Presentation results case_ study_san_ marketing _vietnam
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•413 views
Presentation by Christine on rural sanitation coverage in Vietnam.
![Outline: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (10)
Similar to Presentation results case_ study_san_ marketing _vietnam
Similar to Presentation results case_ study_san_ marketing _vietnam (20)
More from IRC
More from IRC (20)
Presentation results case_ study_san_ marketing _vietnam
- 1. Final Stakeholders Meeting Hanoi, 8 September 2009
- 21. Unmet information needs of participants of FGDs without sanitary toilet (N=60) :
- 26. .
Editor's Notes
- From the case study we identified 20 Strengths, 11 Challenges, 3 Risks and 6 Opportunities
- VWU = Vietnam Women’s Union; CHW=Community Health Worker; VH=Village Head.
- FGD + Focus Group Discussion. The observations were done in the presence of the mason who had built the toilet, to discuss any observed issues.
- The gap that occurred between Phase I and Phase II was introduced in slide 4 and could be seen to have led to an immediate drop in number of toilets built. It was therefore very challenging to know what had happened after the pilot project had ended.
- The seven indicators given above resulted in the selection of two districts where progress and results had been better during the pilot project and two where the progress and results had been less positive. In each district we again selected purposively one better and one less good commune. This was to get the most balanced composition of the study sample, as we were also interested to see if we could identify why some communes stood out – the analysis of this will come in the final report.
- Bullet 2: E.g. types of toilets FGD members had installed in relation to user satisfaction; Statistics: Some communes did not reply, others only could retrieve data for the last 2 years only. Statistics from Health Dept and Commune Stats Officer were not always consistent. Jaime Frias previous head of IDE VN now sent his files, but not yet all data have been analyzed.
- Background: This photo is very typical for Vietnam. The Party makes an annual inventory of the promoters, looking at whether they perform their duties and have themselves met the criteria of a ‘cultural’= modern household. For the Party the promoters are the role models in the communes. The photo is also typical for the interview settings, with meetings with promoters in the People’s Committee halls.
- DVPF = Double Vault Pour Flush composting toilet The lower installation of composting toilets is a missed opportunity for farmers especially, because costs of chemical fertilizers become ever higher and resources of nitrogen (only two in the world) are getting depleted. There is also the problem that septic tank toilets are not sanitary, unless they include regular emptying and safe end disposal. I shall give some information on economic gains from modern composting toilets based on agricultural research in Malawi and Nepal.
- Although the focus was on household toilets, the study showed that omitting the toilets of the People’s Committee offices is an important gap, especially because the Party stresses role models of party cadres. This aspect came out in the interviews with the authorities – not yet in the preliminary report, but will be in the final report.
- CLTS= Community Led Total Sanitation. CHCs=Community Health Clubs(now piloted by MoH). BoQs = Bills of Quantities (amounts of materials needed to construct a particular toilet). Having a BoQ makes it possible to save for the components and buy them straight away, then store them until the construction can start. This method avoids the effect of inflation, helping people to know what they can buy in advance. However, they need to know under what conditions to store, and which material looses quality when storing. Communes do not have to be 100% Open Defecation Free (ODF) to see public health improve. Steve Esrey of UNICEF already proved that a critical mass of 75% was enough to get a public health impact. The last quarter is however important for equity, dignity, social justice and personal health (health for all), rather than public health. Scaling out is that promoters and providers in pilot communes and districts train fellow promoters and providers in neighboring communes and districts. It is also called ‘horizontal learning’. By giving the workers a small honorary for visits, they become facilitators in other communes. Funding can in principle come from the own Depts., as very little money is involved – only cost of transport and daily allowance. The recipient communes can be asked to provide space, catering etc. The steps in the photos: 1. Classifying who are poor in commune (=not necessarily all or same who are on the official poverty list, according to the study team. This is same in India and Indonesia. From Indonesia I have hard evidence from a study I did in Flores for WSP. 2. Mapping sanitation conditions in commune (type of toilet - sanitary/non sanitary/none - per household per class). Local people know. Involvement is usually high and the subject ‘starts to live’. The result is often an eye opener for the community. Step 3 in next slide.
- Close-up of a community sanitation map: rectangle = better off, triangle poor, circle in-between, red = unsanitary toilet, green = sanitary. Yellow= open defecation areas. Step 3: Make the commune sanitation matrix = baseline situation. Plan action and monitor action results, noting outcomes in the map and matrix. It is done by the people for the people. Local promoters are the facilitators.
- R&D = Research and Development (as a project).
- RSM= Rural Sanitation Marketing; VN = Viet Nam; CHW=Community Health Worker; VWU=Vietnam Women Union (leader); VH=Village Head. The combination of three local cadres working together for the same goal and cooperating with other unions (farmers, soldiers, youth, students, etc.) are strong points of RSM in Vietnam. Other countries may not have the same institutions. E.g. Indonesia has a national women’s organization and program (PKK), but discussions with my Indonesian colleagues confirmed that home visits by the lurahs (politically elected community heads, belonging to different parties, not a one party system as in Vietnam) are unlikely to work. They said that lurahs are unlikely to pay home visits to promote toilets and people would resent it if the lurah (village head) called on them for this kind of social pressure. I have of course no proof that it would not be possible and work, perhaps this can be tried out. In India, there is no national women’s union and the Sarpanch (village head) is a politically elected person, like in Indonesia. However, in the state program I worked in, good experiences were obtained with promotion by the members of local sanitation committees, chosen at the lowest admin level (ward=c. 500 households) with the ward MP as the .... how do you call that again (ex officio?) (someone who is automatically a member because of his/her position). I am adding this for you and the final report, not to present at the Hanoi workshop, that would go too far for the participants.
- Participatory material needed for small group meetings of those without sanitary toilets: drawings of each model with various material options and bills of quantities per model, plus a tool to identify the different financing options and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option, before making decisions on which household will install what option, how they will install as a group and what financing mechanisms the households, or the group, will use.
- VWU= Vietnam Women Union, MoH=Ministry of Health. RSM= Rural Sanitation Marketing; CLTS=Community Led Total Sanitation, CHC=Community Health Clubs. The providers already use peer learning. The promoters not yet and they do not go beyond own communes. MoH and VWU could stimulate that trained promoters train colleagues in neighboring communes and districts and offer a small incentive to them to do so, e.g. X days per year.