This study describes the current status of sanitation and hygiene in the Samtse district, Bhutan, where the SSH4A programme is being implemented. It also reports on the capacities of key stakeholders to steer processes and deliver services.
|Title||Baseline report Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All Bhutan|
|Publication Type||Research Report|
|Year of Publication||2015|
|Pagination||70 p. : 9 fig., 13 tab.|
|Place Published||Thimphu, Bhutan|
|Keywords||baseline studies, household surveys, indicators, institutional aspects, Qualitative Information System, sector analysis|
This study describes the current status of sanitation and hygiene in the Samtse district, Bhutan, where the Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SSH4A) programme is being implemented. It also reports on the capacities of key stakeholders to steer processes and deliver services.
The baseline survey used the Qualitative Information System (QIS) tool assessing for impact indicators and the Capacity Development Scorecard tool for the outcome indicators as performance monitoring frameworks. The mobile phone-based monitoring tool Akvo FLOW was used for data collection.
The impact indicators measure access to and use of toilets and access to hand washing facilities in households and schools. The outcome indicators assess sector capacities including sector steering and implementation capacities, private sector engagement, sector alignment, and empowerment.
The household survey noted that the higher wealth quintiles outperformed the lowest two quintiles. There were a number of common technical errors in latrine construction as well as in use and maintenance. About 75% of the 350 households surveyed, met or exceeded the minimum requirements for a hygienic toilet. As for handwashing, only three-in-10 households had a handwashing facility with soap in or near the toilet.
The leading national sector agency, the Public Health Engineering Division (PHED) of the Ministry of Health, scored “acceptable” levels of capacity (above 50% score) for three relevant outcome indicators. At district level, however, there was a “very limited capacity” (below 35%) in terms of all four outcome indicators.
Includes 7 ref.