October 27, 2020

WASH sector meeting

Agenda:

Introduction and welcoming (5 min) – Mr Ritthick + Julien

1. MSNA finding (Helen/Cara from REACH – 20 min)2. Rapid Gender Analysis Findings and Recommendations for JRP (Joelle/Clem

from Gender Hub – 10/15 min)3. JRP process – ISCG (Roselyn from ISCG – 20 min)4. Updates WASH in Health (Mariangela from WASH sector – 10 min)5. Suggestive Measures for better Performances of FS Treatment Technologies

(Sojib from UNICEF + Prof Mominur Rahman from ICDDR’B – 20 min)

AOB

1- MSNA Findings

MSNA Technical Working GroupCoordinated by:

Funded by:

Technical contributions:

MethodologyDESIGN

• Indicators selected and prioritized by Sectors and tools subsequently finalized by the MSNA TWG

COVERAGE

• Refugee: 836 households with roughly equal coverage of Teknaf and Ukhiya

• Host community: 911 households with roughly equal coverage of Teknaf and Ukhiya

DATA COLLECTION

• Quantitative data collection took place remotely between July 27 and August 13

• Qualitative data collection took place both remotely and in-person between August 20 and August 29

• Secondary Data Review looking at other assessments done pre- and post-COVID to provide context

and validate the findings

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SAMPLING APPROACH

• Using a simple random sampling approach stratified at the Upazila level and by gender of head of

household, households were sampled from:

• Refugee: UNHCR refugee registration database

• Host community: A sampling frame constructed from UNHCR host community survey data as

well as UNHCR and IOM beneficiary databases

Preliminary Findings – Refugee

Refugee – Water Sources

1%

1%

1%

11%

10%

69%

35%

0%

1%

1%

3%

5%

42%

67%

Tanker truck

Protected dugwell

Bottled water

Cart with small tank or drum

Rainwater collection

Piped water tap/tapstand into settlement site

Tubewells/borehole/handpump

Ukhiya Teknaf+respondents could select multiple options

% of households reporting main sources of drinking water

• <1% reported using not

improved drinking

water sources

Note:

• Results on water sources are not comparable to last year as this year only drinking water

sources were assessed, whereas last year drinking and cooking water sources were assessed

Refugee – Water Quantities

• 6% of households reported loss or

diminished access to clean water and

sanitation as an impact of the COVID-19

outbreak

88% of households reported

having enough water to

meet all domestic needs

Note:

• Also the question on water quantities was formulated differently and likely results should not be

directly compared

Refugee – Sanitation & Hygiene

7%

18%

31%

62%

No designatedbathing facility

Tubewell platform

Communal bathingfacility

At home27%

of households reported

often or always finding

visible waste in the vicinity

of their house

+respondents could select

multiple options

% of households reporting usual

bathing facilities

95%of households reported

having soap

The proportion of households reporting having

soap increased from 67% (+/-2%) in 2019 to

95% (+/-2%) in 2020. However, questions may

not be directly comparable, as last year soap

ownership was verified.

Refugee – Handwashing

98%of households reported having

increased handwashing

practices since the COVID-19

outbreak

16% of respondents were able to mention

three critical times to wash hands (as

defined by the Global WASH Cluster - GWC)

13%

14%

30%

49%

4%

5%

14%

23%

69%

73%

After cooking

When hands are dirty

After eating

After coming home

Before breastfeeding

After handling a child's stool

Before feeding children

Before cooking

After defecation

Before eating

% of respondents reporting critical times to wash hands+

+respondents could select 3 options

57%

20%

46%

11%

69%

37%

62%

34%

Incl. both the above

Incl. "dirty hands"

Incl. "coming home"

GWC critical times

Female Male

Overall results:

• Including “coming home”: 50%

• Including “when hands are dirty”: 24%

• Including both: 60%

2%

1%

2%

1%

7%

9%

14%

15%

91%

90%

84%

84%

Sanitation

Water

Went well (post-lockdown) Went well (pre-lockdown)

Did not go well (post-lockdown) Did not go well (pre-lockdown)

Did not receive (post-lockdown) Did not receive (pre-lockdown)

Refugee – CwC & AAP

% of households reporting having received

enough information on types of assistance

15%

14%

85%

86%

Sanitation

Water

Yes No

% of households reporting satisfaction with types of assistance

Refugee – Priority Needs% of households reporting priority needs+

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

8%

10%

12%

13%

13%

14%

21%

23%

41%

60%

63%

Civil documentation (identity cards)

Cooking fuel

Access to information

Safety and security

Other

Access to cash (excluding cash for work)

Access to health services and or medicine

Access to education for children

Access to clean drinking water

Household/cooking items

Clothing

Electricity

Access to safe and functional latrines

Access to income generating activities

Access to food

Shelter materials

+respondents could select 3 options

33% of female respondents

mentioned “safe and functional

latrines” as opposed to 20% of

male respondents

Qualitative – RefugeeWater:

• In Teknaf, lack of water was only perceived to be an issue by few key informants, while

generally people were reported to be able to meet even additional COVID-19-related water

needs using rainwater

• In Ukhiya, lack of clean water commonly reported as a concern

Hygiene & Sanitation:

• Dirty and dysfunctional latrines as well as a insufficient sanitation facilities were a

common concern across all surveyed camps

• Irresponsiveness of humanitarian actors regarding reports of dysfunctional WASH

infrastructure commonly raised

• Additional hygiene items were received by most and COVID-19 messaging was perceived to

have been successful and sufficient – though few key informants did report a lack of hygiene

items as well as of soap and hygiene messaging

Preliminary Findings – Host Community

Host Community – Water Sources

2%

2%

2%

2%

7%

10%

87%

1%

0%

2%

3%

4%

10%

90%

Surface water

Unprotected dugwell

Protected dugwell

Bottled water

Rainwater collection

Piped water tap/tapstand into settlement site

Tubewells/borehole/handpump

Ukhiya Teknaf +respondents could select

multiple options

% of households reporting main sources of

drinking water

Note:

• Results on water sources are not comparable to last year as this year only drinking water sources

were assessed, whereas last year drinking and cooking water sources were assessed

Not improved

drinking water

sources

Host Community – Water Quantities

• 4% of households reported loss or

diminished access to clean water and

sanitation as an impact of the COVID-19

outbreak – 7% in Ukhiya and 2% in Teknaf

77% of households reported

having enough water to

meet all domestic needs

Note:

• Also the question on water quantities was formulated differently and likely results should not be directly

compared

Host Community – Sanitation & Hygiene

11%of households reported

often or always finding

visible waste in the vicinity

of their house

96% of households

reported having soap

14%of households reported

adult members sometimes

practicing open defecation

Open defecation & waste Soap ownership

Host Community – Handwashing

16%

21%

40%

1%

5%

19%

19%

84%

91%

After eating

When hands are dirty

After coming home

Before breastfeeding

Before feeding children

After handling a child's stool

Before cooking

After defecation

Before eating

28%of respondents were able to mention three

critical times to wash hands (as defined by

the Global WASH Cluster - GWC)

% of respondents reporting critical times to wash hands+

+respondents could select 3 options

81%

40%

58%

21%

80%

51%

67%

43%

Incl. both the above

Incl. "dirty hands"

Incl. "coming home"

GWC critical times

Female Male

Overall results:

• Including “coming home”: 61%

• Including “when hands are dirty”: 43%

• Including both: 81%

Host Community – CwC & AAP% of households reporting having

received enough information on types

of assistance+% of households reporting satisfaction with types of

assistance+

4%

7%

72%

81%

24%

12%

Sanitation

Water

Yes No Don't know

+the approximate margin

of error is +/-7%.

8%

8%

7%

7%

40%

51%

42%

50%

20%

25%

19%

26%

32%

17%

31%

17%

Sanitation

Water

Went well (post-lockdown) Went well (pre-lockdown)

Did not go well (post-lockdown) Did not go well (pre-lockdown)

Did not receive (post-lockdown) Did not receive (pre-lockdown)

Don't know (post-lockdown) Don't know (pre-lockdown)

+the

approximate

margin of error

is +/-7%.

Host Community – Priority Needs% of households reporting

priority needs+

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

7%

7%

15%

19%

26%

30%

40%

54%

55%

Civil documentation (identity cards)

Support with providing…

Other

Safety and security

Household/cooking items

Electricity

Access to education for children

Access to health services and or medicine

Cooking fuel

Access to safe and functional latrines

Access to clean drinking water

Access to income generating activities

Shelter materials

Access to cash (excluding cash for work)

Access to food

+respondents could

select 3 options

Qualitative – Host CommunityWater:

• Lack of water was a general concern across the surveyed areas, sometimes

mentioned to have been compounded by the refugee influx

• In particular, in Teknaf, a lack of deep tubewells was frequently mentioned

Hygiene & Sanitation:

• Almost all key informants reported dysfunctional sanitation facilities and an

inability to repair those due to a lack of money, sometimes reported to result in

open defecation practices

• COVID-19 awareness-raising campaigns generally perceived to have been

successful

• Hygiene items had been received across the surveyed areas, but sometimes

not in sufficient quantities and sometimes only in areas adjacent to the camps

Thank you for your attention!Questions?

Caution!

Please protect your WASH Infrastructure from different unwanted occurrence from the camp.

2- Rapid Gender Analysis Findings and Recommendations for JRP

RAPID GENDER ANALYSIS FORROHINGYA AND HOST COMMUNITIES

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF COVID19 IN COX’S BAZAR, BANGLADESH

The Rapid Gender Analysis was generously funded by the Governments of Sweden, Canada and Australia

62%51%

38% 34% 30% 25% 24% 21%9% 5% 4%

57%

11%

45%57%

26%18% 21%

14%

62%

8%0%

Figure 3. Priority Needs or Concerns for Rohingya Community

Women and Girls Men and Boys

68%58%

34%52%

80%

12% 10%30% 34%

4% 0%

46%

17% 17%

51%66%

7% 9% 16%

86%

1% 0%

Figure 4. Priority Needs or Concerns for Host Community

Women and Girls Men and Boys

Urgent Priorities

◼ Increase the provision of safe and sufficient water access in camps for womenand girls

◼ Increase and continue latrine and bathing facility maintenance and repairwork, including by integrating minimum standards on gender and protection

◼ Provide protective and hygiene equipment (masks, soap, hand sanitizer) topoorer households in host community, including female sex workers andtransgender persons

◼ Support Rohingya and host community women with MHM such as designatingspace for the washing and drying of menstrual clothes in women only bathingfacilities

◼ Prioritize engaging women in the production of reusable menstrual productsalong with masks

Continuing Priorities

◼ Ensure gender-specific safety measures are taken around WASH facilities,including reducing crowding, providing sufficient light at night, locks, amongother measures

◼ Ensure availability of required equipment and facilities for persons withdisabilities and older people to maintain hygiene-prevention measures

1. Women’s leadership and active engagement is essential, in particular under-represented and marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities, older people, adolescent girls, transgender persons, and female sex workers, in all aspects of the COVID-19 response

2. Differing needs and entitlements of women, girls, men, boys, LGBTQ+ populations and key vulnerable and marginalized groups must be addressed at all stages of the COVID-19 response

3. Mitigate and respond to new and increased risks arising from COVID-19 faced by women, girls, men, boys, and key vulnerable and marginalized groups

REPORT PUBLISHED ON GENDER HUB WEBSITE:

HTTPS://WWW.HUMANITARIANRESPONSE.INFO/EN/OPERATIONS/BANGLADESH/GENDER-HUB

3 - JRP Process – ISCG

4 - Updates WASH in Health

Updates from the HP TWiG

• WASH in Health – AWD• WASH in Health – COVID-19• HP Strategy and Thematic Workshops• A.O.B.

WASH in Health - AWD

• Situation under control• AWD response plan finalized and shared• Statistics of AWD per camp (attack rate and total cases) shared• JAT team training preparation on-going (with Health Sector)• Preventive measures on-going – as per COVID-19 response (HP,

disinfection…)

All materials can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AaY5kPjNkhS-URUY7TDway4bJ_lLgFqD?usp=sharing

WASH in Health - AWD

WASH in Health – COVID-19• Known recommendations and guidelines still apply (no new WHO

guidelines for WASH)• N. 158 studies on-going at the moment (worldwide) to understand

patterns of virus diffusion and mortality in different settings

In Cox’s• In September: increase of 40% cases of Acute Respiratory

Infections (ARI) patients (compared to same period in 2019)• Median age of all tested persons (up to W. 42) is 12 y.o.• Seroprevalence study planned (WHO)• Mortality rates compared to 2019 are similar

WASH in Health – COVID-19from 22 to 26 Oct.Confirmed cases

+ 58 in Host+ 25 in Camps

WASH in Health – interventions in hospitals in host

• WASH Sector partners reporting achievements in health centers in districts (Mokeshali, Ramu, Pekhua, Chockoria): ICRC, ACF

HP Strategy – Thematic workshops completed∙ Hygiene Promotion during natural disasters∙ Menstrual Hygiene Management∙ Hygiene promotion and nutrition∙ Behaviour change and waste segregation at HH level∙ Community Engagement for different stakeholders’ group∙ Qualitative indicators to monitor hygiene promotion∙ Hygiene promotion and exit strategy

Other Sectors involved:- CWC- Nutrition- Health

Thank you!

A.O.B.• Core Facilitators Team training planning on-going - Palash focal• Community Hygiene Promoters volunteers mapping on-going

(deadline for info 1st November) – Palash focal

Next HP TWiGSunday 1st November 2020

5 - Suggestive Measures for better Performances of FS Treatment Technologies

Suggestive Measures for better Performances of Fecal Sludge Treatment Technologies at

Rohingya Refugee Camps

(1) Dr. Zahid Hayat MahmudScientist and Head, Laboratory of Environmental Health, icddr,b

(2) Dr. Mominur RahmanProfessor, Department of Chemical Engineering, BUET

▪ Name of the Project : Efficiency of Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) Technologies in Rohingya Refugee Camps.

▪ Starting date : October 2019

▪ Completion of the Study : June 2021

▪ Funder of the study : unicef

▪ Total number of FSM technologies : 6

▪ Technologies used in the study :

1. Up-flow filters

2. Constructed wetlands

3. Lime stabilization ponds

4. Anaerobic baffled reactor

5. Anaerobic treatment systems

6. Wastewater stabilization ponds

▪ Total number of treatment plants in this study : 18 (9 unicef, 9 non-unicef)

Background

▪ To identify the efficacy level of the FSM technologies operating in Rohingya camp based on field investigation, land footprint, possible environmental impact and health safety of local inhabitants.

▪ To compare the results of tested quality parameters and collected technological, operational, and management information from Rohingya Camp FSM technologies with international efficacy level, including best operational and management practices of FSM from comprehensive desk review.

▪ To gain an understanding of effective FSM system on the context of refugee crisis which will help to guide the future interventions and decision making.

Objectives of the study

Tested parameters:Microbiological :

E. coli, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella, Shigella, Helminth egg.

Physicochemical :

COD, BOD, Total Solids (TS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Nitrate (NO3), Total Nitrogen (TN), Ammonia (NH3), Phosphate (PO4), Total Phosphorous (TP), pH, and Temperature.

Treated Effluent Characteristics as per Standards

17%

7%

83%

75%

2%

95%

33%

99%

83%

74%

83%

75%

82%

92%

17%

24%

97%

4%

67%

0%

17%

25%

17%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Temperature (30 °C) - Bangladesh ECR '97

pH (6 -9) - USEPA

Ammonium (50 mg/L) - Srilanka

Helminth (≤1 eggs/L) - WHO

Nitrate (250 mg/L) - Bangladesh ECR '97

TP (2 mg/L) - EU

Phosphate (35 mg/L) - Bangladesh ECR '97

TN (15 mg/L) - EU

BOD (40 mg/L) - Bangladesh ECR '97

TSS (100 mg/L) - Bangladesh ECR '97

COD (125 mg/L) - EU

E. coli (1000 cfu/100mL) - Bangladesh ECR '97

Percent Distribution

Para

met

er (

Gu

idel

ine

Ran

ge V

alu

e -

Un

it)

-R

egu

lato

ry

Bo

dy

Beyond Guideline Within Guideline

Fig : Parameter wise distribution (within or beyond guidelines) of treated sludge (outlet) according to the national and international guidelines

Possible Reasons

44.44%

66.67%

61.54%

50.00%

33.33%

38.89%

40.74%

27.78%

15.38%

40.91%

55.56%

33.33%

14.81%

5.56%

23.08%

9.09%

11.11%

27.78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor

Anaerobic Treatment System & Infiltration

Constructed Wetland

Lime Stabilization Pond

Upflow Filter

Wastewater StabiliZation Pond

BOD/COD ratio Percentage

Tre

atm

en

t Te

ch

no

log

ies

< 0.3 0.3 - < 0.5 ≥ 0.5

Fig : Inlet BOD/COD ratio in different technology

Possible Reasons (contd.)

pH should be around 7.0 in Biological Process

Possible Reasons (contd.)

T: 25-40oCBest Performance: 35-38oC

Suggestive Measures (contd.)

Fig. Suggestive modification and operations of existing Upflow filter/ABR/Constructed wetland/Anaerobic treatment system and Infiltration

Suggestive Measures

Fig. Suggestive modification and operations of existing Wastewater and Lime stabilization pond

• Don’t add or mix any sort of petroleum product with FS during pit emptying or any phase of FS handling, transportation and treatment.

• Don’t mix alum inside the pit. It may lead to inefficient phase separation during FSM treatment.

• Don’t mix alum prior to biological process which may reduce essential nutrients for micro-organisms

• Adjust the pH of FS to neutral (7.0) before entering into the biological process and maintain it throughout the biological process

• Adjust HLR, HRT, SRT based on the biodegradability nature (BOD/COD) of the incoming FS

• Use alum after biological process to reduce Solids, BOD, COD and ‘P’ within working pH range of alum

Do’s and don’ts

• Apply breakpoint chlorination/H2O2/O3 to reduce E. coli, TN, NH4+, BOD, COD within guideline values

• Use sand filtration to reduce helminth eggs within guideline value

• Maintain SOP for better performance of the FSM plant

• Manage the sludge produced from FS treatment plant properly following the national and international standards, guidelines where necessary.

Do’s and don’ts (contd.)

AOB

• Julien (WASH sector Co) away from January to October 2021 – replacement tocome

• Potential workshop in November: Hydrogeology (4/11); Compost (10/11); solidwaste in drainage (end of November)

• Training: Gender for CFP (1 day - 3 dates: 8/11; 11/11; 12/11)

• ….