RAPID WASH

ASSESMENT REPORT
MAYO-TSANAGA DEPARTMENT
FAR NORTH REGION
CAMEROUN

FEBRUARY 2017
i
Cover photo: People queuing for collecting unsafe water for human consumption from an intermittent river source. Mayo-Tsanaga, Far North
Region, Cameroon, Feb 2017.

Contents
0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction and background .................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Chronogram of activities ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Data collection ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Assessment team ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
3 Results........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 General and Markets data ................................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 WASH ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 General recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Markets ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
4.3 WASH ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
5 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 E-from, raw data and complete analysis ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Maps ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

ii
Table of figures
Figure 1: Detailed area of assessment and general FN region Cameroon ................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Chronogram of activities ............................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3: Surveyed HH type ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Distribution of market types ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Types of water points for drinking in HH’s and waiting times. .................................................................. 8
Figure 6: Reasons for not improved water supply. ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7 Examples of overcrowded or not improved water points........................................................................... 9
Figure 8: HH water storage capacity in buckets and liters ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 9: Impact on the water supply of the crisis. ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 10: Perception on Water Committee activity ............................................................................................... 11
Figure 11: Defecation practices by type of population and general latrine coverage ............................................ 12
Figure 12 Environment sanitation at the HH level .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 13: Defecation holes ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 14: Hand washing habits and products used................................................................................................ 14
Figure 15: Use of soap by population type .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 16: Solid Waste management option ........................................................................................................... 15
Figure 22: Priorities in Water supply ....................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 23: Priorities in sanitation............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 24: Priorities in hygiene promotion .............................................................................................................. 18
List of acronyms
BH (Boko Haram) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
CBP (Cash Based Programming) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
CLTS (Community Led Total Sanitation) .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
FN (Far North) ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
HQ (Head Quarters) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
IDP (Internally Displaced Person) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
LCB (Lake Chad Basin) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
LWF (Lutheran World Federation) .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
MDC (Mobile Data Collection) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
MRC (Minawao Refugee Camp) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
NCA (Norwegian Church Aid) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
NMFA (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) ................................................................................................................................................ 2
O&M (Operation and Maintenance)............................................................................................................................................................... 11
OFD (Open Field Defecation) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
WASH (Water And Sanitation and Hygiene promotion) ................................................................................................................................... 2

iii
0 Executive Summary
Cameroon’s FN (Far North) region has suffer the consequences of BH (Boko Haram) violence since 2015., with
attacks in the border between Nigeria and Cameroon’ s villages, have led to almost 200 000 IDP’s and
60 000refugees. Currently Act Alliance members, both international and nationals, are present in the area
since the beginning of the crisis.

This rapid WASH assessment was carried out via 329 surveys in seven villages. Data shows that most of the HH
goes regularly to the usually well furnished, although limited in quantity, local markets, but prices seem to
oscillate for the most important food items.

The water supply in all visited villages and sites is very precarious, with about 31 water points that could be
improved for the affected population as a lot of the do not consume water from a protected water source or
have to walking the 500 m to collect water. Most of host population thinks that the arrival of IDP’s has affected
their water supply, in quality, quantity and conflicts around water collection points

Water Committees are for most of the village as not very active, there is a chronic lack of fees collection that
leads to recurrent failures in water points.

Latrines are scarce and of bad quality, only 1/3 of HH declare to use one, the defecation in holes is the more
common practice and direct OFD (Open Field Defecation) is also wide spread. Sanitation of the environment is
also not good in most of the HH visited. Latrines coverages is even lower for IDP’s and refugees.

Handwashing after/before eating is a well-established practice but not after defecation. Refugees in shows
slightly better habits in hand washing after defecation, although the use of soap when washing hands is not
very spread in any sample population.

Solid waste management is done mainly by dumping the waste straight into the nature; only small fractions of
people burn their waste.

A holistic approach of integrated activities; heavily focus in the water supply, as the primary concern, but with
emphasis in family latrine construction and hygiene promotion is recommended. WASH projects could pilot
small CBP for hygiene items, with a heavy follow up.

Activities included are; rehabilitation and construction of new boreholes/ wells, training and strengthening of
water committees and training of maintenance technicians, among others.

Regarding sanitation, the construction of family latrines is the highest priority, as it is also the need of latrines
in public centres. Finally, the trainings of masons in good construction techniques/designs should be made to
improve quality of the facilities, currently very poor.

Hygiene promotion should be reinforced by addressing the unawareness of the target population regarding
key messages and its lack of means to enable good practices. Thus it is recommended to carry out campaigns
(door-by-door, mass, media, schools) and the distribution of kits (soap, bleach and hygienic towels for women).

1
1 Introduction and background
Cameroon’s FN (Far North) region has suffered the consequences of BH (Boko Haram) violence since 2015.
Refugees fleeing conflict in Nigeria started arriving at the border in April 2014 and were settled in the MRC
(Minawao Refugee Camp)1. Since then more than 60 000 refugees have been forced to live in the camp due to
the continuation of the conflict.

Furthermore, attacks hy BH on villages in the Nigeria-Cameroon border area have led to an additional
191,9082IDPs (Internally Displaced Person) to flee their communities in search of a safer place to be. Most of
those IDPs are in the departments of Mayo-Tsanaga, Mayo-Save and Logone Chari.

ACT Alliance members, both international and national, are present in all three mentioned departments. Their
continuous efforts are bringing emergency assistance to refugees, IDPs and host populations alike. NCA
(Norwegian Church Aid) is contributing to these activities with the installation, together with LWF (Lutheran
World Federation) of WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) activities for 10 000 persons.

The LCB (Lake Chad Basin) crisis is under-financed since its beginning, with great gaps in all sectors, including
in NCA’s core areas of expertise, namely WASH. For this, and other reasons, the NMFA (Norwegian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs) has called for an International Donor’s Conference in Oslo, this event is scheduled for Feb
20173.

In this context of crisis, NCA and LWF have combined efforts to carry out a rapid assessment in WASH in both
the previous and proposed LWF areas of operation and in the MRC. This assessment aims to bring to light the
population struggles and WASH needs, as well as the gaps in that sector and how to address them.Area of
assessment

The assessment was carried out in the areas of intervention where LWF is currently present, that is the
communes of Koza, Mokolo and MRC, Mayo-Tsanaga department, FN region in Cameroon and the MRC, where
UNHCR has approached LWF to improvement WASH activities as part of their emergency response. The seven
visited areas are: Djingliya, Minawao, Sector 4 MRC, Gaboua, Galdala, Modoko and Zamay.

Koza

Mokolo

MRC

Figure 1: Detailed area of assessment and general FN region Cameroon

1
UNHCR, Portail de partage de l'Information 2016
2
IOM, IDP Return Intention Survey in the FN Region of Cameroon, Jan 2017
3
Visit: http://oslohumanitarianconference2017.org/

2
This area, as shown in the maps in annex 5.1, is a very dry area, belonging to the Sahel region, with a very
prolonged and dry season (8 months) during September until April. Water access during this time is very scarce.

2 Methodology
2.1 Objectives
This WASH rapid assessment took part within a larger NCA field visit to LWF Cameroon and other ACT Alliance
member’s projects and offices. This field trip’s objective at large was to assess, not only the needs of the
population, but also the capacities of the present partners. Three staff members of NCA HQ (Head Quarters)
were mobilized in February 2017 – the Head of Humanitarian Division; an Emergency WASH Advisor; and a
Security Advisor.

Within the scope of this larger mission, this assessment focused on the following results.

2.1.1 General Objective

Enumerate and quantify the WASH needs of the assessed populations (IDP’S, Refugees and Host communities),
and identify opportunities for further interventions in the area by the NCA-LWF consortium.

2.1.2 Specific objectives

 Evaluate status of the WASH services and the needs in the area.
 Identify gaps in the emergency WASH response provided to affected populations.
 Through an evidence-based approach, improve any further project proposals developed by the NCA-
LWF or other ACT Alliance member’s consortia.

2.2 Chronogram of activities

01.02.2017
02.02.2017
03.02.2017
04.02.2017
05.02.2017
06.02.2017
07.02.2017
08.02.2017
09.02.2017
10.02.2017
11.02.2017
12.02.2017
13.02.2017
14.02.2017
15.02.2017
16.02.2017
17.02.2017
18.02.2017
19.02.2017
20.02.2017
21.02.2017
22.02.2017
23.02.2017
24.02.2017
25.02.2017
26.02.2017
27.02.2017
28.02.2017
01.03.2017
02.03.2017
03.03.2017
04.03.2017
05.03.2017
06.03.2017
07.03.2017
08.03.2017
09.03.2017
10.03.2017
11.03.2017
Activity

Logistics of Field trip x x x

Preparation of the surveys x x x
Secondary data analysis x x x x x x x x
Proposition of assesment zones x x
Training of enumerators x
Survey pilot (MRC) x
Survey host communities x x x x x x x
Data cleansing and analysis x x
Draft Report x
Inputs form partners x x x x x x x
Final Report x
Dissemination x

Figure 2: Chronogram of activities

2.3 Data collection

The field team collected data via MDC (Mobile Data Collection) using tablets and electronic formularies created
with Kobocollect4, see Error! Reference source not found.and Error! Reference source not found. in page
Error! Bookmark not defined..

Two forms were creates for the assessment:

 Forms for collecting data at the HH level: Mainly closed questions responded directly by the HH head.
 Forms for each visited village: Open and closed questions derived from discussions with relevant
informants.

4
Visit: https://kobo.humanitarianresponse.info

3
 The rationale using 2 different types of sources (forms) data is that in the analysis one can be cross-checked
for different parameters (Ex; type of latrines, access to water points, etc). Also different responses are
given for example by water authorities than users for some questions (Ej: Operation of water committees
in the village)

Questions were enunciated in in a way that don’t lead to the respondent to say a particular answers and
enumerators were trained to listen to respondent instead of listing possible choices. Where closed
questions were given, respondents could always list different answers.

After having some context from village authorities on composition of the village, type of families, presence
of IDP’s, the team leader distributed the enumerators by neighbours. They covered the areas given,
randomly choosing HH until time was ended in the day. No precise data of population exists for each of
the visited areas so no percentages of sampling can be determined.

2.4 Assessment team

The team was composed of:

 1 team supervisor, LWF permanent staff, who directed and oriented daily field work. This person was
also in charge of the security of the whole team.
 1 WASH interviewer, LWF permanent staff, who administered the village WASH survey.
 5 enumerators, with experience in data collection and previously trained in MDC were chosen to
administer the HH survey. The ratio was 3 female to 2 male to improve chances of collecting quality
data from the female population.
 1 driver with knowledge of the area.

The team depart daily in the morning to one or two locations to carry out the work. Security protocols required
the team to be back in Maroua at 17h. Sleeping overnight was considered an unnecessary security risk for the
team.

2.5 Limitations
Several limitations need to be highlighted in the assessment:

 Security: The team was not able to visit all the initially selected zones (Mozogo, Mogode) due to high
levels of insecurity in the areas.
 Data collection methods: Due to time and capacity limitations, all data collection was electronic
(although Village WASH data was collected in a participatory way in depth FGD would have given a
wider spectrum to the assessment.

3 Results
3.1 General and Markets data
329 surveys were completed in 7 villages, the HH heads interviewed where both female (39%) and male (61%),
IDP’s (28%) refugees (19%) and host families (54%), the average age of the HH head was 42 years old.

4
 Figure 3: Surveyed HH type

The average HH size is 7,8 persons, that is higher than the 5 persons/HH convention adopted in the area.

For Host population HH, only 10% of the sampled HH hosts other families within their compound, and 56%
among them host 4 or less person for less than 40 months (56%).

For refugees, 79% of the families IDP of refugee families are complete, and of the remaining 31%, half of them
are missing the person in charge of the family livelihood, the breadwinner (“gangne pain”)

Most of the HH heads go regularly to the local market (88%) and not to the nearby villages market (40%).
Meaning that local markets are active in all the visited areas, with exception of Galdala and Modoko, where
people go to both of them, local and neighboring.

This shows that most of the people can by basic items in their own village, covering distances by foot and not
paying money to access markets.

5
 Read as: 1=Local market, 2=Neighbor market, 3= Other market

Figure 4: Distribution of market types

43% of the HH cover a distance of between 500 to 1000 m to the market, with only 8% of them having to travel
more than 3 km, possible to by

Given the proximity to the market, 94% of the HH walk to their markets, with only 6% of them using a
motorbike to arrive.

According to the HH survey respondents, markets are usually well-furnished (68%) with the items needed by
the families, with the exception of Djinglya and Zamay where more people declare to have troubles finding
what they need.

Despite that fact, prices seem to oscillate (65%) for the most important food items (groundnuts, mille, rice,
manioc, etc) with the notable exception of MRC, where 66% of the respondent don’t notice price oscillations.

Even hygiene items are present in the local markets (94% of the respondents), thus suggesting that CBP (Cash
Based Programming) could be considered for certain WASH activities (hygiene items).

6
 3.2 WASH
For the WASH part of the assessment, two survey formats were used:

 HH level WASH See Error! Reference source not found.

 Village level WASH See Error! Reference source not found..

This approach was used in order to capture both, the perceptions and facts about the HH realities as well as
general state of WASH services in the village, via a resource person (Water Committee President, other).

34 questions were asked in at the HH level and around 50 at the village level.

3.2.1 Water Supply

The water supply in all visited villages and sites is very precarious the only water points for a population
estimated at 55 000persons are 34 working boreholes and 33 open wells (about 820 person/borehole or well,
below recognised WASH standards for a reliable supply). People also access 10 seasonal rivers as water
sources, for drinking and other HH uses.

42% of the surveyed HH do not consume water from a protected water source (well, river, unprotected spring).
Even in that case, 65% of people are forced to wait longer than 30 minutes to obtain their supply. Direct
observations in the field by the team also show that at 71% of the water points visited there were more than
20 persons waiting to be served.

7
 Figure 5: Types of water points for drinking in HH’s and waiting times.

For most of the people (72%) that do not have access to an improved water point (Cameroon Government
states that should be a borehole equipped with hand pump, protected spring or tapped water network) the
reason is simply that there is none in the area, whereas for other is a problem of difficulty in the access (42%)
or distance (41%).

10.1.5 Si vous ne vous ravitaillez pas dans un point d’eau moderne (protégé) pour la boisson,
pourquoi ?
0 138 0

72 %

42 % 41 %

19 %
12 %
7%
4%
4. Temps
Eloignement

5. Cout élevé
2. Accès

6. Autre
1. Manque de

Discriminatio
d'attente
difficile
Point d’eau
moderne

3.

7.

Figure 6: Reasons for not improved water supply.

Regarding to the distance to the collection point, 50% of the HH declare walking more the 500 m during the
rainy season, and 62% does so in the dry season, as other nearby sources dry out.

8
The lack of hygiene in around the water points is seen in most of the water points in the seven localities, with
71% of them having solid waste around the water points. More dangerously in 57% of localities, human and
animal excreta was detected around the water supply facilities, posing a major problem for human health.

Figure 7 Examples of overcrowded or not improved water points

19% of families have less fewer containers than specified by international practice (2 containers, one to collect
and one to store). Furthermore, 59% of HH have less than 75 litres (15 l/p/day for a HH of five persons) of
storage capacity, thus they would cope with eventual shortages of water in their supply in an undesired way
(reducing water consumption, especially reducing water for personal or HH hygiene).

9
 Figure 8: HH water storage capacity in buckets and liters

36% of the HH say that their water collection point is clean and has no surrounding contamination.

69% of the 178 interviewed host population thinks that their water supply has been impacted by the crisis due
to the arrival of the estimated 4 500 IDP’s (9% of total population of approx. 40 000), as refugees are
concentrated in the MRC. The most recurrent complaints are the longer queuing times (96%), the deterioration
of water quality (45%) and conflicts on collection points (39%)

10
 Read as: 1=No, 2=Yes

Figure 9: Impact on the water supply of the crisis.

When asked about the O&M (Operation and Maintenance) schemes, water authorities mention the lack of
fees collection (100%) as the most prominent of problems to assure sustainability of the water points. Conflicts
(57%) and recurrent failures (57%) are other problems. Less importance is given to the lack good technical
personnel (14%) or spare part (0%). Although those two factors are also crucial to general good repair and
maintenance and thus less failures in the water pumps.

In no village all the water commitees are active and in five villages only some water committees are actives
(71%) and in one village (14%) almost none water committee is operational. This brings the questions of lack
of good management the sustainability of the services in the villages.

Figure 10: Perception on Water Committee activity

Local village authorities state that agents of the commune do not carry out follow up visits in any of the seven
villages. Thus, local Water committees are the only authorities in the O&M of the water points. This sets them
in a very precarious position, as most of them do not have enough organizational capacity and/or economic
means.

11
 3.2.2 Sanitation
Defecation practices were investigated for the three populations of concern, with very different results. In
general, latrine coverage is very low, only 29% of the interviewed HH declare to use one, defecation in holes
(basically small holes with some privacy, see Figure 13) is the more common practice (61%) and direct open
defecation is also wide spread (20%).

Read as: 1=defecation hole, 2=Latrine, 3= Opel field, 4= Others

Figure 11: Defecation practices by type of population and general latrine coverage

Also related to these practices, direct observations in the 329 HH shows that in as much as 81% of them
problem vectors (flies, mosquitoes) are common.

The use of defecation holes can pose a serious risk to health, especially during rainy season where those types
of very informal constructions can collapse causing physical harm, or overflow and its content may be
dispersed into the environment. Improved latrines, even if the more basic ones, can help prevent this
problems, providing also a more suitable and private place for defecation.

Environmental sanitation is also not good in 77% of the HH visited, with excrements seen in the surroundings
of 46% of the facilities; risks of contamination for kids are increased when this happens nearby the house/play
areas.

12
 Figure 12 Environment sanitation at the HH level

Figure 13: Defecation holes

Direct observation shows that latrines coverages vary – 51% of HH for host population, 32% for IDP’s and 16%
for refugees. A predictable scenario where the newly arrived refugees to sector 4 of MRC are still not covered
with latrines (current global ratio of latrine coverage, according to UNHCR is 40 pers/lat, where UNHCR’s
standard for the MRC is targeted at 12-20 pers/lat)

Moreover, open defecation is present and wide seen in two of the seven locations (MRC and Galdala). This is
especially acute in the case of the MRC.

3.2.3 Hygiene
Visual inspection by the enumerators shows that most HH (78%) use jerry cans/water containers that are
covered, preventing possible contamination at the HH level of drinking water. Despite that, as much as 33% of
them are not clean. Interestingly 80% of the refugee population in MRC have clean containers; this could be
due to their previous good practices or to current HP promotion campaigns.

13
Handwashing after/before eating is a well-established practice for 95% of the respondents, but the rest of the
key times for hand washing are not so well known and are seldom mentioned, 43% for after defecation, 17%
mentioned hand washing before cooking, only 12% report doing it at other different times (after working,
before praying).

Refugees in MRC shows slightly better habits in hand washing after defecation, with a 53%, reinforcing the
previous statement of their better practices and knowledge.

The use of soap when washing hands is not very spread, only 33% of the HH have soap available upon visual
inspection, most of the families only use water (63%) and very few uses ash (3%).

Figure 14: Hand washing habits and products used

Once again it is noteworthy comment that the MRC population (the refugees) are better off (52%) in the access
to soap than the IPD’s (17%) and the host communities (34%), showing once again the efforts of the WASH
actors in the camp.

14
 Read as: 1=Nothing, 2=Soap, 3=Ash, 4= Others

Figure 15: Use of soap by population type

Solid waste management is done by 71% of the HH of the combined three populations by dumping the waste
straight into their surroundings. 39% of the HH respond that they burn their rubbish, and 17% use a refuse
pit. It is interesting to note that 20% of the families (but only IDPs and Host populations) practice composting
their organic waste. This practice can be beneficious not only from the point of view of environmental health
but also helps in their garden production.

A higher percentage of refugees (57%) burn their rubbish, this practice, in the MRC have the potential of
creating fires, especially during the dry season and thus refuse pits should be a preferred option in that
scenarios.

Figure 16: Solid Waste management option

4 Recommendations
4.1 General recommendations
The host population also suffers from the impacts of the crisis, as seen in section 3.2.1, thus it is advisable to
couple of activities with IDPs and refugees, to activities directed to support the local population as well. This
has the potential to reduce conflict between the different populations.

15
In the eyes of interviewed authorities water supply, across all the assessed villages, is the priority number one,
followed by sanitation and thirdly hygiene. This view corresponds to general data collected at the HH level, as
reported in section 3.2. Those priorities established, WASH in this set up calls for a holistic approach of
integrated activities; heavily focused on water supply, but with significant emphasis in family latrine
construction and hygiene habits, specifically hand washing, as a way of improving people’s health.

4.2 Markets
In all the villages visited, markets are as of February 2017 well established and functioning for the most basic
items, including hygiene items. No more detailed information was obtained about the type of market, private
water trader, construction expertise and materials for toilets, HH water treatment options. It is advised thus
to carry out a more in depth analysis prior to large investments of cash in through those markets.

In the meantime, the assessment indicates that within a WASH project, a pilot cash / voucher scheme, backed
by a quick hygiene items distribution could fill HH hygiene needs in some areas were markets are active. This
could be done via conditional cash transfer, or vouchers in the beginning to avoid different uses of the grants.

4.3 WASH
4.3.1 Water Supply
As described in section 3.2, water supply in this particularly dry region of the country is the primary concern in
the visited villages, especially those hosting large proportion of refugees or IDPs. Authorities recognised this in
during the field visit and a list of priorities was collected during FGD with local WASH authorities. Rehabilitation
of boreholes (86%), construction of new boreholes (71 %), training and strengthening of water committees
(71%) and training of maintenance technicians (43%) are highest priorities.

Figure 17: Priorities in Water supply

In total 31 water points could be improved in the seven villages. Six of them are completely broken and would
need total renovation, five are contaminated by defecation nearby and would need disinfection and
protection, 20 are partially functional and would need rehabilitation for better performance and/or improved
water quality.

16
 4.3.2 Sanitation
As expressed in section 3.2.2, defecation habits are poor among the targeted population; construction of family
latrines is the main recommendations extracted from this assessment, as current coverage is very low.

There is also high needs in construction of latrines in public centres (schools, health facilities, markets) as those
places are centre of concentration of people and thus possible places for mass contamination of the
environment.

Finally, where appropriate CLTS5 (Community Led Total Sanitation) could be recommended to be used as a
more sustainable way of latrine construction. CLTS have been previously used with sanitation marketing
techniques and training of local masons.

Regardless of the type of approach for latrine construction, and in order to carry out good quality latrines,
trainings of masons in good construction techniques/designs should be made.

5
http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/page/clts-approach

17
 Figure 18: Priorities in sanitation.

4.3.3 Hygiene
As seen in section 3.2.3, improved hygiene practices should be reinforced by addressing not only the
unawareness of the target population regarding key messages but also enabling them to access to materials
(soap and where possible local water disinfection means) and water in high quantity.

Therefore, it is recommended to carry out a complete HP programming including campaigns (door-by-door,

mass, media). These campaigns can to be done by empowered, local promoter that can be trained and
monitored by project teams in the field.

Distribution or CBP of NFI (water collection items) and HP items (soap, bleach and hygienic towels for women)
is an important enabling factor towards better habits and thus improved health of the population.

Figure 19: Priorities in hygiene promotion

18
5 Annexes
For further information or access to raw data, please contact:

ikmb@nca.no

19
5.1 Maps
5.1.1 Hydrogeology

20
5.1.2 Rainfall

21