344.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
TAG Technical Note Number 7
United Nations Development Programme
Interregional Project INT/81/047
Executing Agency: World Bank
Community“Based Workshops for
Evaluating and Planning Sanitation Programs:
A Case Stady off Primary Schools Sanitation
in Lesotho
By Piers Cross, Technology Advisory Group
UNITED NATIONS
1961-1990
A joint United Nations Development Programme
and World Bank Contribution to the International
Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade
PREFACE
The Lesotho Primary Schools Sanitation Project, undertaken in
1976-79, had limited success. When a follow-up project was proposed, it was
decided to hold workshops in two typical districts affected, to find out the
community's views on how the follow-up project should be designed. This
paper, "Community-Based Workshops for Evaluating and Planning Sanitation
Programs: A Case Study of Primary Schools Sanitation in Lesotho” by Piers
Cross, describes the results of those workshops held in March 1981, and the
fairly radical changes which, in consequence, were made in the original
project concept.
This paper is one of a series of informal Working Papers prepared by
TAG 1/ on various aspects of water supply and sanitation programs in
developing countries. The papers were originally prepared as internal
discussion documents; their wider distribution does not imply endorsement by
the sector agencies, governments or donor agencies concerned with the
programs, nor by the World Bank or the United Nations Development Programme.
Comments and suggestions on the papers should be addressed to the Project
Manager, UNDP Project INT/81/047, Water Supply and Urban Department, at the
World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington D.C., 20433.
Richard N. Middleton
Project Manager
COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramhngala
Banga'oi e-560034
India
_!/
TAG: The Technology Advisory Group established under UNDP's Global
Project GLO/78/006, executed by the World Bank; in January 1982 this
project was renumbered INT/81/047.
ACRONYMS
GOL
Government of Lesotho
LDTC
Lesotho Distance Teaching Center (in MESC)
LEHCo-op
Lesotho Low-Cost Housing Co-operative
LEC
Lesotho Evangelical Church
MCRD
Ministry of Cooperatives and Rural Development
MESC
Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture
MOHSW
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare
PSSP
Primary Schools Sanitation Project
RCM
Roman Catholic Mission
TAG
Technology Advisory Group operating under UNDP Interregional
Project INT/81/047 (Executing Agency: The World Bank)
UNCDF
United Nations Capital Development Fund
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WHO
World Health Organization
Currency Equivalents
Fiscal Year
Local unit of currency: Maloti
April 1-March 31
100 s(cents) = Ml (one Maloti)
Ml = US$0.96
Country, People and Language
Lesotho = the country
Basotho = the people
Mosotho = a single inhabitant
Sesotho = the language
(i)
SUMMARY
1.
The Lesotho Primary Schools Sanitation Project (PSSP), assisted by
United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and undertaken between 1976
and 1979, had limited success. The Technology Advisory Group (TAG) was
invited by UNCDF to assist UNCDF and Government of Lesotho (GOL) in develop
ing proposals for reactivating the project and improving its impact. As part
of this work TAG organized two district-based one-day primary schools sanita
tion workshops. These workshops are of interest for two reasons: (a) they
helped GOL planners and the UNCDF consultants to improve the PSSP through
evaluating school and community experiences under the earlier phase of this
project, identifying needs and preferences in the project areas and assisting
in planning future initiatives; and (b) they provided a replicable planning
procedure which involves community representatives who have intimate knowl
edge of the local situation and whose ideas and experiences can help identify
viable solutions.
2.
The participants in the workshops included school and community
representatives from fifteen rural schools which had been included in the
earlier PSSP, together with district and Central Government representatives.
Participants were divided into three groups to discuss: technical design;
construction, maintenance, cleaning and emptying; and latrine usage and
health education needs. They had decided ideas about acceptable and
practical improvements that could be made if the PSSP was reactivated, and
many workshop recommendations presented radical departures from the
approaches used in the earlier PSSP.
3.
The workshops concluded that substantive changes should be made to
the existing designs, for example:
individual latrines should be provided instead of communal latrine
blocks;
-
latrines should be provided with seats rather than squat slabs;
-
latrines should be located closer to classrooms, otherwise children
will continue to use traditional defecation sites; and
-
emptying of latrine pits, when full, is impractical, so latrines
must be designed to be readily relocated.
4.
In addition, more latrines are needed (to cope with crowding during
school breaks); smaller children need to be reassured that the latrines are
safe and that they are in no danger of falling into the pit (which implies
better structural design and provision of mini-seats); and latrines for
younger children should be separated from those for the older children.
5.
Few teachers or community representatives had the skills to build
safe and sanitary latrines, although they were prepared to help this work
to the extent of their ability.
Self-help labor by itself was felt to be an
inadequate method of project implementation. Extra technical assistance in
construction and maintenance was considered important.
(ii)
6.
To improve school hygiene generally, it was agreed that water
supply and washing facilities should be provided at the same time as the
latrines, and a hygiene education program implemented (aimed particularly at
the children, but also reaching village chiefs, teachers and parents), the
target being to eliminate specific unhygienic practices at school and at
home.
7.
Recognizing the difficulty in controlling misuse of the latrines by
outsiders when there are no other latrines available, and the contradiction
in teaching children about better hygiene when they have no latrines at home,
the workshops also concluded that the program should be closely linked to the
government’s more general efforts in rural sanitation.
8.
These workshops provided government planners and UNCDF consultants
with first-hand information on community preferences, and enabled them to
test out many hypotheses derived from the sociocultural evaluation
(ref. 2) ,J_/ Almost all the recommendations of the workshops, particularly
those affecting technical design and the development of educational and
promotional activities, were included in a proposal on school sanitation
submitted by GOL for UNCDF consideration (ref. 1).
9.
Community-based workshops are a planning procedure which may have
applications in other development contexts. They are relatively low in cost,
do not require a great deal of preparation and are of short duration.
Such
workshops are not a substitute for other forms of community participation but
may be used as an intermediary device to enhance project design and
demonstrate the benefits of community involvement to central planners. While
the Lesotho workshops centered on discussion of an earlier phase of a
project this need not always be the case. They can also be used for initial
assessment of community preferences and resources and for ensuring that the
people the project will serve become involved in and enthusiastic about it.
1/
References are listed in Annex VII.
I.
WORKSHOP ORIGIN AND OBJECTIVES
1.1
In Lesotho there are about 1,080 primary schools, largely run by
the missions. These schools are in general poorly equipped and in chronic
disrepair. Most lack adequate classrooms, storage, kitchens, water and sani
tation facilities (a brief overview of the primary schools in Lesotho is
given in Annex II).
1.2
In 1976 the Government of Lesotho (GOL), assisted by the United
Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), embarked on the Primary Schools
Sanitation Project (PSSP), a three-year project intended to Improve sanita
tion in 600 primary schools. By the end of 1978 it was clear that the
program was in severe difficulties; two evaluations (ref. 3 and 4) found
that, although a great deal of the project funds had been spent, only 86
latrines had actually been built, and about half of those were in disrepair
(see Annex III for further details).
1.3
GOL therefore requested UNCDF to consider providing additional
assistance to overcome the problems being experienced in the PSSP.
UNCDF
sent an appraisal mission, staffed by the Technology Advisory Group (TAG), to
recommend the best ways to reactivate the program.
It was evident that one
reason for the problems with PSSP was that project design had taken insuffi
cient account of local needs, conditions and preferences.
GOL and UNCDF
placed great emphasis on these aspects when considering reactivating the
project, and TAG undertook, as part of the appraisal work, a sociocultural
evaluation of PSSP (ref. 2) as well as organizing the community-based
workshops described in this paper.
1.4
The immediate objectives of the workshops were:
(a)
to learn from the communities concerned about their
experiences with PSSP;
(b)
to obtain their recommendations on the planning,
design, implementation and operation and maintenance
of any latrines to be provided under a renewed
program; and
(c)
to find out whether they saw the need for other
inputs (such as better water supplies or hygiene
education programs) to complement the latrine
program.
1.5
Program evaluation and planning in Lesotho, and in the sector
generally, have traditionally been the sole responsibility of centralized
planning units. An ancillary objective of the workshops was to test a model
of community-based planning to off-set the ’top down' bias in development
planning. This reflects the emphasis given to community participation in
water and sanitation programs in the International Drinking Water Supply and
Sanitation Decade (1981-1990).
COMMUNITY
326, V Main health cell
K
• 1 Block
Koramhng.ila
Bangalore-560034
India
- 2 -
II.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOPS
2.1
Two district-based, one-day primary schools sanitation workshops,
funded by UNCDF and hosted by GOL, were held in Lesotho in March 1981: on
March 24 at the Leribe Farmers Training Center, Leribe District, and on March
26 at the Mophato Conference Center, Morija, in Maseru District.
A list of
participants is in Annex II. Invitations to each workshop were sent to
school and community representatives of 15 primary schools.
Participants
were invited from schools which were within reasonable reach of the workshop
centers and which had received latrines through PSSP.
(Schools without
latrines were deliberately not included, in order to avoid stimulating a
demand which government might not be able to meet; a copy of the letter of
invitation is in Annex IV.) Other participants included representatives from
central and district offices of the Ministries of Education, Sports and
Culture (MESC) and Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW), both of which hosted
the workshops; representatives from the Central Planning and Development
Office; representatives from District Administrations; and the UNCDF Primary
Schools Sanitation appraisal mission.
2.2
A workshop agenda is in Annex V. Workshops were opened by District
Coordinators and introductory addresses given by representatives from MOHSW
and MESC. The Urban Sanitation Coordinator, Ministry of Interior, gave a
brief explanatory address on the importance of sanitation, and the Chief
Health Educator, MOHSW, chairman at both workshops, explained the purpose and
proposed structure of the workshops.
2.3
The main work of the day was carried out by dividing the partici
pants into three discussion groups, dealing respectively with:
A.
Technical design.
B.
Construction, maintenance, cleaning and emptying.
C.
Latrine usage and health education needs.
The discussion groups were asked to draw on their own experience of sanita
tion in schools in Lesotho and, within their topic, to identify problems,
possible solutions and responsibility for appropriate action. Each group
reported back its findings, leading to a discussion of future policy sugges
tions. The workshop was concluded by the Chief Health Educator, MOHSW.
2.4
Workshops were well attended by school, community and government
representatives. Addresses and discussions were mainly in Sesotho.
3 -
III.
FINDINGS OF THE WORKSHOPS
3.1
Sanitation is not the most pressing need in primary schools, but
all participants in the workshops were concerned about the inadequacies of
school water supply and latrines and so joined in the group discussion with
alacrity; many had definite ideas about the acceptability of alternative
types of sanitation and were able to contribute constructively to program
design.
3.2
The detailed findings of each group discussion are summarized in
Annex VI.
Technical Design
3.3
The participants considered that the present designs did not meet
the essential criteria of providing privacy, safety and comfort.
Suggested
changes in the present designs included:
(a)
to provide greater privacy:
- fit doors;
- improve cubicle dividers;
- provide individual latrines rather than communal
units.
(b)
to improve structural stability and safety:
- provide concrete foundations;
- line latrine pits;
- construct smaller pits and superstructures.
(c)
to improve comfort:
- provide seats instead of squat plates;
- provide various types of seats to suit children of
various ages.
(d)
to improve hygiene generally:
- provide boys' urinals;
- provide sufficient seats to cater for levels of
usage at school breaks;
- design latrines with movable superstructures so
that they can be relocated easily and promptly
when the pits become full.
Construction and Maintenance
3.4
Participants at both workshops emphasized the need for greater
technical assistance in constructing latrines, and for construction
procedures which reflected the resources and commitment of the villagers as a
whole.
- 4 -
(a)
Siting:
Latrines need to be close to schools; a
combination of local knowledge of soil conditions
and outside technical advice should lead to selec
tion of more suitable sites than in the past.
(b)
Construction: Few teachers or interested parents
know how to construct secure, hygienic structures;
they are willing to participate in the work, but
need additional technical guidance.
Self-help labor
by itself was felt to be inadequate (and some tasks,
such as difficult excavation, are too hard for the
children to do); it was suggested that local
builders, under the supervision of MCRD, could
provide the necessary technical advice and carry out
particularly difficult work. One group mentioned
that schools may already be in a delicate position
with their local communities (who may resent the
level of fees or the school's use of local
resources), and that the school cannot ask too much
by way of community participation.
(c)
Maintenance: Participants were unanimous that
children should continue to clean latrines, but felt
that teachers should supervise this more closely and
that cleaning materials should be provided.
It was
also agreed that toilet paper (e.g., scrap paper
from the school itself) should be provided. Routine
structural maintenance was seen as a problem that
the villages could not deal with themselves, because
of lack of skills and the high cost of materials and
tools. No clear solution emerged from the work
shops, except a feeling that GOL should develop a
maintenance capability in each village (from this,
in the project proposal, emerged the recommendation
for a school workshop with a skilled caretaker, who
would undertake maintenance of all school facilities
and train the children in the use of tools).
(d)
Emptying:
Emptying full latrines was generally
regarded as impractical; latrine pits and super
structures should be relocated when the pits become
full [see 3.3 (d) above].
Latrine Usage and Health Education Needs
3.5
Latrine usage should be greatly encouraged by the recommended
changes in design (para. 3.3), by siting the latrines closer to schools and
keeping them clean (para. 3.4), and by improving the structural stability of
the units.
These changes should overcome a number of current problems:
-
the use of traditional defecation sites (dongas erosion gullies), which are closer to the schools than
the latrines;
- 5 -
-
the widespread fear of falling into the pits_V; and
-
the wide age range of children using communal
latrines, which leads to elder children bullying the
younger ones, and to younger children fouling latrines
used by their elders.
3.6
The provision of latrines, by itself, will not necessarily have a
significant impact on the health of the community.
The participants recog
nized the need, in addition, for:
(a)
water supplies and washing facilities at the
schools; and
(b)
a hygiene education program directed particularly at
children (but also at chiefs and parents).
3.7
School facilities are often the objects of vandalism and misuse by
outsiders, particularly when the school is situated near a public facility
such as a bus stop, church or secondary school without facilities, or over
the school holidays when no staff are present.
Suggested solutions to this
problem include:
1/
(a)
the promotion of rural sanitation in the villages,
so there are latrines more generally available (this
is also desirable on other grounds: having instilled
into children at school the need for better hygiene
and sanitation, they should not have to return to a
house with no facilities for this);
(b)
closer collaboration between schools, missions and
chiefs;
(c)
the appointment of someone to care for schools when
teachers do not live on the school site.
In many countries, the squat slabs have not always been built
adequately, and villagers have an inherited fear that the slab will
collapse under them and they may fall into the exposed pit.
- 6 -
IV.
IMPLEMENTING THE FINDINGS OF THE WORKSHOPS
4.1
The workshop findings played a considerable part in shaping the
design of the GOL/UNCDF proposal (ref. 1) for further development of primary
school sanitation in Lesotho. The workshops gave GOL and UNCDF planners
first-hand insight into community and school attitudes, knowledge and prac
tices with regard to sanitation, and provided a forum in which to test out
hypotheses derived from the results of the sociocultural evaluation (ref. 2).
4.2
The final appraisal report and project design were undertaken by
GOL and UNCDF planners. The decision on whether to accept or reject each
workshop proposal was made on the basis of the logic and force of the recom
mendation; the degree of general agreement in the workshop on its validity;
the extent to which it was confirmed in the sociocultural evaluation; and its
feasibility in the light of other planning constraints.
4.3
The findings of the workshops were most useful in describing
preferred patterns of latrine usage, in suggesting socially-acceptable
modifications to sanitation technologies, and in describing problems of
social control of school facilities and relations between communities and
schools. For example, the most important specific finding to be adopted in
the GOL/UNCDF proposal was that individual latrines with child seats and
movable superstructures should be used, in place of the existing immovable
communal latrines with squatting slabs. Workshop findings also confirmed the
need to support self-help resources by training local builders, and to estab
lish a local system of maintenance and caretaking. Key complementary inputs
— improved water supply to the schools and a hygiene education program - were
also incorporated in the final proposal.
4.4
The workshops were least useful in proposing clear ministerial
responsibilities.
School and community representatives knew little of the
breakdown of ministerial responsibilities, and the assignment of responsi
bility for future actions proposed in Annex VI was arbitrary and largely
prompted by the GOL representatives.
7
V.
THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-BASED WORKSHOPS IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
5.1
Community-based workshops, similar to those described in this
paper, may make a valuable contribution in a variety of development
contexts. As a means of obtaining community inputs into the planning and
design of development projects they have a number of advantages:
(a)
Low-cost. The sanitation workshops cost US$12 per
head (US$400 per workshop) for transport, hire of
workshop facilities, and food for a mid-day meal and
other refreshments.
(b)
Minimal planning/preparation time. The preparation
time for the workshops was five weeks, thus allow
ing time for discussions with planning and adminis
trative authorities, the preparation of invitations
and workshop materials and a field trip to each site
to confirm local arrangements.
(c)
Short duration. The one-day workshops caused mini
mal disruption to the activities of civil servants
or participants and allowed great flexibility in
timing and organization.
5.2
For the workshops to be effective, careful attention must be paid
to a number of points:
(a)
Site selection:
The workshop location must be convenient for the key
participants, and the venue must be one which will
not inhibit free expression of opinions.
(b)
Participant selection:
Detailed knowledge of likely key program issues,
followed by a preliminary field trip, should enable
the workshop planners to ensure that the partici
pants are reasonably representative of the various
interested parties.
(c)
Workshop management:
In a short workshop, care must be taken to explain
clearly, to both officials and community representa
tives, the specific purposes of the planning exer
cise, and to steer group discussions accordingly.
It may be difficult to encourage the frame of mind
in which the community representatives believe that
they can have a major impact on program design, or
in which local officials see themselves as listeners
rather than managers.
7
- 8 -
5.3
A precondition of the usefulness of community workshops is that
central government should be committed to incorporating community views into
development strategies.
Lesotho has so far had limited experience in
community-based planning, but it is hoped that these workshops can themselves
be a force for change, by demonstrating the effectiveness of planning with
the community, particularly in an activity such as low-cost sanitation in
which local-level perceptions are critical to project success.
5.4
Community-based workshops are by no means a complete answer to the
need for community participation, and can have the danger of being used as a
token endorsement of the principle of planning with the community.
A govern
ment committed to community planning might use the workshop forum as a medium
through which a community would themselves take the principal planning
decisions affecting local development.
In situations where this is not
immediately possible, community-based workshops on the model of the Lesotho
primary school sanitation workshops may be an intermediate step to improve
the effectiveness of project design.
TAG/TN/07
ANNEX I
Page 1
9
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
LERIBE WORKSHOP
Name
L.
M.
M.
B.
Mokhachane
Petlane
Ntsane
Jackson
L.
T.
E.
M.
G.
L.
L.
M.
Nkunyane
Mosoang
Molefi
Makhetha
Mohobori
Tsae
Khoarai
Malebo
R. Lehloaea
M. Morallana
A. Molapo
C.
S.
P.
J.
Nyamane
Mokhachane
Hlapisi
Molapo
S. Ntaso
P. Ntlaoe
S. Becker
P. Cross
G. Read
Designation
District Coordinator, Ministry of Interior
Chief Health Educator, MOHSW
District Education Officer, MESC
Urban Sanitation Coordinator, Ministry of
Interior
Health Assistant, MOHSW
Senior Health Educator, MOHSW
Health Assistant, MOHSW
Health Inspector, MOHSW
Teacher, Subeng Primary School
Teacher, Tsikoane Primary School (ACL)
Teacher, Khanyane Primary School
Community Representative, Khanyane Primary
School
Teacher, Qoqolosing Primary School (LEC)
Teacher, Nqechane Primary School (LEC)
Community Representative, Nqechane Primary
School (LEC)
Teacher, Nqechane Primary School (RC)
Teacher, Mpharane Primary School (ACL)
Teacher, Jonathan Community School
Community Representative, Jonathan Community
School
Teacher, Mpharane Primary School
Community Representative, Qoqolosing
Primary School (LEC)
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
TAG/TN/07
- 10 -
ANNEX I
Page 2
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
MORIJA WORKSHOP
Name
P. Atoro
M. Petlane
M. Sekese
P. Soqaka
P. Fanana
M. Makhetha
A. Hartwell
W. Moholisa
B. Jackson
G. Gatchlian
K. Elbert
L. Nkunyane
C. Makhanya
P. Lekoekoe
P. Cekwane
D. Sekonyana
R. Maloisane
E. Ramalefane
R. Talanyane
S. Motsetsela
S. Rampai
P. Makhabu
P.
M.
M.
M.
Nkunyane
Petje
Moshoeshoe
Sejanamane
M. Letsie
M. Chile
M. Chopho
M. Mataboe
E.
M.
E.
P.
E.
J.
G.
P.
S.
Makhomo
Challa
Sibeko
Mokolokho
Bofelo
Jane
Read
Cross
Becker
Designation
District Coordinator, Ministry of Interior
Chief Health Educator, MOHSW
District Education Officer, MESC
District Education Officer, MESC
Senior Planner, Central Planning Office
Health Inspector, MOHSW
Educational Planning Advisor, MESC
District Education Officer, MESC
Urban Sanitation Coordinator,
Ministry of Interior
Program Officer, UNDP
Resident Program Officer, UNICEF
Health Assistant, MOHSW
Assistant Teacher, Motse Primary School
Head Teacher, Motse Primary School
Head Teacher, St. Louis Primary School
Head Teacher, Leqetsona Primary School
Head Teacher, Mahoetje Primary School
School Manager, Tlametlu Primary School
Assistant Teacher, Morija Primary School
Head Teacher, Litlapeng Primary School
Community Representative,
Letlapeng Primary School
Community Representative,
St. Joseph's Primary School
Head Teacher, Sebelekoane Primary School
Assistant Teacher, St. Louis Primary School
Head Teacher, Molungoa Primary School
Assistant Teacher, St. Peter Claver Primary
School (RCM)
Head Teacher, Maholi Primary School
Community Representative,
St. Joseph's Primary School
Community Representative
Molungoa Primary School
Community Representative,
Molungoa Primary School
Head Teacher, Botsoela Primary School
Head Teacher, Lehahaneng Primary School
Head Teacher, Ramokoatse Primary School
Community Member, Tlametlu Primary School
Assistant Teacher, Maholi Primary School
Head Teacher, Emmaus Primary School
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
TAG/UNCDF Consultant
ANNEX II
Page 1
TAG/TN/07
PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN LESOTHO
2.1
At independence, Lesotho inherited an extensive network of primary
schools established and controlled by Christian missions. Of the 1,080
primary schools in the country (1979) over 90% remain under the control of
the missions, predominantly the Roman Catholic Mission (RCM) and the Lesotho
Evangelical Church (LEC). While the number of schools has actually declined
in recent years, enrolments and the number of classes have increased. The
sizes of primary schools vary greatly: the larger schools, mainly in the
lowlands, have over 1,000 pupils, while many schools have less than 100
pupils, particularly in the mountains. The mean primary school size is
estimated to be about 250. Lesotho has a very high rate of participation in
primary schools, and, as a result, has a literacy rate of approximately 60%,
which is among the highest in Africa.
2.2
The Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture (MESC) which has the
responsibility for developing primary school education, involves the missions
in planning educational policy, and supports the primary schools by providing
services which improve the quality of education; the government contribution
comprises the training and payment of teachers, the development of curricula
and setting of examinations, the improvement of physical facilities and the
provision of supervisory services through an inspectorate.
The schools are,
however, owned, controlled and managed by the missions. Management is in
theory exercised through Parish Councils who employ School Managers; each
School Manager is often responsible for a number of schools. Schools are
expected to have a School Committee to liaise with parents and the local
community; membership generally includes a teacher and leading members of the
congregation.
2.3
The existing system has the following weaknesses:
(a)
The responsibility for school management is unclear,
and MESC has not always been able to provide
adequate support to school staff; this has
frequently led to mismanagement. There is, for
example, no adequate policy on the maintenance of
school facilities, or on the requirements for
auditing the school accounts.
(b)
Relations between MESC and school managers are
ill-defined and loosely coordinated, with the result
that the style and quality of school management
varies widely and is beyond the control of MESC.
(c)
Primary school attendance is high in the early
grades and for girls only. Almost 60% of schools do
not offer the full course from Standards 1 to 7, and
the drop-out rate is particularly high for boys,
principally because many are needed as herdboys. As
a result, the primary school population contains
approximately 60% girls.
ANNEX II
Page 2
TAG/TN/07
(d)
The number of repeaters is considerable, so that
primary schools have an age range of between five
and eighteen years.
Thirty-five percent of the
total enrolment is over twelve years old.
(e)
Notwithstanding the establishment of the National
Teachers Training College, there is still a large
shortfall in the number of teachers. The primary
school pupiliteacher ratio remains high (about
50:1), and approximately 35% of primary school
teachers are unqualified.
(f)
The physical condition of primary schools in Lesotho
is very poor. There is a severe shortage of
classrooms and those in use are in poor repair.
In
1980, 63% of primary school classes were judged to
be inadequately housed (ref. 5).
In the past five
years, the number of classrooms has remained
constant, while the total enrolment has increased by
14,000. The 1979 pupil/classroom of 83:1 is one of
the worst in Africa, and in many schools there are
over 150 children in a single room (in many cases
this is a church, which doubles as a classroom
during the week). There are about twice as many
classes as classrooms, and many classes are always
conducted in the open air. There is also a shortage
of desks, tables, blackboards and other teaching
aids. For example, 40% of pupils sit on the floor
and another 27% are inadequately seated.
In
addition, a 1981 survey (ref. 5, p. 10) of
facilities in 182 primary schools found the
following deficiencies:
Facility
Cooking utensils
Storage facilities
Adequate water source
Kitchens
Eating utensils
Percentage Schools in which
Facility is Inadequate
83%
71%
57%
40%
31%
Furthermore, the report suggests that the schools' gardening
program, which has an inadequate crop performance, is a cause for
national concern.
(g)
1/
~
It is estimated that only between 180 and 200 _£/ primary schools
(16-18%) have latrines of any description, and most of these are
either unsafe or not in use.
In 1974, there were reportedly about 100-120 in the country and the
Primary’Schools Sanitation Program constructed a further 86.
TAG/TN/07
13
ANNEX III
Page 1
THE PRIMARY SCHOOLS SANITATION PROJECT (PSSP)
3.1
In 1974 the Government of Lesotho (GOL), the United Nations Capital
Development Fund (UNCDF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
embarked on a three-year project to improve sanitation in 600 primary schools
and water supplies in 90 primary schools. The project was executed by the
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) and started in 1976.
UNCDF
provided capital assistance for the project ($296,000), UNDP provided
technical assistance in the form of a volunteer, the World Health
Organization (WHO) gave technical advice to the project, and MOHSW provided
administrative support and technical backup. Materials were purchased and
delivered to schools, and latrines were then constructed through the efforts
of the teachers, children and parents, assisted by the project which supplied
tools for construction as well as the materials.
Details are contained in
the original UNCDF project document (ref. 6).
3.2
By the end of 1978, it was clear that the progress on the project
was unsatisfactory. A WHO report (ref. 3), prepared in October 1978,
brought out certain shortcomings of the project. The volunteer who was in
effect running the project finished his contract in December 1978 and was not
replaced. Work on the project was suspended in January 1979, and, apart from
inviting interested schools to collect materials and implement projects
themselves, no progress has been made since.
3.3
In August 1979, UNDP, at the request of government, instructed a
firm of consulting engineers, Binnie and Partners, to prepare a further
report on the state of the project (ref. 4). The report found that by July
1979:
-
a total of $258,000 had been spent on the project;
-
materials had been delivered to about 206 schools;
-
latrines had been built at 86 schools;
-
approximately half of those built were in disrepair.
3.4
The principal recommendations of the WHO (Krafft) report
(ref. 3) are:
-
that manpower in the Environmental Health Section in
MOHSW be strengthened;
-
that additional project vehicles be provided; and
-
that village artisans be paid to assist construction
work.
The principal recommendations of the Binnie and Partners' report (ref. 4)
are:
TAG/TN/07
3.5
14
ANNEX III
Page 2
-
that an autonomous construction group be established
in either LEHCo-op or MCRD, the only function of which
would be to construct school latrines;
-
that alternative latrine designs should be considered
(particularly a fiberglass superstructure);
-
that self-help be retained; and
-
that health inspectors undertake health education.
Neither report adequately addresses the following issues:
-
encouraging children to use the latrines;
-
the perceptions of the PSSP by children, teachers and
parents;
-
proper school management of school facilities,
including cleaning and maintaining latrines;
-
the appropriateness of self-help; or
-
health education needs and strategies.
3.6
In November 1980, after considering the two reports submitted by
WHO and Binnie and Partners, government requested that UNCDF reconsider
capital assistance to the rural sanitation sector. UNCDF advised GOL that it
might consider funding proposals for rural sanitation, subject to government
developing and implementing rational proposals for reactivating or
rehabilitating the initial program, and specifically investigating the issues
outstanding from the previous evaluations. The March 1981 UNCDF appraisal
mission, in the course of which the workshops described in this paper were
organized, assisted GOL in investigating these issues.
TAG/TN/07
- 15
ANNEX IV
LETTER OF INVITATION
A WORKSHOP ON PRIMARY SCHOOLS SANITATION
Dear:
You are invited to attend a one day workshop to discuss sanitation
facilities in primary schools. The workshop is being organized by UNDP
consultants who are working with the government to reactivate and extend
primary school sanitation in Lesotho. The United Nations have declared
1981-1990 to be the International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade, the
aim of which is, ultimately, to extend the basic human rights of adequate
water and sanitation facilities to all people in all countries. The
provision of sanitation in schools is a first step, and one that is of
fundamental importance to the health and welfare of the children in your
school.
The purpose of the workshop is that those planning how best the
facilities should be built can hear your views, and your opinions on what
needs to be done. Some primary schools have latrines, many of which are
poorly designed, unhygienic, dangerous or have collapsed. A few have clean,
hygienic, stable latrines. Most primary schools have no latrines at all.
Whether or not your school has a latrine we would like to hear of your views
on the design of latrines, who should build and pay for them, who should
clean and repair them, and how we might encourage children to use them. To
plan for the future we need to learn from the past and we would be glad of
your attendance and participation at the workshop.
16
TAG/TN/07
ANNEX V
A WORKSHOP AGENDA
Venue:
Date:
9:30
Opening by the District Coordinator.
9:40
Welcome by Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.
9:50
Welcome by Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture.
10:00
Introductory address:
'Sanitation, Health and Hygiene' by the Urban Sanitation
Coordinator, Ministry of Interior.
10:30
'The Purpose of the Workshop' by the Chief Health Educator.
10:40
Questions and Discussion.
11:00
TEA
11:30
Group discussions on: A.
Technical Design.
B.
Construction, Maintenance,
Cleaning and Emptying.
C.
Latrine Usage and Health Education Needs
1:00
LUNCH
2:00
Group Reports and Discussion on Future Policy.
3:00
Closing Address and Siimmi ng Up by the Chief Health Educator.
TAG/TN/07
17
ANNEX VI
Schedule 1
GROUP DISCUSSION FINDINGS
GROUP A: TECHNICAL DESIGN
LERIBE WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
1.
Slabs collapse in pits
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
- concrete foundations
to superstructure
ACTION BY:
MCRD Technicians
- line pits
- smaller structures
2.
Squatting is
inappropriate to young
children
- low seats needed for
children especially
for under-tens
MCRD Technicians
3.
Squat hole poorly
designed for girls
- seat needed
MCRD Technicians
4.
Privacy
- fit doors
MCRD Technicians
- better cubicle dividers
- single latrines
5.
Present structures
immovable
- replace slabs with
wooden floor
MCRD Technicians
6.
Vandalism
- fit locks
MCRD Technicians
- encourage rural
sanitation
MOHSW + MRCD
- construct boys' urinal
MCRD
7.
Boys urinate against
walls
TAG/TN/07
18 -
ANNEX VI
Schedule 2
GROUP A: TECHNICAL DESIGN
MORIJA WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
1.
Privacy
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
- separate older from
younger children
ACTION BY:
MCRD Technicians
- cubicle doors
- smaller structures
2.
Squatting uncomfortable
- seats for older children
MCRD Technicians
- small seats for young
children
- educate youngest to use
seats
Teachers
3.
Vandalism
- lock latrines during
holidays
MCRD/Teachers
4.
Boys urinate against
walls
- construct urinal
MCRD/Teachers
5.
Queueing in breaks
- more seats
MCRD
TAG/TN/07
19
ANNEX VI
Schedule 3
GROUP B: CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING AND EMPTYING
LERIBE WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lack of construction
skills
School/Community
relations poor
Shallow rock
Clayey soils
Difficulty in locating
site
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
ACTION BY:
- teach skills to teachers/
older boys
MCRD
- train community work teams
MCRD
- establish school committee
School
- outside assistance in
discussions
MCRD/MESC
- skill in site selection
MCRD/MESC
- mounting latrines
MCRD/MESC
- machinery needed
MCRD/MESC
- line pits
MCRD/MESC
- skilled site selection
MCRD/MESC
- local participation in site
selection
Community/
Chiefs
- cooperation of chiefs
Community/
Chiefs
- technical skills necessary
MCRD
6.
Inadequate maintenance
- train school staff
MCRD
7.
No water for cleaning
- school water supply needed
MCRD
8.
No cleaning materials
- provision by government
MCRD
9.
Inadequate cleaning
- supervise children
Teachers
10.
Emptying not feasible
voluntarily
- design movable structure
MCRD
- paid labor for emptying
MCRD
TAG/TN/07
20 -
ANNEX VI
Schedule 4
GROUP B: CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING AND EMPTYING
MORIJA WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
1.
Outstanding materials
missing
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
ACTION BY:
- provide additional
materials
MCRD
- transport to collect
materials
MCRD
2.
Shallow rock
- wider choice of sites
Chiefs/MCRD
3.
Lack of construction
skills
- teach school staff
- built in stone with
local masons
MCRD
MCRD
4.
Children unsuited to
hard labor
- paid labor
Local builders
5.
Parents non
cooperation
- educate parents
MOHSW/MCRD
- village meetings
MOHSW/MCRD
6.
Lack of tools for
maintenance
- provide tools and
workshop
MCRD
7.
Tools poorly cared for
- care for tools
Headmaster
8.
High cost of maintenance
- generate cash
contributions from
community
Teachers,
Community Leader
TAG/TN/07
ANNEX VI
Schedule 5
21
GROUP C: LATRINE USAGE AND HEALTH EDUCATION NEEDS
LERIBE WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
ACTION BY:
1.
Ignorance of health
hazards without latrines
- educate parents and
children
MOHSW/MESC
2.
Dirty latrines discourage
use
- establish regular cleaning
Schools
- provide cleaning materials
MCRD
3.
Wide age range using
communal latrines
- individual latrines
MCRD
4.
Instability discourages
child usage
- build more secure structures
MCRD
5.
Great distance to latrines - site near classrooms
6.
Outsiders misuse toilets
7.
No toilet paper
MCRD
- fit locks
MCRD
- encourage rural sanitation
MCRD
- employ caretaker
School
- use old examination papers
Schools
COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Koramangala
Bangalore-560034
India
TAG/TN/07
22
ANNEX VI
Schedule 6
GROUP C: LATRINE USAGE AND HEALTH EDUCATION NEEDS
MORIJA WORKSHOP
PROBLEM
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
ACTION BY:
1.
Outsiders using
school facility
- local decision on
whether to permit this
or not
School Committee
2.
Wide age range of
children using latrines
- separate latrines and
different size seats for
different age groups
MCRD/Teachers
3.
Children fear falling
- provide seats not
squat slabs
MCRD/Technicians
- provide stable
structures
MCRD/Technicians
- education
Teachers
- educate children
Teachers
- teach parents to teach
children
MOHSW
- teach chiefs to teach
parents
MOHSW
4.
Ignorance of how to use
latrines
5.
Water needed for hygiene
- school water supplies
needed
MCRD/School/
Community
6.
No washing facilities
- school washing
facilities needed
MCRD
7.
Vandalism over holidays
and at weekends
- promote rural sanitation
School Committee
- appoint watchman
MOHSW/MCRD
TAG/TN/07
23 -
ANNEX VII
REFERENCES
1.
UNCDF/GOL Appraisal Report of the Primary Schools Water and Sanitation
Program, TAG, June 1981
2.
UNCDF/GOL Sociocultural Evaluation of the Primary Schools Sanitation
Project, TAG, June 1981. An amended version will be part of a
publication entitled "Sociocultural aspects of sanitation programs
in Africa", to be issued by WHO/IRCWD in late 1983.
3.
Krafft, R. G. Report on Improved Sanitation and Drinking Water Supply in
Primary Schools, WHO, October 1978.
4.
Binnie and Partners, Report on the status of UNCDF Project LES/74/036
and proposals for Reactivation of Construction, Lesotho, August
1979.
5.
Shepherd, S. E., Anderson, J. H., Khitsane, T. Summary Report on the
Primary Schools Feeding Project Evaluation in Lesotho,
Food
Management Unit, Lesotho, February 1981.
6.
UNCDF/GOL 'Improved Sanitation in Primary Schools', Project Memorandum
(Project No. LES/74/036), 1974.
Position: 1288 (4 views)