See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373643765

Promoting Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Practices in Rural Schools of

Zimbabwe

Preprint · September 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23496.08969

CITATIONS
0

1 author:

Ezra Chipatiso
University of Zimbabwe
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ezra Chipatiso on 04 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Promoting Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
Practices in Rural Schools of Zimbabwe

Abstract

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools contributes to better health and educational

outcomes among students. Water, sanitation and health are therefore very critical not only as a

human right, but also as a step to quality education, national development and poverty reduction.

The paper sought to review water use and sanitation practices in rural schools of Zimbabwe.

Inadequate capital to support and maintain WASH standards in schools, and lack of monitoring

systems at schools, remain key challenges. Despite support by UNICEF and other international

agencies, further support is required to meet international recommendations for healthy, gender-

equitable schools.

Key words
Water Supply, Sanitation Practices, Hygiene.

1
Ezra Chipatiso
Correspondence: echipatiso@gmail.com

1|Page
1. Introduction
Access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools is integral to the well-being of children
and their right to quality education. The impact of WASH in schools is multi-faceted, and has
made a crosscutting contribution to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
through impacting universal primary education, gender equality and environmental sustainability
(WHO, 2009). WASH has also been considered significant in the achievement of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).

Although the world has progressed in the area of water and sanitation, more than 2.3 billion people
still live without access to sanitation facilities and some are unable to practice basic hygiene
(UNICEF, 2006). In developing countries, there is mounting pressure from international agencies
for schools to institute Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) facilities to reduce or eliminate
water borne diseases. Inadequate water supply and sanitation are largely responsible for the high
levels of water borne diseases in Southern Africa, where the majority of people live in rural areas
and do not have appropriate sanitation systems (Hirji, 2002). Not surprisingly, infectious water
borne diseases, such as dysentery, cholera, and hepatitis are almost endemic in places where water
is scarce.

2. Global Overview on Water and Sanitation

Since 1990, WHO and UNICEF, through the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water
Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene, have tracked progress on global water and sanitation goals
(UNICEF, 2022). Human health depends on the quality of our immediate surroundings, in which
water and sanitation services, and their management have a key role. In September 2000, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a number of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
that challenged the global community to reduce poverty and increase the health and well-being of
all peoples. In September 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
reaffirmed these goals and added specific targets on sanitation and hygiene (UN, 2003). By
including sanitation and hygiene in the MDGs, the global community has acknowledged the
importance of promoting sanitation and hygiene as development interventions and has set a series
of goals and targets. These are to half by 2015, the proportion of people without access to basic
sanitation. Additionally, MDGs also sought to improve sanitation in public institutions, as well as
strengthening existing information networks (UN, 2003).

2|Page
The global statistics on sanitation hide the dire situation in some developing regions. According to
UNICEF (2013), developing regions have an average coverage of 50%, that is, only one out of
two people has access to some sort of improved sanitation facility. The regions presenting the
lowest coverage are Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), Southern Asia (38%) and Eastern Asia (45%).
Western Asia (84%) has the highest coverage among developing regions. It is estimated that 272
million school days globally can be gained if the MDG for sanitation is achieved (UNICEF,
2012a). Apart from impacts on educational performance, health and social development, access to
improved WASH standards in schools is about dignity and respect for the child in enabling a safe
and healthy learning environment (WSP, 2011). Since the Global Joint Call to Action for WASH
in Schools, “Raising Clean Hands” was published in 2010, the focus on school-based water,
sanitation and hygiene has increased, but still lags behind targets for global and regional coverage,
which is improving, but much too slowly (UNICEF, 2012b).

2.1 Lessons Drawn from Developed Countries

Improved sanitation practices that produce the desired results have been studied in the developed
world. WHO (2009) notes that, in the developed world, only the sanitation technologies which
operate in an environmentally responsible manner are chosen. This section focuses on
implementation of eco-sanitation in Romania and Ukraine to manage excreta. In developed
countries such as Ukraine, lack of the access to safe water and sanitation has been the main problem
for the rural schools. According Ukraine Country Report (2013), 20 % of rural schools in the
country were not connected to centralized water supply, and 32% of drinking water samples in
Ukraine do not meet sanitary and hygiene standards, while 23% of samples did not meet
bacteriological standards.

Following the implementation of eco-san toilet in Romania in 2003 aimed on improving school
sanitation facilities, Ukraine adapted the eco-san toilet design to Ukrainian building standards in
2004 (Ukraine Country Report, 2013). The toilet consists of three double vault urine diverting
toilets, three waterless urinals and two urine tanks of 2m³ each. Plastic squatting-pans were
selected for hygienic reasons. Urine and faeces are properly separated, collected and stored. After
storage of the urine during six months and composting of the faeces during two years, it can be
used as a fertilizer (Compost Toilets Practical Action Technical Brief, 2007).

3|Page
This new technology can be used as a good alternative to the traditional pit latrines for rural schools
because it does not result in groundwater contamination and produces good fertilizer. According
to Tsvietkova and Kovalyova (2006), the pupils had three lessons about eco-sanitation and hygiene
per month. Additionally, the storm water gathering system was installed in spring 2006. Eco-
sanitation may be appreciated as sustainable and affordable water-protecting solution because it
also does not require water for flushing. In 2006, repeated surveys were carried out among 160
school pupils in Gozhuli school and the results were the following: 75 % of students were happy
to use school toilet and the number of students still having problems with eco-toilet use had
decreased to 25 %. The survey among teachers of the school showed that 90% of them liked eco-
toilet, but had complaints about bad smell during cold seasons (Tsvietkova and Kovalyova, 2006).
The success of the sanitation programmes were attributed to cooperation schools and stakeholders,
who were also committed to conserving the school environment and adhering to school policies.

2.2 Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes in Africa

The African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW) commissioned the production of a second
round of Country Status Overviews (2nd CSO) to better understand what underpins progress in
water supply and sanitation and what they and their governments can do to accelerate that progress
across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (WHO, 2010). AMCOW delegated this task to the
World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program and the African Development Bank (AfDB) who are
implementing it in close partnership with UNICEF and WHO in over 30 countries across SSA
(UN-Water, 2011). The level of success for schools in the developing world needs to be
determined, as the economic and technological settings are different. A range of sanitation
practices have been designed and implemented in Africa, but this section focuses on sanitation
practices in Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Uganda, South Africa, Lesotho, Mozambique, for
which literature could be found.

2.2.1 Sierra Leone

The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project-RWSSP (2013 - 2018) cover five rural districts in
the Northern, Southern and Central regions of Sierra Leone. The project is expected to benefit
625,000 rural Sierra Leoneans, including providing improved sanitation access for 91,000 school
children (RWSSI Project Briefs, 2014). The RWSSP project contributes to Sierra Leone’s Agenda
for Prosperity - the third generation Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS III), in particular towards

4|Page
achievement of the water supply, sanitation and hygiene targets set out in the Millennium
Development Goals (WHO, 2014). It will also result in a better managed water sector and
improved knowledge, attitudes and practices among the primary beneficiaries.

2.2.2 Nigeria

In Nigeria, the African Development Bank’s Sub-Programmes covered two states: Yobe in North
East Nigeria and Osun in Western Nigeria (UK Aid, 2014). The overall project was expected to
increase and sustain the provision of safe water and access to 2.56 million people in Yobe and 0.76
million in Osun, and to improve sanitation for 2.30 million people in Yobe and 0.68 million in
Osun. The project includes the formation and training of Water and Sanitation Committees
(WASHCOMs), who operate and manage the water and sanitation facilities installed. The impact
of the sub-programmes has been felt in the two states. According to RWSSI Project Briefs (2014),
rural water coverage increased from 43% in 2006 to 80% by 2010, and to 100% by 2015; rural
sanitation increased from 32% in 2006 to 60% by 2010, and to 90% by 2015.

2.2.3 Rwanda

Improved access to potable water and to improved sanitation and hygiene is also a key part of
Rwanda’s overall development objectives. The country’s planning tools are driven by the Vision
2020, the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, (EDPRS I and II), the
Government’s 7-year program and MDGs (Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2011). The
current EDPRS (2013-2018) has prioritized water supply and sanitation as a critical service that
will contribute significantly to Rwanda’s growth in the next five years (WHO, 2014). Since 1974,
the African Development Bank has been a key development partner to Rwanda and has contributed
greatly to the development of the water and sanitation sector in the country. According to UN
(2011), access to safe water and improved sanitation not only contributes to better living conditions
and increased productivity, but it also promotes gender equality and the development of children
especially girls through their increased school attendance.

2.2.4 Uganda

Rural water and sanitation component of the Uganda Water Supply and Sanitation Program
provides support to the decentralized implementation of rural water supply and sanitation facilities
by local authorities through Sector Budget Support and implementation of three Large Gravity

5|Page
Flow Schemes (LGFS) and twenty Multi-Village Solar Powered Water Systems (MVSPS)
(RWSSI Project Briefs, 2014). According to the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2005), it is estimated
that 29.7 million people (83.7%) reside in rural areas. The programme supports the promotion and
implementation of sanitation and hygiene development. Programme activities include the
provision of software, infrastructure, construction and installation, baseline surveys, social
mobilisation, community-based planning and monitoring, hygiene and sanitation education,
gender awareness and capacity building at user level, for effective use and sustainable operation.
According to RWSSI Project Briefs (2014), the positive impacts of the programme include:
improved rural water access to 77%; improved rural sanitation coverage to 77%; improved access
to hand washing at households to 50%; improved access to hand washing in schools to 50%;
improved management and functionality of rural water and sanitation facilities to 90%.

2.2.5 South Africa

The Government of South Africa launched the Community Water Supply and Sanitation (CWSS)
Programme with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2003) to address backlogs
in the area of water supply and sanitation. The first phase of the programme that was initiated in
1994 involved the identification and immediate implementation of key water projects. However,
provision of sanitation services lagged behind water, and only in 1997 was the National Sanitation
Programme initiated (Statistics South Africa, 2003). During the second phase of the programme,
the focus was on increasing the rate of delivery of water and sanitation services in rural schools in
order to meet the government target of eliminating the backlog within 10 years. DWAF was
assisted in this task by a large number of implementation agents and project teams, including
NGOs and small-scale private sector support teams, who undertook the project work on the ground
(DWAF, 2003). They worked to support rural schools, and committees were to assist in delivery
and training in building and health, as well as hygiene promotion. Although by early 2002, excess
of 7 million people had been provided access to water supply at a basic level of service, only half
a million people had been positively impacted by the National Sanitation Programme (GoSA,
2008). Inappropriate regulatory framework that ensures effective, efficient, equitable and
sustainable provision of basic sanitation services to both urban and rural schools in South Africa
has been cited as the major barrier to service delivery (GoSA, 2010).

6|Page
2.2.6 Lesotho

Lesotho has increased sanitation coverage from 20% to approximately 53% over 20 years (UN,
2003). During this time, policies have shifted away from subsidizing latrines, and much more
money has been channeled towards promotion and training. Key aspects include consistent
significant allocation of the regular government budget to sanitation and earmarking of these funds
for promotion, training local artisans and monitoring. Recently, the Lowlands Rural Water Supply
and Sanitation Project (LRWSSP) has been designed to increase coverage in the Lowlands areas
by providing improved, sustainable, equitable and inclusive access to water supply and sanitation
to an estimated 65,000 populations in the Maseru and Berea Districts, where major bulk water
supply infrastructure is being developed (Africa Development Bank Group, 2013). The project has
four main components: Water Supply Infrastructure; Environmental Health, Sanitation and
Hygiene promotion; Institutional Support and Capacity Building; Project Management; and
Engineering Services. The project contributes to the achievement of the country’s Vision 2020
objective of improved health and social wellbeing of the population, through universal access to
improved water and sanitation services (RWSSI, 2014).

2.3 Water and Sanitation Programme in Rural Schools of Zimbabwe

The active phase of this programme began to build up after Zimbabwean Independence in 1980
when external donor support became available to the country (Robinson, 2002). Before that time
the Ministry of Health has been involved through its Environmental Health Department in the
promotion of hygiene and the improvement of shallow ground water supplies and sanitation, a
programme which had been building up since the later 1940's (Morgan, 2006). In the early 1980's
when peace returned to the countryside and donor support became available, a variety of lower
cost options were designed, but the Ministry of Health, insistent on a longer term benefit from the
programme, chose solid brick built structures which could serve a generation (Robinson, 2002). A
method of offering material incentive to individual families and schools was also developed.
According to Sidibe and Curtis (2002), this method of offering an incentive helped enormously to
promote the uptake of improved household and school sanitation throughout rural Zimbabwe.

Pursuant to that, the 2nd CSO Report has also been produced in collaboration with the Government
of Zimbabwe and other stakeholders during 2009-10. The analysis was meant to help countries
assess their own service delivery pathways for turning finance into water supply and sanitation

7|Page
services in each of four subsectors: rural and urban water supply, and rural and urban sanitation
and hygiene. The 2nd CSO analysis has three main components: a review of past coverage; a
costing model to assess the adequacy of future investments; and a scorecard which allows
diagnosis of particular bottlenecks along the service delivery pathway. According to WHO (2010),
the 2nd CSO’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are
sufficient to meet sector targets, but what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure finance is
effectively turned into accelerated coverage in water supply and sanitation.

2.4 Legislation for Water and Sanitation in Schools in Zimbabwe

The 1976 Education Act, amended in 2006, made provision for WASH in schools among other
requirements. It is a requirement that every school shall have at least two blocks of toilets, separate
for girls and boys, and the number of toilets is further determined by enrolment in line with
Ministry of Health and Child Welfare standards (MoHCW, 2011). Before a school is registered by
the Ministry of Education, it is Government policy that officials from MoHCW inspect and certify
as satisfactory sanitary conditions at that school (GoZ, 2013). The national standards require an
approved toilet for schools, that is, ventilated improved pits (VIP) for rural schools without
reticulated water supply; or water-borne sanitation where reticulated water system is available
(usually in urban areas). The ratio of pupils to toilet is 25:1 for boys and 20:1 for girls as a national
policy (MoHCW, 2011). National standards on WASH in schools are specified in Minimum
(Functionality) School Standards designed by Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education
(Appendix A), while international standards for WASH in schools are specified by UNICEF
Guidelines (Appendix B).

2.5 Institutional Arrangements on Management on Water Supply and Sanitation in

Zimbabwe

The country undertook significant reforms in the 1990s to create a Zimbabwe National Water
Authority (ZINWA) to manage the national water resources. But the water resource sector has
been badly hit by the economic downturn and the lack of investment has nullified many of the
reform gains. Rivers are now unregulated, inadequate attention has been given to the maintenance
of key water resource infrastructure with a high risk to public safety from the breach of dams, and
significant pollution has occurred in some major water bodies (Murinda, 2011). Operations of
ZINWA stem from the Water Act of 1998 and the ZINWA Act of 1998. For the purposes of

8|Page
managing the nation’s water resources, Zimbabwe is divided into seven catchments that are based
on the six major river basins in the country, and these are; Sanyati, Runde, Manyame, Mazoe,
Mzingwane and Gwayi Catchment Council (Murinda, 2011). Each catchment is administered by
an elected Catchments Council, with technical support from ZINWA. The Ministry of Water
Resources Development and Management (MWRDM) provides guidance on policy matters
through the Department of Water Resources (DWR) (GoZ, 2010). The main responsibility of
ZINWA is to exploit, manage, and conserve water resources in order to ensure security of supply
and to facilitate equitable access to water by all sectors, and its efficient utilization, while
minimizing the impacts of drought, floods and other hazards (GoZ, 2010). In addition, ZINWA
also work with urban councils to provide services in urban areas. ZINWA provides bulk water
supply to cities and towns, and in those towns where the local authorities either cannot, or do not
wish to, assume responsibility for service provision (WHO, 2009).

The key entities active in rural water and sanitation are; the National Action Committee (NAC),
the Rural District Councils (RDCs), District Development Fund (DDF), and Water Environmental
Sanitation Working Group (WES) (World Bank, 2012). The National Action Committee (NAC)
has representatives from different ministries who are active in the programme. These include:
Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Rural Development and Water Resources, Ministry of
Health and Child Welfare, and Ministry of Education (WSP, 2011). In practice however, the rural
sanitation projects are always supervised by the Ministry of Health on the ground, with the Rural
District Council being responsible for the procurement of resources (WHO, 2010). In 1992, the
Government of Zimbabwe together with key donors, NGO’s and other resource persons prepared
a “Vision 2000", a blueprint for how the decade may function in the future, with active and self-
organized communities working with Rural District Councils, supported by Central Government
in areas such as national planning, policy formulation, technical assistance and training, as well as
research and information exchange (JMP, 2010). The increased involvement of NGO’s has been
encouraged.

2.6 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The Millennium Development Goals bind countries to commit themselves to finding solutions
from within their nations and provide practical solutions that are relevant to their particular
problems (UN, 2003). Figure 2.1 shows Zimbabwe’s progress towards MDGs. During the first

9|Page
decade of independence (1980 to1990), real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate averaged
3 to 4% per annum and reached a peak of 7% in 1990 (WSP, 2011). During this period, public
expenditure was geared towards the social sector and the expansion of the rural infrastructure, with
the aim of reducing social and economic inequalities (World Bank, 2001). Such spending led to
strong positive indicators in education and health. Since 1990, there has been little change in water
and sanitation coverage in Zimbabwe.

120%

100%

80% 1990
1995

60% 2000
2005

40% 2010
Projected 2015

20%

0%
Rural water Rural sanitation Urban water Urban sanitation

Figure 2.6: Progress towards the MDGs for water and sanitation in Zimbabwe (World Bank
(2012), Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) (1990 – 2015).

Zimbabwe’s unprecedented economic decline saw spiraling inflation, deteriorating physical

structures and, in 2008, the inability of the public sector to deliver basic social services resulting
in severe cholera outbreak (World Bank, 2012). The country has been facing severe human
resources capacity constraints in the public sector, the health sector in particular. According to UN
(2013), progress towards water supply and sanitation has been further challenged by continuing
population growth. Based on the most estimates of sanitation coverage in 2010, Zimbabwe needs
to increase coverage from 52% to 77% in urban areas and from 32% to 68% in rural areas to meet
the MDG targets in 2015 (JMP, 2010). In rural areas access to safe water needs to increase by 17%

10 | P a g e
from 69% to 86%. In urban areas, populations have close to universal access to basic water supply,
although 100% has not yet been reached (World Bank, 2012). Equity in achieving the MDG targets
is important, not only because the poorest schools are least able to invest in their own facilities,
but also because they have the most to gain due to their heightened vulnerability to adverse health
outcomes (WHO, 2014). Therefore, additional efforts and resources are essential to ensure the
poorest and most vulnerable rural schools are reached.

2.7 Project Funding, Promotion and Capacity Building

The Ministry of Health has supported an active promotion campaign for many years throughout
the entire country and the offer of a material incentive has turned theory into practice for hundreds
of schools (MoHCW, 2009). Since 1980, the government and politicians have supported the rural
sanitation programme possibly because the technology is “home grown” and popular with the users
(Morgan, 2006). Latrine construction and the functions of the “Blair VIP” also form part of both
the primary and secondary school curricular (Robinson, 2002). Schools and institutions build
multi-compartment Blair Latrines which house up to ten cubicles in one single structure. It also
became common practice to build a hand washing facility to provide hand washing facility close
to school multi-compartment latrines (ZEWSP, 2006). Under this programme, models have been
built and operations of the latrine taught. The campaign has resulted in the construction of around
500 000 family Blair VIP latrines since its inception, including a few thousand multi-compartment
school latrines in the national programme and many tens of thousands more in the commercial
sector (MoHCW, 2011). Clearly, this has been a result of a mixture of sound technology plus
practical marketing and the offer of financial support.

According to Morgan (2006), Ministry of Health has been training its Environmental Health
Technicians (EHTs) to work with school teachers and students in developing series of participatory
tools (visual aids and lesson plans) on hygiene education in both primary and secondary schools,
as well as upgrading of school sanitation facilities. The sanitation programme alone has led to the
expansion of building skills widely throughout the country with many thousands of builders being
trained annually. According to Robinson (2002), the Mvuramanzi Trust alone had trained over
1500 builders by 1997.

11 | P a g e
2.8 National standards for WASH in Schools

The 1976 Education Act, as amended in 2006 made provision for WASH in schools, among other
requirements. It is required that every school shall have at least two blocks of toilets, separate for
girls and boys, and the number of toilets is further determined by enrolment in line with Ministry
of Primary and Secondary Education standards (25 pupils to 1 toilet/squat hole for boys and 20
pupils to 1 toilet for girls) (Minimum School Standards, 2013). Before a school is registered by
the Ministry of Education, it is government policy that officials from MoHCW inspect and certify
as satisfactory sanitary conditions at that school. The national standards require an improved toilet
(Blair Ventilated Improved Pit) for rural schools without reticulated water supply, or water borne
sanitation where reticulated water system is available (MoHCW, 2011). According to UNICEF
(2013), the majority of WASH standards in schools in Eastern and Southern African region focus
on acceptable ratios for the number of students per toilet, ranging from 20 to 50 students per toilet.
Standards for water and hand washing are less common and none of the current standards found
in the region consider the condition of facilities. Although a school may meet standards for toilet
ratios on paper, the majority of them may appear to be broken down or filthy (WHO, 1996).
Similarly, they may meet the official standards for hand washing basins even if water and soap
and rarely provided. This research focuses on pupil-latrine ratios and the condition and adequacy
of water and sanitation facilities, including availability of soap. UNICEF (2006), noted that
funding for WASH, including government and civil contributions, are typically insufficient to
support the realization of many government standards and are accordingly challenging to enforce.

2.9 Impact of Devotion and Decentralization on WASH

During the 1990’s, the Government of Zimbabwe was engaged in a decentralization programme
in which the Rural District Councils played a much larger part in planning and financing
development projects within their respective districts (World Bank, 2001). Project funding from
a number of donor agencies now passes directly through the Rural District Council and these
projects include latrine building and water supply (JMP, 2010). It has been accepted that some
material support in the form of hardware (cement, reinforcing wire and a fly screen for the VIP
latrine) be provided to schools that are willing to make considerable investments in the
construction of their own latrines (Robinson, 2002: MoHCW, 2010). The value of the material
assistance varied considerably, with some NGO’s offering far more than the government’s

12 | P a g e
recommendation, whilst other NGO’s offering less (World Bank, 2001). However, as the costs of
labour and materials increased in the new millennium, far fewer schools were able to contribute to
these costs since the value of the Zimbabwean dollar began to depreciate considerably.

Recently, developments in WASH sector have been necessitated by Devolution Programme, which
has seen various Rural District Councils (RDCs) receiving funds for development purposes. Here,
developmental projects have been cascaded from national level to districts level. These
developments have seen the construction of dams, classroom blocks and toilets, as well improved
water supply through availability of borehole water. The Devolution programme is founded on the
principle of empowering provincial government councils to spearhead economic and social
development projects in their respective area by utilizing local resources.

2.10 Global Status of WASH in Schools

The inclusion of WASH in schools in the SDGs goals 4a, 6.1 and 6.2 depicts increasing recognition
of their significance as key components of a safe and inclusive environment. The WHO/UNICEF
JMP expanded its databases to include WASH in schools and published harmonized national,
regional and global baseline estimates in August 2018 (UNICEF, 2022). A progress update was
released in August 2020, including estimated trends from 2015 to 2019, with special focus on the
implications for ensuring the safety of students and school staff during COVID-19 pandemic in
2019. In 2022, the JMP released a data update for the period 2000 to 2021, with thematic analysis
on preparing schools for future pandemics and providing disability-inclusive WASH services in
schools. The latest JMP report on WASH in schools showed the following findings (UNICEF,
2022);

a. Water Supply

71% of the schools had a basic drinking water service, 14% had limited service and 15% had no
service. Nearly 546 million children worldwide lacked basic drinking water service at their school.

13 | P a g e
b. Service

The findings revealed that 72 % of schools had a basic sanitation service, 16% had a limited
service, and 15% had no service. Approximately 539 million children worldwide lacked a basic
sanitation service at their school.

c. Hygiene Service

58% of schools had a basic hygiene service, 17% had a limited service and 25% had no service,
Nearly 802 million children worldwide lacked a basic hygiene service at their school.

2.11 Recommendations

The following recommendations;

i. Efforts should be made by national governments, in Zimbabwe and other countries, to

establish continuous monitoring systems to regularly track needs and improvements of
WASH in schools.

ii. Further researches might look at water quality tests on sources of drinking water in schools
to determine whether water is contaminated or not. Escherichia coli or thermo tolerant
coliform bacteria should not be detectable in any 100-ml sample. More so, water should
meet WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality or National Standards and acceptance
levels concerning chemical and radiological parameters.

iii. Future studies might use a random sample of public schools to spot check and validate
WASH conditions reported by questionnaires. One option could be to deploy rapid surveys,
with fewer questions and a smaller sample size, as an alternative to long-format surveys
and can be used to study a specific research question in a smaller geographic area. Studies
might also use mobile devices as monitoring instruments to collect geospatial data points.
With geo-location, monitoring data can be linked to other data sets to provide additional
covariates for analysis which will provide further value and more robust analyses.

Conclusion

Conditions are likely worse than specified in this study if schools do not improve water access and
sanitation adequacy to students. For instance, not all improved water sources are necessarily free

14 | P a g e
of contamination, so access to safe water coverage may in fact be lower than reported since the
results from the UNICEF/WHO Joint Programme and national WASH programme did not include
water quality testing, but only access and coverage. Due to lack of a system of monitoring and
surveillance, the government and donors may not have been aware of the low WASH coverage
and rural disparity in the access and quality of WASH in schools.

15 | P a g e
References

Advisory Board of Public Health, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare (MoHCW), (2011).
Report of the First National Stakeholder Consultation on the Review of the Public Health Act.
Harare.
Compost Toilets Practical Action Technical Brief, (2007).
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, (2003). Guidelines for using the DWAF household
sanitation subsidy, Version 1.Government Printer: Pretoria, South Africa.
Government of Zimbabwe, (2010). Ministry of Health and Child Welfare Health Sector.
Investment Case; Harare.
Hirji, R. (2002). Environmental Sustainability in Water Resources Management in Southern
Africa. SARDC.
Institute of Water, Sanitation and Development, (2010). WASH in Schools, Infant Booklet.
Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), (2010). World Health Organization and United Nations
Children’s Fund: For Water Supply and Sanitation. Coverage estimates for 2010.
MOHCW, (2009). The National Health Strategy for Zimbabwe (2009-2013); Equity and
Quality in Health, A People’s Right. Government of Zimbabwe, Harare.
MOHCW, (2011). White paper for the review of the Public Health Act; Mimeo, Harare.
Morgan, P. (2006). Zimbabwe’s Rural Sanitation Programme: An overview of the main events,
Harare.
Robinson, A. (2002). VIP Latrines in Zimbabwe: From local innovation to global sanitation
solution. Nairobi, Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region (Field Note 4 in the Blue Gold
Series).
RWSSI Project Briefs, (2014): Water and Sanitation: Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative
(RWSSI). African Development Bank.
Sidibe, M. and Curtis, V. (2002). Hygiene promotion in Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe: New
approaches to behaviour change. Nairobi, Water and Sanitation Program-Africa Region (Field
Note 7 in the Blue Gold Series).
Tsvietkova, G. and Kovalyova O. (2006). First eco-san-toilet in Ukraine: cooperation for
sustainable rural development. The 15th Stockholm Water Symposium: Drainage Basin
Management - Hard and Soft Solutions in Regional Development.
UK Aid, (2014). Sanitation, Hygiene and Water in Nigeria: Department for International
Development.
Ukraine Country Report, (2013). Assessing Progress in achieving equitable access to Water and
Sanitation.
16 | P a g e
UN, (2003). World Water Projects, Water for the People, Water for life: World Water Assessment
Programme, UNESCO and Berghm Books.
UN, (2011). The Millennium Development Goals report 2011. New York: United Nations.
UN, (2013). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2013; UN: New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (2011). Education
for All Global Monitoring Report. World Health Organization; World Report on Disability. WHO,
Geneva.
UNICEF, (2004). Meeting the Millennium Development Goals, Drinking water and sanitation
target: A midterm assessment of progress, New York.
UNICEF, (2006). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Strategies for 2006-2015. E/ICEF/2006/6:
United Nations Economic and Social Council.
UNICEF, (2008). An Inclusive Approach for School Sanitation & Hygiene Education: Strategy,
norms and designs, Government of India and UNICEF, New Delhi, India.
UNICEF, (2010). Raising Clean Hands: Advancing Learning, Health and Participation through
WASH in Schools. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund in partnership with CARE, Dubai
Cares, Emory University, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Save the Children, Water
Advocates, WaterAid, Water for People and WHO.
UNICEF, (2010). Progress on sanitation and drinking water.
UNICEF, (2011). WASH in Schools Monitoring Package: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF, (2012). Raising even more clean hands: Advancing health, learning and equity through
WASH in schools. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF, (2012a). Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) and Country Programming
Draft 3. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF, (2012b). Water, sanitation and hygiene bottleneck analysis tool (WASH-BAT) Draft
Manual. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
UNICEF (2022). UNICEF Data: WASH in Schools
Available on: [https://data.unice/topic/water-and-sanitation/wash-in-schools/
UN-Water, (2010). UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking water
supply: Targeting resources for better results. Geneva
UN-Water, (2013). The Post-2015 Water Thematic Consultation Report. UN-Water, United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UNDESA).
Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), (2004). The case of water and sanitation; Sector finance
working papers no. 11.

17 | P a g e
 Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), (2011). Pathways to Progress: Transitioning to Country-
Led Service Delivery Pathways to Meet Africa’s Water Supply and Sanitation Targets: World
Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Africa Ministers’ Council on Water, African Development
Bank, United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization.
WHO, (2008). Safer water, better health: Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to
protect and promote health. World Health Organization, Geneva.
WHO Report, (2012): Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Available on:
[http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/9789241563956/en/index.html].
Accessed on 18 December 2022
WHO Report, (2014). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. The World Bank. Available on:
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2014/jmp-report/en/Water]. Accessed on 20
December 2022.
World Bank, (2001). “Focusing Resources on Effective School Health: A FRESH Start to
Enhancing the Quality and Equity of Education.” Washington D.C.
World Bank, (2012). Economic assessment of sanitation interventions in Southeast Asia. Water
and Sanitation Programme.
World Bank, (2008). “Environmental health and child survival: epidemiology, economics and
experience”. Acharya A, Paunio M and Ahmed K.: Washington DC.
Zimbabwe Emergency Water and Sanitation Project (ZEWSP), (2006). Baseline Survey Report
Mangwe, Gwanda and Beitbridge District: Matebeleland South Province World Vision.

18 | P a g e

View publication stats