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
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
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
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
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
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 – 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 – 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
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
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.)
Top Related