Science
Related: About this forumThe Effect of Community Led Sanitation Programs in Ghana.
The paper I'll discuss in this brief post is this one: Environ. Sci. Technol.2019, 53, 9, 5466-5472 (Harter, Miriam Harter, *Jonathan Lilje, and Hans-Joachim Mosler, Environ. Sci. Technol.2019, 53, 9, 5466-5472]
I come from another time which has clearly passed, when I was born, the woman pictured in my posts was still alive, and to her, if not to us, as more "modern" liberals, those who were without mattered.
The introduction paper, especially (at least to me) what I have put in bold says something we forget as we prattle on about our consumer fantasies about our "green" cars, our LEDs showing our commitment to "efficiency" the people who mine the stuff so we can be "green" notwith standing. As the risk of being accused of paternalism by a moral superior, I reproduce it here, again, with my own bold.
Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) aims at stopping open defecation by motivating participants to construct household latrines and reach high latrine coverages in target communities. This set of community-based and participatory activities has been implemented in communities worldwide by local governmental and nongovernmental institutions.(9) The goal of CLTS is to trigger a movement of change towards an improved sanitation situation.(10) This change is achieved by the commitment of all community members. In the case of Ghana, where this study is located, a community is declared open defecation free, if every single person has access to a latrine and at least 80% of the community owns a household latrine.(11) CLTS is implemented in three stages: a pre-triggering phase in which information is gathered, the triggering event that uses participatory activities to foster latrine construction, and a post-triggering phase that provides support in a series of follow-up visits.
The current literature points to the ability of CLTS to generate significant short-term reductions in open defecation as well as increases in latrine coverage and use, as well as suggestive evidence of child growth benefits in high-performing programs.(9,12−14) But its success rates vary widely across projects and countries and slippage rates as well as long-term effects have received too little scientific attention so far.(15) The success of CLTS can be measured by latrine coverage, the percentage of households within a community that have access to their own latrines. A literature review of sanitation campaigns has reported an average increase in latrine coverage following CLTS of 12%, though not statistically significant,(16) and Robinson(17) presents results of up to 96% latrine coverage in a single case in Malawi. In Ghana, where the majority of the regions have adapted CLTS as their sanitation strategy,(9) the effects are surprisingly low, with a national increase in sanitation access in recent years of only 4%,(1,18) although some specific projects in Ghana have achieved a reduction of open defecation by 19.9%.(19) The wide range in CLTS success rates raises the question how these differences can be explained.
This disturbs me all the time, that we have trillions of dollars to spend on things that don't work and won't work, and nothing to spend on the billions of people lacking basic sanitation.
In Ghana, apparently the success rates of the programs have been marginal, and so the authors explored a program where the initiation involved the community, rather than programs offered from above.
I'm not sure though, how "community oriented" it is to have Swiss visit you in Ghana:
Here's how they involved the community in any case:
Pretriggering
The community was assessed for its social structure and size, and a date for the triggering event was agreed with community leaders. They were asked to invite female and male community members from all ethnic groups to the triggering event.
Triggering
Facilitators started the session by presenting each other, an opening prayer, and welcoming community members. They facilitated the drawing of a community map on the ground with community institutions such as mosques and water sources. Then, they invited participants to locate both their houses and the spots they used for open defecation. By asking questions about possible paths of the fecaloral transmission route, the facilitators helped participants recognize the sanitation threat that they faced in their surroundings. If participants seemed hesitant about the sanitation improvement of their community, facilitators were instructed to introduce more activities. These included the presentation of a sealed bottle of water. This was offered to participants to open and taste. A facilitator then took a stick, touched the soil with it, and then dipped it in the water. The water was then presented to participants again. This was to illustrate the contamination of water by small particles, such as those transferred by flies. Facilitators asked participants to agree on a date for the community to become open defecation free and set a community action plan in place.
Happily their did seem to be an improvement, meaning that maybe have Swiss visit you is good for you:
The authors conclude:
Apparently though, the Swiss feel that they need to keep coming back:
This is not physical science but social science, but I actually believe that irrespective of issues of paternalism or whatever, we should care about all human beings. I may be a dinosaur, but that's what I think.
Have a nice evening.