From: SuSanA - Forum <forum@susana.org>
Date: 2 March 2014 08:03
Subject: Recent posts from the SuSanA Forum
To: conserveafricanews@gmail.com
Date: 2 March 2014 08:03
Subject: Recent posts from the SuSanA Forum
To: conserveafricanews@gmail.com
Recent posts from the SuSanA Forum |  |
- Effectiveness of the Microcredits in Sanitation - by: F H Mughal
- Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Plan International study - by: F H Mughal
- Re: Help us Rename the SuSanA Forum ‘User of the Month’ ! - by: Marijn Zandee
- Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Plan International study - by: IFEMIDE
- Re: CLTS doesn't lead to sustainable safe sanitation & hygiene - Plan International study - by: muench
| Effectiveness of the Microcredits in Sanitation - by: F H Mughal Posted: 01 Mar 2014 10:01 PM PST In the report: “State of the World 2013 – Is Sustainability is Still Possible?” I came across an interesting note by Doug Satre (Box 17-1). Tracing the history briefly on microfinance, Doug says that currently there are an estimated 500 million microsavings accounts around the world. Many providers aimed to make microfinance profitable, allowing it to attract investor capital and thus achieve greater scale. The microfinance industry has exploded to include over 1,000 institutions serving an estimated 85 million clients. While Doug’s discussion is in the context of sustainable agriculture, it is a fact there is significant growth of microfinance institutions. This is also valid for Pakistan. However, microfinance in sanitation sector has not picked up the pace, as yet, in the Sindh province of Pakistan, primarily due to low priority for sanitation. Here is the interesting part of Doug’s write-up. He says that after an initial burst of wild enthusiasm, there is now a growing debate about the effectiveness of these credit mechanisms as tool for ending poverty. This is especially true where the focus on scalability has caused lending institutions to neglect impoverished rural populations. The farmers who can take out loans sometimes borrow for costly agricultural inputs and then become trapped in a vicious cycle of crop failure and debt. Particularly troubling are the reports of up to 200,000 farmer suicides in India, where farmers have borrowed to buy expensive genetically modified organisms, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. Reading this makes me to think twice about microfinance in sanitation field, as those problems mentioned above, could put progress in sanitation in the rural areas in reverse gear. While taking microfinance system to a next higher level, where greed for more money crops in, may cause problems, I would appreciate, if forum members can share their experience of situations where microfinance in sanitation has brought in more problems and, whether the effectiveness of microfinance in sanitation sector is doubtful. F H Mughal     |
| Posted: 01 Mar 2014 09:07 PM PST Dear Elisabeth, Yes, you got it right with your Bangladesh and Tanzania example. If CLTS is working properly in Bangladesh, it should continue to be used there. If other sanitation system is working in Tanzania smoothly, that system should continue to be used there. To use your words: one should not be too tempted to export the concept to Tanzania. Simple as that. Regards, F H Mughal  |
| Re: Help us Rename the SuSanA Forum ‘User of the Month’ ! - by: Marijn Zandee Posted: 01 Mar 2014 08:48 PM PST For the Noun I would go for "contributor", and I think Florian's idea of "featured" sounds good as well. So my vote is for: Featured contributor, that somehow also sounds logical when there is an interview with that person. For the rest, I agree with Dorothee, that Elisabeth should be the next "featured contributor" or which title we may choose  .  |
| Posted: 01 Mar 2014 08:45 PM PST This is quite interesting a discussion. Before I comment on the topic itself. I would like to make comment on Mutual comment on human right issue. I have gone through your references but I don't know how those assumptions affect human right. He sees subsidy has human right and since CLTS is discouraging hardware subsidy it is against human right. I called it assumptions because because they are paper work. Can you please look at other areas where CLTS addresses human right and weigh the two before making recommendations. Let me remind u of some. Human right recognises that individual have access to basic sanitation at critical times, has your subsidy able to provide this? Clts does! Communal latrine provided in most times have been abandoned due to lack of ownership and resonsibilty, key to latrines has been seized by viage head due to lack of cooperation, many rural people have d taboo of defecating on stranger's faeces so they dont use communal effort? The promotion of dignity and self respect is the hallmark of CLTS. It gives access to sanitation 24/7 being it raining or glooming (night). See you are an office man, you are very good in table work I am not disputing that, and that is why you propand theories but I am a field man, I work directly at community level and I can tell you that most of your theories does not work. CLTS is real and it is really changing behavious. Presently I am not talking of isolated cases, in the mean time, I am working on WSSSRP using LGA Wide Approach in two local government in Nigeria and the something is going on 11states in the federation. Time will not permit me to itemise how CLTS contribute to human right but I will share this experience with you. The issues of human right has been abused by corrupt politicians and thus they have brainwashed the community people that 'you people are poor, it is your right to be rich and have access to everything a rich man has access to, thus any intervention coming to your community is to enrich you claim your right. This has made the community people to relax and kept waiting for government to even buy shoe for them. This is a global issue in developing country. Immediately we enter a community for triggering exercise, the youths that gathering to collect their share. Recently some group of youths rose against us that what is the meaning of this map you are drawing, "we were told that government has given you money to share with us, build latrine and construct water and now you are drawing map, oh you want to steal how money we will not agree". At the end, they came up that we never knew what you came for was for our benefit we thought it is business as usual and they promise to take immediate action, youths even volunteer to assist the elderly. These are reality on field, CLTS has also settled communal conflict in one of our communities. Are you saying we should trash this approach that is positively changing people's life? I will use another page for my comment.  |
| Posted: 01 Mar 2014 12:31 PM PST Dear Mughal, Thanks for providing those links. I don't quite understand your point though. Are you saying that if CTLS works in one country (let's say Bangladesh), one should not be too tempted to export the concept to another country (let's say Tanzania) because it is bound to not work so well there? Or what exactly where you trying to say? I would appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more on your point. Thanks, Elisabeth  |
| Email delivery powered by Google | |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Comments
Post a Comment