briefing note: review assessing sanitation policy€¦ · uganda policy states that capital subsidy...
TRANSCRIPT
Comparing National Sanitation Policy Content
An initial review of nine country profiles
Briefing Note: Review
SummaryAs part of research assessing the effectiveness of national sanitation policies, in 2003 the contents of 9 national policy documents were reviewed:
Bangladesh – National Policy for Water Supply and Sanitation, 1998
Cambodia – National Policy on Urban Sanitation, September 1999
Ghana – Environmental Sanitation Policy, published 1999
Indonesia – National Policy for the Development of Community-Managed Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Facilities and Services, 2002 (draft 3)
Mozambique – National Water Policy, 1995
Nepal – National Sanitation Policy, July 1994
Nigeria – National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy, 2000
South Africa – White Paper on Basic Household Sanitation, 2001
Uganda – National Environmental Health Policy for Uganda, April 2003 (draft)
The review addressed questions concerning key elements of policy, as identified in the USAID’s Environmental Health Project (EHP) report Guidelines for the assessment of national sanitation policies (Elledge et al, 2002, Section 3). Additional questions provide background information on the scope of the policy, when and how it was produced.
Findings of this review are in the table that follows.
Key findings Targets and resources: None of the policies attempt to quantify targets
or identify the resources to be budgeted for sanitation improvements other than in a very general way.
Assessment of the existing situation: Few of the policies provide more than a very general assessment of the existing situation in the country to which they relate. Some reflect the current thinking and priorities of international agencies.
Targeted groups: Some, but not all, policies make reference to the specific needs of target groups, e.g. the urban poor, residents of small towns, inhabitants of rural communities. In most cases, reference is made to the needs of some of these groups. A few make very general reference to programmes or budgets targeted at these groups.
− The Uganda policy makes reference to the needs of urban and peri-urban populations, while the South Africa policy focuses on the needs of rural communities and informal settlements.
Minimum levels of service: None of the policies specify minimum service levels, although broad reference is given in the South Africa policy.
Related ministries: In most cases, neither the Ministry of Health nor the Ministry of Environment has been specifically mentioned as being involved in the preparation of policy.
− In South Africa, both ministries were represented in the Task Team that developed the policy. In Uganda the Ministry of Health is the lead agency.
Health considerations: Most of the policies reviewed have a specific concern with health.
− The South Africa and Uganda policies provide background information on the types and magnitude of health problems arising from poor sanitation.
Assessing Sanitation Policy
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Environmental considerations: Most policies include general references to the need to protect the environment, but none indicates the magnitude of sanitation-related environmental problems.
Cost of sanitation: Few of the policies provide any indication of the cost of meeting sanitation needs.
− The South Africa policy provides information on the maximum capital and O&M cost per household.
Subsidies for capital: Most policies allow for some subsidy of capital costs.
− The Ghana policy explicitly allows financial allocations from national government to subsidize the recurrent costs of municipal systems. The Uganda policy states that capital subsidy should be allowed for the poorest, those living in areas with poor ground conditions, tenants and people in transit.
Hygiene education: The Nepal, South Africa and Uganda policies refer to the need to fund hygiene education. However, only South Africa defines what the subsidy should be (R600 per household at the time) and identifies its source (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry).
Institutional arrangements: Most policies provide general rather than specific guidance on institutional policies and roles. Some provide general guidance on the options for correcting institutional weaknesses. Most, but not all, policies identify a lead agency for coordinating sanitation activities.
− The South Africa policy is the only one to clearly identify roles and responsibilities for related government ministries (Ministry of Health, Education).
Technical/social aspects: Most policies recognize the need to take account of concerns relating to both technical (‘hardware’, such as design options for latrines) and social (‘software’, such as awareness raising) aspects of sanitation provision. Some give a good balance between these concerns, while others focus mainly on software aspects of provision.
While social aspects may dominate in the wording of policy; allocation of budgets, roles and responsibilities, together with specific aspects relating to hygiene education, are not clearly identified. The concern for social aspects may therefore be more theoretical, responding to perceptions of current best practice, rather than enabling action at the community or household level.
Sanitation finds a home in South AfricaLack of sound institutional frameworks is a major cause of failed sanitation provision. Sanitation rarely has a clear institutional “home”, resulting in fragmented responsibilities, lack of ownership and poor coordination.
South Africa has pioneered “joined-up thinking” through its innovative national sanitation policy; a particularly striking feature is the multi-sectoral approach to sanitation provision. Whilst overall responsibility for sanitation rests with a specific department, the programme development and implementation is actually achieved by multi-sectoral partnership involving the household, local government, NGOs, private sector, provincial government and the central government. The institutional and organizational framework clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of these stakeholders1.
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Gen
eral
que
stio
ns
Is t
he p
olic
y se
para
te o
r co
mbi
ned
with
w
ater
sup
ply?
Com
bine
dS
epar
ate
Sep
arat
eC
ombi
ned
Com
bine
d (c
alle
d na
tiona
l w
ater
pol
icy)
Sep
arat
e –
with
gu
idel
ines
for
plan
ning
and
im
plem
enta
tion
Com
bine
dS
epar
ate
Sep
arat
e –
with
in
Envi
ronm
enta
l H
ealth
pol
icy
Wha
t is
the
sc
ope
of
the
polic
y (u
rban
/rura
l, co
mpr
ehen
sive
/po
vert
y fo
cuse
d)?
Com
preh
ensi
ve(u
rban
/rura
l)U
rban
Com
preh
ensi
ve(u
rban
/rura
l)C
omm
unity
-ba
sed
serv
ices
Com
preh
ensi
ve(u
rban
/rura
l)C
ompr
ehen
sive
(urb
an/ru
ral)
Com
preh
ensi
ve(u
rban
/rura
l)Fo
cuse
s on
rur
al
and
info
rmal
se
ttle
men
ts
Com
preh
ensi
ve(u
rban
/rura
l)
Whe
n w
as t
he
polic
y pr
epar
ed?
1998
1999
1999
2002
1995
1994
2000
2001
2003
(re
view
on
goin
g 11
/03)
Who
pre
pare
d th
e po
licy?
Gov
ernm
ent
depa
rtm
ent(2
)C
onsu
ltant
Gov
ernm
ent
Con
sulta
nt?
Gov
ernm
ent
Dep
artm
ent?
(3)
Gov
ernm
ent
depa
rtm
ent(4
)C
onsu
ltant
?G
over
nmen
t –
Nat
iona
l S
anita
tion
Task
Te
am
Gov
ernm
ent
– M
inis
try
of
Hea
lth
Wha
t pr
ovis
ion
was
mad
e fo
r co
nsul
tatio
n on
th
e po
licy?
Not
cle
ar b
ut
prob
ably
lim
ited
Dis
cuss
ions
with
48
focu
s gr
oups
, go
vt o
ffici
als
etc.
‘Ext
ensi
ve’
cons
ulta
tion
Con
sulta
tive
proc
ess
to
prod
uce
polic
y
Not
iden
tifie
dN
ot id
entif
ied
Not
cle
ar b
ut
prob
ably
lim
ited
Con
sulta
tion
with
in t
he
Task
Tea
m,
invo
lvin
g ra
nge
of G
over
nmen
t M
inis
trie
s
Not
iden
tifie
d
Lega
l fra
mew
ork
(Sec
tion
3.3
)2
Are
role
s an
d re
spon
sibi
litie
s cl
ear
and
appr
opria
tely
as
sign
ed t
o in
stitu
tions
?
Yes
No
Has
the
pol
icy
been
form
ally
ad
opte
d?(Q
uest
ion
in
Gui
delin
es is
w
heth
er t
he
exis
ting
lega
l fra
mew
ork
adeq
uate
ly
cove
rs
sani
tatio
n)
Yes
No
Yes
Appr
oved
by
depu
ty m
inis
ter
Not
cle
ar(p
roba
bly
yes)
Yes
No
Yes
No
- po
licy
curr
ently
in
revi
ew p
roce
ss
(Nov
‘03)
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Out
puts
& t
arge
ts (
Sec
tion
3.4
)
Doe
s th
e po
licy
refe
r to
spe
cific
ou
tput
s an
d ta
rget
s?(N
ote:
thi
s an
d th
e fo
llow
ing
four
que
s-tio
ns a
re n
ot
incl
uded
in t
he
Gui
delin
es,
but
have
bee
n ad
ded
as t
hey
seem
rel
evan
t).
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
( in
a r
athe
r ge
nera
l way
)Ye
sO
bjec
tives
are
ge
nera
l, bu
t re
fer
to t
arge
ts
of H
MG
N(5
)
No
(tar
gets
for
wat
er s
uppl
y cl
early
sta
ted)
Yes
- S
tate
Pr
esid
ent’s
O
ffice
tar
get
of
basi
c m
inim
um
leve
l to
all b
y 20
10
No
- ob
ject
ives
an
d ai
ms
are
give
n in
gen
eral
te
rms
Are
targ
ets
quan
tifie
d w
here
ap
prop
riate
?
No
No
Gen
eral
ly n
o(6)
No
Yes
(spe
cific
ally
fo
r ur
ban
area
s)N
oN
o (e
xcep
t fo
r w
ater
sup
ply)
No
No
Are
inst
itutio
nal
targ
ets
incl
uded
?
Yes
Yes
(res
pons
ibili
ty
for
sani
tatio
n m
anag
emen
t
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Doe
s th
e po
licy
indi
cate
a t
ime-
fram
e fo
r th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
ta
rget
s?
No
No
No
Ref
ers
to 5
yr
impl
emen
tatio
n pe
riod
Yes
(by
end
of
2000
)N
oN
oYe
s -
by 2
010
No
Doe
s th
e po
licy
rela
te t
he
targ
ets
to t
he
exis
ting
situ
atio
n an
d cu
rren
t pr
oble
ms
No
No
(rel
ates
mor
e to
rec
ent
WS
P th
inki
ng)
No
No
(rel
ates
mor
e to
inte
rnat
iona
l ag
ency
prio
ritie
s
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
- st
ates
nu
mbe
r of
h/h
w
ithou
t ac
cess
to
san
itatio
n
N/A
Doe
s th
e po
licy
mak
e sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to t
he
need
s of
rur
al
com
mun
ities
, sm
all t
owns
an
d po
or u
rban
co
mm
uniti
es?
Rur
al a
nd u
rban
co
mm
uniti
es
cons
ider
ed
sepa
rate
ly
Urb
an g
roup
s -
whi
ch im
plic
itly
incl
ude
poor
co
mm
uniti
es
No
Yes
- in
so
far
as
focu
sed
on s
mal
l co
mm
unity
-ba
sed
sche
mes
Not
spe
cific
ally
Iden
tifie
s ne
ed
for
sepa
rate
ru
ral/u
rban
pl
ans,
etc
.Pr
iorit
y to
m
ost
dens
ely
popu
late
d ur
ban/
sem
i-ur
ban
area
s
Yes,
esp
ecia
lly
rura
l co
mm
uniti
es
Polic
y fo
cuse
s on
rur
al
com
mun
ities
an
d in
form
al
sett
lem
ents
. Pr
iorit
y to
co
mm
uniti
es
with
out
basi
c le
vel o
f ser
vice
, w
ith g
reat
est
heal
th r
isk
Yes
- m
entio
ns
prob
lem
s fo
r ur
ban
and
peri-
urba
n po
pula
tion
in t
he
intr
oduc
tion
Doe
s th
e po
licy
mak
e re
fere
nce
to e
ither
pr
ogra
mm
es o
r bu
dget
s fo
r th
e ta
rget
ed g
roup
s
No
No
No
Onl
y in
a v
ery
gene
ral w
ayYe
sN
oN
oN
oC
onsi
ders
fund
s fo
r sc
hool
s,
heal
th u
nits
, re
fuge
es, l
ow
inco
me
h/hs
, &
geog
raph
ical
ly
diffi
cult
area
s
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Leve
ls o
f se
rvic
e (S
ecti
on 3
.5)
Doe
s th
e po
licy
defin
e m
inim
um
serv
ice
leve
ls
for
the
targ
eted
po
pula
tion
grou
ps
No
No
(but
re
fere
nce
to
tech
nolo
gy
choi
ces)
No
No
No
No
No
Bro
adly
: hyg
iene
aw
aren
ess
& b
ehav
iour
, di
spos
al
syst
ems,
toi
let
faci
lity
per
h/h
No
Are
thes
e se
rvic
e le
vels
ap
prop
riate
in
the
ligh
t of
ex
istin
g an
d pl
anne
d w
ater
su
pply
ser
vice
s
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hea
lth
cons
ider
atio
ns (
Sec
tion
3.6
)
Did
the
Min
istr
y of
Hea
lth
play
a r
ole
in
natio
nal p
olic
y fo
rmul
atio
n?
No
Not
cle
ar b
ut
prob
ably
not
Min
or r
ole
at
mos
tN
oN
oN
ot id
entif
ied
Not
cle
ar -
pr
obab
ly n
otYe
s, p
art
of T
ask
Team
Yes
- le
ad
agen
cy
Is h
ealth
an
expl
icit
conc
ern
of t
he p
olic
y?
Yes
Pass
ing
refe
renc
e –
mai
n fo
cus
on s
anita
tion
as
econ
omic
and
so
cial
goo
d
No
Yes
(but
mai
n ai
ms
rela
te t
o qu
ality
of l
ife)
No
Yes
- w
ithin
de
finiti
on o
f sa
nita
tion,
st
atem
ent,
di
rect
ive
and
obje
ctiv
es
No
Yes
- w
ithin
de
finiti
on,
prob
lem
st
atem
ent
and
prin
cipl
es
Hea
lth is
of
prim
ary
conc
ern
Doe
s th
e po
licy
prov
ide
info
rmat
ion
on t
he t
ypes
an
d m
agni
tude
of
the
hea
lth
prob
lem
s ar
isin
g fro
m p
oor
sani
tatio
n?
No
No
Type
s to
som
e ex
tent
No
No
Iden
tifie
s IM
R(7
) in
the
intr
oduc
tion
No
Yes,
with
in
cide
nce
of
diar
rhoe
a in
ch
ildre
n <
5yrs
Yes
Doe
s th
e po
licy
addr
ess
thes
e he
alth
pr
oble
ms?
N/A
N/A
To s
ome
exte
ntN
/AN
oYe
s -
in
dire
ctiv
es a
nd
obje
ctiv
es
No
Yes,
with
hyg
iene
be
havi
ours
Yes
- pr
imar
y ai
m a
nd v
isio
n
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Envi
ronm
enta
l con
side
rati
on (
Sec
tion
3.7
)
Did
the
Min
istr
y of
Env
ironm
ent
play
a r
ole
in
natio
nal p
olic
y fo
rmul
atio
n?
No
Not
cle
ar b
ut
prob
ably
not
Min
or r
ole
at
mos
tN
oN
oN
ot id
entif
ied
No
Yes,
with
in T
ask
Team
Not
iden
tifie
d
Doe
s th
e po
licy
mak
e sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to t
he
prot
ectio
n of
the
en
viro
nmen
t
Yes
Yes,
but
as
with
he
alth
rat
her
in
pass
ing
Yes
(but
rat
her
in p
assi
ng)
Gen
eral
re
fere
nces
No
Yes
- in
the
in
trod
uctio
n, in
th
e de
finiti
on
of s
anita
tion
and
the
polic
y st
atem
ent
No
Yes,
in p
robl
em
stat
emen
t,
defin
ition
and
pr
inci
ples
Yes
- in
som
e de
tail
Doe
s th
e po
licy
prov
ide
any
indi
catio
n of
th
e m
agni
tude
of
san
itatio
n-re
late
d en
viro
nmen
tal
prob
lem
s?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Not
spe
cific
ally
-
only
in g
ener
al
term
s
Doe
s th
e po
licy
addr
ess
the
mai
n en
viro
nmen
tal
prob
lem
s?
Not
exp
licitl
yIn
a v
ery
gene
ral
and
perh
aps
not
real
istic
way
In a
ver
y ge
nera
l w
ayG
ener
al
refe
renc
e to
rai
sing
co
mm
unity
en
viro
nmen
tal
awar
enes
s
N/A
Ref
eren
ce m
ade
to s
peci
fic
prob
lem
s in
le
gisl
atio
n -
but
no d
etai
ls
Not
rea
llyYe
s, t
hrou
gh
inte
grat
ed
envi
ronm
ent
plan
ning
, ed
ucat
ion
and
adop
ting
a ‘p
ollu
ter
pays
’ ap
proa
ch
Yes,
thr
ough
out
Fina
ncia
l con
side
rati
ons
(Sec
tion
3.8
)
Doe
s th
e po
licy
indi
cate
the
co
st o
f mee
ting
sani
tatio
n ne
eds
(cap
ital,
recu
rren
t or
bo
th)?
No
No
No
No
No
No.
Sta
tes
no
prog
ram
me
will
be
100%
su
bsid
ised
. B
enef
icia
ry
cont
ribut
ion
acco
rdin
g to
so
cio-
econ
omic
st
atus
No
Bot
h -
capi
tal
and
O&
M c
ost
per
hous
ehol
d (m
ax.)
giv
en
No,
but
id
entif
ies
perc
enta
ge
of w
ork-
time
lost
due
to
sani
tatio
n-re
late
d si
ckne
ss
and
inju
ry
Doe
s th
e po
licy
indi
cate
how
th
ose
cost
s m
ight
be
met
?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not
in d
etai
l -
inde
pend
ent
budg
et fo
r sa
nita
iton
from
na
tiona
l bud
get
N/A
Yes
- id
entif
ies
sour
ces
of
fund
ing:
Eq
uita
ble
Sha
re, g
rant
s, &
re
venu
e
N/A
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Doe
s th
e st
rate
gy fo
r m
eetin
g co
sts
incl
ude
subs
idie
s on
ca
pita
l cos
ts?
Not
cov
ered
For
zona
l and
‘c
ity-w
ide’
fa
cilit
ies
Whe
re n
eces
sary
N/A
N/A
Yes
- bu
t st
ates
no
t 10
0%Ye
s (in
divi
dual
fa
mili
es
are
sole
y re
spon
sibl
e)
Yes
- on
e-of
f su
bsid
y pe
r h/
h fo
r co
mm
unity
de
velo
pmen
t (R
600)
and
in
frast
ruct
ure
(R60
0)
Onl
y fo
r sp
ecifi
c co
nditi
ons
- po
ores
t,
poor
gro
und
cond
ition
s,
tena
nts
&
peop
le in
tra
nsit
Doe
s th
e po
licy
assu
me
finan
cial
al
loca
tions
fro
m n
atio
nal
gove
rnm
ent
to s
ubsi
dize
re
curr
ent
cost
s fo
r m
unic
ipal
sy
stem
s?
Not
cov
ered
No
(exp
licitl
y re
quire
s th
at
cust
omer
s be
ar
recu
rren
t co
sts)
Yes
(bec
ause
sa
nita
tion
high
% o
f DC
ex
pend
iture
)
No
- fo
cus
on
self
relia
nt lo
cal
man
agem
ent
Not
sta
ted
but
impl
ied
Not
iden
tifie
dN
ot c
over
edAv
aila
ble
via
the
Equi
tabl
e S
hare
, to
geth
er w
ith
tarif
fs s
et fo
r w
ater
ser
vice
s
Enco
urag
es
NG
Os/
CB
Os
- on
co
st-r
ecov
ery
basi
s
Doe
s th
e po
licy
refe
r to
the
nee
d to
fund
hyg
iene
ed
ucat
ion
and
othe
r pr
ogra
mm
atic
co
sts?
No
No
- ap
pear
s to
as
sum
e de
man
d ex
ists
Onl
y fo
r H
RD
an
d op
erat
iona
l re
sear
ch
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
- w
ith R
600
subs
idy
per
h/h
Yes
If so
, are
so
urce
s of
fund
ing
iden
tifie
d an
d ar
e th
ey li
kely
to
be a
dequ
ate
N/A
N/A
Not
exp
licita
ly
iden
tifie
dN
/AN
/AN
ot e
xplic
itly
- id
entif
ies
min
. 20
% o
f bud
get
to b
e al
loca
ted
to s
oftw
are
aspe
cts
N/A
Fina
nced
by
Dep
t. o
f Wat
er
Affa
irs a
nd
Fore
stry
(D
WAF
)
Not
iden
tifie
d
Inst
itut
iona
l rol
es a
nd r
espo
nsib
iliti
es (
Sec
tion
3.9
)
Doe
s th
e po
licy
defin
e in
stitu
tiona
l ro
les
rela
ting
to p
lann
ing,
fin
anci
ng,
regu
latio
n,
impl
emen
tatio
n,
O&
M, M
&E
and
prog
ram
me
supp
ort?
Som
e ro
les
defin
ed b
ut in
fa
irly
gene
ral
term
s
Bro
ad d
ivis
ion
betw
een
com
mun
ity
and
govt
re
spon
sibi
litie
s
Yes
(but
nee
d to
ch
eck
‘buy
-in’ b
y st
akeh
olde
rs)
Onl
y in
ver
y ge
nera
l sen
se
that
gov
t is
see
n as
faci
litat
or
of c
omm
unity
ac
tion
No
Yes
in g
ener
al.
Mor
e de
tails
in
acco
mpa
nyin
g G
uide
lines
for
Plan
ning
and
Im
plem
enta
tion
In v
ery
broa
d te
rms
- fo
cuse
d m
ore
on w
ater
su
pply
Yes
- fo
r m
unic
ipal
, pr
ovin
cial
an
d na
tiona
l go
vern
men
t,
priv
ate
sect
or
and
NG
Os
Yes
- fro
m
h/h
to n
atio
nal
gove
rnm
ent,
but
no
t in
a c
lear
ly
stru
ctur
ed w
ay
Doe
s it
prov
ide
guid
ance
on
corr
ectin
g an
y in
stitu
tiona
l w
eakn
esse
s?
No
No
Som
e re
fere
nce
to d
evel
opin
g hu
man
re
sour
ces
No
N/A
Som
e re
fere
nce
to r
estr
uctu
ring
and
co-
ordi
natio
n co
mm
ittee
to
be
form
ed
No
Thro
ugh
supp
ort
from
priv
ate
sect
or &
NG
Os,
co
-ord
inai
ton
grou
ps a
nd
San
itatio
n D
irect
orat
e w
ithin
DW
AF
Yes
- w
ith
stra
tegi
es t
o im
plem
ent
polic
y -
sett
ing
up B
oard
, tr
aini
ng, c
o-or
dina
tion
and
com
mun
icat
ion
www.Lboro.ac.uk/wedc
This Briefing Note presents a comparison of key elements of national sanitation policies, based on a desk-review of the content of nine country policies carried out in 2003.
It is based on the findings of research undertaken in 2003-2005, as part of a DFID-funded research project Application of tools to support national sanitation policies (R8163).
Other research outputs include: Sanitation Policy: Why it is important and how to
make it work – an overview guidance note National sanitation policy in Ghana: a case for
improved co-ordination? – a briefing note from Ghana
Implementing national sanitation policy in Nepal: challenges and opportunities – a briefing note from Nepal
Key referencesElledge, M. F., Rosensweig, F. and Warner, D. B. (2002). Guidelines for the assessment of national sanitation policies (EHP strategic report no.2), Arlington, USA. Available at http://www.ehproject.org/PDF/Strategic_papers/SRSanPolFinal.pdf (accessed Sept 05).
Published by WEDC, November 2005
This Briefing Note is part of a series covered by ISBN 1 84380 093 4 and was funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed, however, are not necessarily those of DFID.
Footnotes1 WEDC Application of Tools to support national sanitation policies Inception Report for DFID KaR Project R8163 (unpublished), WEDC, 2003.
2 Section numbers refer to corresponding sections in the EHP Guidelines.
For more information contact:
Rebecca Scott or Andrew CottonWater, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC)Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLeicestershire LE11 3TU UK
Telephone: +44 (0) 1509 222885Fax: +44 (0) 1509 211079Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: http://wedc.Lboro.ac.uk/projects/new_projects3.php?id=142
Que
stio
nsB
angl
ades
hC
ambo
dia(1
)G
hana
Indo
nesi
aM
ozam
biqu
eN
epal
Nig
eria
Sou
th A
fric
aU
gand
a
Doe
s it
iden
tify
a le
ad a
genc
y fo
r co
-ord
inat
ing
sani
tatio
n ac
tivite
s?
No
No
Yes
- M
inis
try
of L
ocal
G
over
nmen
t an
d R
ural
D
evel
opm
ent
(MLG
RD
)
No
No
Yes
- M
oHPP
(8)
No
Yes
- D
WAF
Yes
- M
inis
try
of H
ealth
En
viro
nmen
tal
Hea
lth D
ivis
ion
with
pla
n to
est
ablis
h En
viro
nmen
tal
Hea
lth B
oard
Gen
eral
(S
ecti
on 3
.10)
Doe
s th
e po
licy
reco
gniz
e bo
th t
echn
ical
(h
ardw
are)
and
so
cial
(so
ftwar
e)
conc
erns
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Whi
ch o
f the
tw
o pr
edom
inat
es?(9
)R
easo
nabl
y ba
lanc
edR
easo
nabl
y ba
lanc
edR
easo
nabl
y ba
lanc
edS
oftw
are
Har
dwar
eS
oftw
are
Har
dwar
eS
oftw
are
Sof
twar
e
Not
esIn
form
atio
n re
latin
g to
the
pol
icy
cont
ext,
legi
slat
ion
and
othe
r su
ppor
ting
proc
edur
es is
bas
ed o
nly
on in
form
atio
n fo
und
in t
he p
olic
y do
cum
ent
itsel
f.(1
) An
alys
is b
ased
on
exec
utiv
e su
mm
ary
(2)
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent
Div
isio
n –
Min
istr
y of
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t an
d C
oope
rativ
es(3
) N
atio
nal D
irect
orat
e of
Wat
er(4
) En
viro
nmen
tal S
anita
tion
Sec
tion
(ES
S)
of t
he D
epar
tmen
t of
Wat
er S
uppl
y an
d S
anita
tion
(DW
SS
), w
ithin
the
Min
istr
y of
Hou
sing
and
Phy
sica
l Pla
nnin
g (M
oHPP
)
– th
e le
ad a
genc
y(5
) H
is M
ajes
ty’s
Gov
ernm
ent
of N
epal
- t
arge
ts o
f “H
ealth
for
All 2
000”
and
“B
asic
Min
imum
Nee
ds”
(6)
Ther
e is
a t
arge
t of
100
% s
anita
tion
cove
rage
, by
eith
er d
omes
tic t
oile
ts o
r hy
gien
ic p
ublic
toi
lets
.(7
) In
fant
Mor
talit
y R
ate
(8)
Min
istr
y of
Hou
sing
and
Phy
sica
l Pla
nnin
g (n
ow t
he M
inis
try
of P
hysi
cal P
lann
ing
and
Wor
ks (
MPP
W))
(9)
This
que
stio
n is
not
eas
y to
ans
wer
. M
ost
polic
ies
mak
e co
nsid
erab
le r
efer
ence
to
softw
are
aspe
cts
of p
olic
y bu
t th
eir
inte
ntio
n is
to
ensu
re t
hat
the
hard
war
e is
pro
vide
d.N
ote
that
the
fol
low
ing
issu
es a
re n
ot e
xplic
itly
add
ress
ed: G
ende
r, m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n, p
over
ty, w
ater
qua
lity
mon
itorin
g, p
rivat
e se
ctor
, pro
mot
ion
and
awar
enes
s ra
isin
g, s
choo
ls a
nd o
ther
inst
itutio
ns,
alig
ning
pol
icy
with
oth
er s
ecto
rs –
suc
h as
edu
catio
n, w
omen
’s d
evel
opm
ent,
wat
er r
esou
rces
, etc
.
People-centred solutions for sustainable development since 1971