A Hidden Biggest Question Regarding ODF Campaign in Context of Nepal

Mr. Deepak Thapa

Abstract – (Article is of 1402 Words - excluding Abstract, Reference & Author's detail)

Due to the status of information gap/deviation between national & global institution, there seems considerable gap between the global funding projects and the actual demands and essentiality of the people, on the one hand, and, on the other, the projects with more resource efficiency even couldn't be able to achieve expected targets. What is happening with all those resources is one of the biggest hidden question. And, this is what I actually want to focus that may definitely raises the question against the authenticity of the then regional and global ODF status on the one hand, and, on the other, indicates progress of which both equally demand and direct for the essentiality of its updated review and respective policy, plan, program, project, campaign modification/adjustment/reformation .

Article (of 1402 Words - excluding Abstract, Reference & Author's detail)

Nowadays, the Open Defecation Free Campaign is so popular in the development sectors. A lot of national, local, and global government and non-government organizations are found to be engaged with this terminology directly associating with basic condition of human development. However, let us see what it is, actually.

The phrase 'Open Defecation Free Campaign' is composed up of the assimilation of ODF + Campaign and, to define it, we most have to know all its elemental words. Where 'Open + Defection + Free' means an act or may be behavior or practice of abolishing, avoiding, escaping open defecation practice by the proper toilet management. This is new concept that is generally associated with WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) from 2008 with CLTS approach. It believes that every human, ending open defecation practice, should use toilet to remain safe from diseases like Diarrhoea, Malaria, Typhoid, Cholera, Fluorosis, Dracunculiasis, Intestinal worms, Schistosomiasis, Trachoma, Arsenicosis, etc1.

And, when the broader and technical terminology like policy, plan, program, project,  and campaign is associated with ODF then it becomes Open Defecation Free policy, plan, program, project,  and campaign which means the minimum, basic or initial phase of overall WASH (Water, Sanitation & Hygiene) policy, plan,  program, project, campaign, campaign  on the basis of which sustainable WASH policy, plan, program, project are to be initiated. In addition, all these broader & technical forms are developed and brought into the developing sector to either minimize ill effect brought by ill open defecation behavior or to eradicate open defecation. Global government (WHO, UNICEF, Word Bank etc.) has been investing huge amount of money in ODF related policy, plan, program, projects since 1990 but it could not be able to bring or achieve its expected outputs/outcomes. There is still a lot of water, sanitation and hygiene related problems existing due to the presence of open defecation practice as per the various studies/assessments/surveys.

According to one of the estimation of the year 2014/15 of UNICEF and WHO2,3; at about 1 billion, almost 14.3% of the world population (7.4 Billion), openly defecated in the absence of any toilet of which 64% lived in South Asia where Nepal was in 8^th. position in the world and 3^rd position in South Asia having approximately 37% (11 Million) of its total population {26.5 Million (Total 26,494,504) 4 as per report of CBS (2011) of Nepal}defecators. Whereas as per DWSS (Department of Water Supply and Sewerage, Nepal) survey - held around same period (2014/2015 AD) and published around a year later - showed (2072 BS or 2015/2016 AD) at about only 18% (4 Million) of its population as open defecators5.

But, now, as per the recent publication of 'Second Fourth Month Progress Report of Ministry of Water Supply & Sanitation of Nepal'6 published at around the 1^st. February 2017 and the most recent database of Environment Sanitation Section of Government of Nepal7,8 uploaded at 13 June 2017, there are only 38 districts (out of 75), 2435 VDCs (out of 3157), 132 Municipalities (out of 217) that achieved ODF status. If we assume the source, then there are still 37 districts  yet to announce ODF having almost and around 5.1% - that means about 1.35 million - of its total population open defecators as per below trend chart. 

 

Thus, in order to declare Nepal as an ODF nation, the overall focus should be given to these non-ODF districts where its total 3477779 households - having only 3031428 toilet service - still have 446351 households without toilet services (still indicating the necessity of other 446351 additional toilets) and even those available toilets are also not either properly utilized (means though they have toilets, due to lack of WASH awareness and education, they prefer for open defecation) or poorly constructed because of which the general population are living at health risk.

In addition, in the regional context of Nepal, the country is facing a major sanitation problem with its 1363268 population of 446352 households without toilets facilities. Terai region, having 362465 of its households without toilets8, is most highly proned region following its Hilly and Himalayan Regions.

 

To specifically talk about donor agencies and funding provision, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) - with its only global funding provision GSF (Global Sanitation Fund) and the support, partnership, and collaboration of other various INGOs (UNHABITAT, UNICEF, DFID, JICA, WHO, Water Aid, European Union, Care Nepal etc.) - has been investing fund globally with the target of achieving Universal ODF by 2015 (as per target of Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene of goal 4 of MDG) & Total (Sustainable) Sanitation by 2030 (as per Goal 6, Target 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5).

To our dismay, it seems as if it is almost impossible to achieve universal and national ODF status of MDGs and NSHMP (National Sanitation & Hygiene Master Plan of Nepal) even by the early or end of 2017 though the deadline for universal and national ODF was 2015 & 20179 respectively.

And, retaining the ODF practice & implementing sustainable total sanitation program among previously declared ODF districts are also seemed to be very inevitable and challenging. According to the recent update and news of various INGOs and News Channels, there are various VDCs of various previously declared ODF districts that, due to their return towards non ODF practice, are turning towards non-ODF. The example of these are the recent update report of UNHABITAT, a recent news of BBC Nepali News and other informational resource.  According to recent BBC Nepali News of an around early of the month June 2017, one (1) of the VDC (most probably the Dahakhani VDC) of previously ODF declared Chitwan district turned back to non-ODF casting the whole district as non-ODF. Similarly 1554 households of 2 VDCs (Maina Maaini VDC & Lapha Gaun VDC) of previously ODF declared Udayapur district are also found without toilets.  In the same way, UNHABITAT also, as per its recent survey, had identified that 8 of previously ODF declared VDCs of Sunsari district are, due to some non-ODF practice of its communities, turned towards non-ODF. Studies also have not been done enough to assess the exact condition of ODF declared districts. There may be more ODF declared VDCs possibly turned towards non-ODFs then we assumed. Therefore, the time has come to think about the real situation & realistic modification and design of new retaining ODF program, post ODF program, post monitoring & evaluation or post control mechanism.

But, before doing any project modification/reformation/adjustment/change, we as policy maker also need to know that:-

-          Whether there is any deviation between national & global status regarding ODF & what effect it has been creating in policy/plan/program/project designing & implementation level?

-          What the deviation is all about.

-          Whether their respective status govern their whole decision or not.

-          Are there any miss-match between the donor proposed programs/projects/events and actual demand/essential programs/projects/events?

-          Are there any possible solution to fill this deviation/gap?

All these above questions and issues that I am highlighting about are only on the base that whatever the funds the major funding agencies have been raising are based on their previously surveyed data may be mostly on 2011/2012/2013 by WHO & UNICEF if it is ODF related sector, and whatever the blueprint or process proposed programs/projects they are donating are also based on the same outdated information. So; there seems considerable gap between the global funding projects and the actual demands and essentiality of the people, on the one hand; and, on the other, the projects with more resource efficiency even could not be able to achieve expected targets. What is happening with all those resources is one of the biggest hidden questions? Why so ever since 2014/2015, there are no any INGOs or global agencies showing their courage enough to feel the essentiality & necessity of the updated data particularly of ODF sector. Is there any nexus between the donors funded policy/plan/program/project and the policy/plan/program/project corruption behind this information gap/deviation? These are some questions that definitely lead us towards effective change management of particularly ODF national, local, and global projects.

Anyway; therefore, with the essential updated ODF (national, regional and global) review, national and Global Government, and Non-Government Organizations (both profitable & non-profitable) most have been and now have to contribute every possible and decisive efforts (policy, plan, program, project modification/adjustment/reformation) in sustainable approach for the nation & global building along with the achievement of national and Global WASH targets. 

 

Reference –

1WHO(2010).World Health Statistic 2010.World Health Organization, Geneva.

2WHO and UNICEF (2014). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water - 2014 update.World Health Organization, Geneva.

3UNICEF and World Health Organization (2015).Progress on sanitation and drinking water – 2015 update and MDG     

                assessment.World Health Organization, Geneva.

4CBS. (2012). National Population and Housing Census 2011.Government of Nepal.

5DWSS(2016).Nepal Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Sector Development Plan, 2017 (for the year 2017-

                2030).Government of Nepal.

6Ministry of Water  Supply & Sanitation (2017). Second Four Monthly Progress Report of 1 February 2017 (दोस्रो-चौमासिक-

            तथा-अस्टमासिक-प्रगति-प्रतिवेदन-०७३।७४). Government of Nepal. <http://mowss.gov.np/article/97/दोस्रो-चौमासिक-तथा-

                  अस्टमासिक-प्रगति-प्रतिवेदन-०७३।७४.html>. 15 June 2017.     

7Environment Sanitation Section (2017).Khula Dismukta Sambandhi Pargati of 13 June 2017 (खुलादिसा मुक्त सम्बन्धि प्रगति).

                Government of Nepal.<www.ess.gov.np/ne/khula> 18 June 2017.

8Environment Sanitation Section (2016).Khula Dismukta Sambandhi Bristit Janakari of 07 August 2016 (खुलादिसा मुक्त

                सम्बन्धि बिस्तृत जानकारी).Govenment of Nepal.www.ess.gov.np/ne/khula. 12 June 2017.

9DWSS(2011). National Sanitation & Hygiene Master Plan, 2011.Government of Nepal.

 

Mr. Thapa is 'Project & Research Consultant', working for various NGOs and Research Organizations {(National Family Planning Welfare Council, Nepal (NFPWC, Nepal); Women Skill Development Center, Sunsari (WSDC, Sunsari); National Human Welfare Council, Nepal (NHWC, Nepal); Accountability Initiative Private Ltd., etc.)}. Academic Qualification - MA English; MA Political Science; MA Nepalese Culture, History & Archaeology; Master of Public Administration. Contact Number – (977) 9803092482. E-mail: thapadeepak09@gmail.com.