Sue Cavill

Violence, gender and WASH: spurring action on a complex, under-documented and sensitive topic

The global community of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) researchers, practitioners and policy makers has to date inadequately addressed the challenge of vulnerability to violence in relation to access to water and sanitation in development and humanitarian emergency contexts. Reasons may include the lack of valid and reliable documentation of girls’, boys’, women’s, and men’s experiences of violence while accessing water and/or sanitation facilities; the sensitivity of the topic, with secrecy around individuals’ experiences of violence and their sanitation needs further hindering the collection of reliable data; the complexity of understanding the gendered dimensions of vulnerability to violence, with girls and women at least anecdotally reported to be more likely to experience violence in relation to WASH; and the likelihood that many WASH practitioners lack training in gender and violence, affecting their ability to deliver adequate programming and evaluation. In an effort to encourage increased action and learning on the intersection of gender, violence and WASH, a review of the existing evidence and practice was conducted. Findings indicate the need for more systematic, reliable, and ethically conducted monitoring and learning on this topic to build a more solid evidence base, while also refining key principles for improved policy and programming.

Who really pays? A critical overview of the practicalities of funding universal access

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include targets to achieve universal access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) within the next 15 years (2015–30). To be sustainable, this requires the long-term funding of efficient operating costs, capital maintenance costs, and any costs of capital. It is recognized that this can only be done through a combination of user charges, national taxes, and international transfers. This paper describes the main permutations in present user charges and subsidies, and reports on the ways in which each helps or hinders access by the poor to both rural and urban WASH services. An overview, based on programme experience, academic and grey literature, indicates that it is possible to accelerate the provision of clean water, basic sanitation, and improved hygiene practices ahead of the socio-economic (effective demand) trend line but only with very significant direct and indirect subsidies; direct to consumers and indirect to the supporting institutions or entities (‘th...

Taking Stock: Incompetent at incontinence – why are we ignoring the needs of incontinence sufferers?

How would you cope if you had no control over how you urinated or defecated and regularly or constantly leaked urine or faeces? How would this make you feel? How would you deal with the smell, with the indignity? What if you were a young teenager, traumatized by very stressful events and returned to bed-wetting as a result? And what would you do if you didn’t have the money to buy spare underwear or incontinence protection products or those are simply not available to you? Could you manage if you were suddenly displaced in an emergency and did not have access to a toilet, shower or bathing facilities, or your usual materials and coping mechanisms? What if you lived in a camp and your toilet or bathing shelter was a 5 minute walk away and had a long line in front of it? Would you be able to stand in line at food distribution or water collection points, go to school, or look for or undertake work?

CHAPTER 15 Putting the hardest to reach at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals

Universal access to improved sanitation by 2030 with an emphasis on the rights of all excluded groups is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This chapter argues that Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) can support the achievement of this goal. However open defecation free (ODF) status can be put at risk by just one person. It will be unachievable and unsustainable unless people who are marginalized and vulnerable are actively and meaningfully included, consulted, and considered in all aspects of CLTS programming. Without this, there is a risk of inappropriate design or location of facilities, overlooking the needs of people who are marginalized, which can limit or deny their access to sanitation. This chapter outlines the dimensions of equality and non-discrimination and barriers to access, and suggests practical entry points for inclusive and sustainable CLTS programming.