
- rural areas
- Sanitation units (toilet, septic tank, sink, shower)
- 143,320 people
- 2001 to 2006
- Maharashtra (India) – Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) using CLTS approaches
- rural areas
- Improved latrines
- 21,200,417 people
- July 2000 to November 2008
- Mozambique – Improved Latrines Program (PLM) –
- urban areas
- Improved latrines
- 1,887,891 people
- 1980 to 2007
- Sénégal- PAQPUD –
- urban areas
- improved latrines to septic tanks
- 410,507 people
- 2002 to 2005
- Vietnam – Sanitation Revolving Fund SRF
- urban areas
- Mostly bathrooms and septic tanks
- 193,670 people
- 2001 to 2008
According to the study they address:
• How much does provision of access to on-site sanitation cost, that is, once all costs (hardware and soft-
ware) are taken into account?
• Do the type and scale of sanitation subsidy afect provision and uptake? How?
• How can the public sector most efectively support household investment in on-site sanitation?
• Should it be via investment in demand stimulation, subsidies to households or suppliers, by support to
credit schemes, or by other means?
• Should hardware subsidies be provided or should public spending be focused on promoting demand or supporting the supply side of the market? Where hardware subsidies are adopted, what is the best way
to ensure that they reach their intended recipients and are sustainable and scalable?
• What innovative mechanisms (such as credit or revolving funds) can be used to promote household sanitation fnancing?
- “Impact on sustainable access to services: Did the project contribute to increasing access to sanitation? “
- “Costs: Are the costs of the resulting sanitation facilities reasonable and affordable to the beneficiaries?”
- “Effectiveness in the use of public funds: Were public funds used in a way that maximized impact? “
- “Poverty targeting: Did the program seek to target the poor and was the program effective at doing so?”
- “Financial sustainability: Could the financial approach be sustained over time without external support?”
- “Scalability: Could the fnancial approach be scaled up to cover those who are not yet covered in the
country at a reasonable cost?”
The Key finding explored in detail in the study are
- “Taken together, the case studies make a compelling case that partial public funding can trigger signifcantly increased access to household sanitation. “
- “The studies show that the most relevant question is not “Are subsidies good or bad?” but rather “How best can we invest public funds?” “
- “The diferent fnancing strategies adopted had a profound infuence, for better or for worse, on equity, scale, sustainability, levels of service, and costs.”
- “Households are key investors in on-site sanitation, and careful project design and implementation can maximize their involvement, satisfaction, and fnancial investment…”
- “Hardware subsidies of some form played a critical role in all six case studies. “
- “Subsidy targeting methods need to be tailored to country circumstances. “
- “The provision of hardware subsidies on an output basis rather than an input basis can be efective at stimulating demand and leveraging private investment.”
- All of the case studies included a signifcant publicly funded software component (promotion and community mobilization).