Download Diapositive 1

© UNICEF/NYHQ2013-0166/Holt
Social Norm Analysis to
eradicate open defecation
in Madagascar
Problem statement
• MADAGACAR is 4th largest island in the world, ‘off radar’
• Total population 20.7 million
• 22 Regions
• Linguistically (& ethnically) diverse
• Since 2009 increase in poverty
• More than 92 percent of the population living under $2 a day,
82 per cent of children living in poverty)
• South of the country considered as a ‘cemetery’ of
development projects (no change in indicators over the time)
• South of the country is the poorest and most vulnerable
• South of the country considered to have strong cultural beliefs
that conditions life style and behavior
• Sanitation (CLTS) programms
are not picking up in the
South of Madagascar
Why it matters?
• More than 70% of consultations are
due to illnesses related to poor
hygiene and sanitation and lack of safe
water
• The main causes for child mortality are
pneumonia, diarrhea and malaria
(reduction in 88% of diarrhea
mortality, 23% pneumonia, 44%
neonatal mortality)
• Diarrhea alone:
• 3th cause of consultation in CSB
(around 71% are <5 children)
• 2nd cause of child mortality in hospitals
• 3.5 millions of school days lost per year
• 5 millions of working day lost per year
• Over 53 per cent of children in
Madagascar are stunted
Analysis of WASH indicators
For sanitation, only 15 per cent of the
population use an improved sanitation
facility, making Madagascar the 8th worst
country worldwide. More than 37 per cent of
the population practises open defecation, a
total of 7.7 million people.
Trends in access to sanitation
Madagascar 1990 - 2010
80
Percentage (%)
70
60
50
40
30
21
20
10
15
15
12
9
72 per cent of people without access to
improved sanitation live in rural areas
7
0
Total
Urban
1990
Rural
100
2010
Open defecation
80
Unimproved
60
All of the poor practice open defecation
compared to almost none among the
richest part of the population.
Shared
40
Improved
20
0
Poorest
2nd
3rd
4th
Richest
What has been done so far
 Mapping of actors and practices in two
out of four regions in the south, 12
districts
 Methodology based on causal analysis,
underlying and structural causes and an
analysis of those traditions
 Interviews with local authorities, focus
group discussions in communities and
individual interviews
 Main outputs:
1.
2.
Cultural and traditional beliefs track
Mapping of influencing actors
 Anthropological study in its way
 Formative research in its way
Architecture of beliefs and Expectations
Factual beliefs
 Excrements dispersed in the nature are harmless
 Ancestors are the most important thing in the
society
 Ancestors are buried in the land, therefore the
land is sacred
 Only graves are made from cement, the rest of
the buildings like houses are not
Normative Personal Beliefs
 It’s taboo to stock excrements near the house or
in the land, it’s better to disperse them away in
the nature
 Digging a pit and putting excrements in it is
profaning the ancestors’ land
 The most valuable material to build graves is
cement
 Boys and girls can’t defecate in the same place
Empirical Expectations
 Everyone –even traditional leaders- defecate in the open
 Cement is used only to build funerary graves
Normative Expectations
 Stock excrements is not appropriate, therefore no one should be building latrines at home
 No one should be digging a pit for constructing a latrine since this is profaning the ancestors’ land
where they were buried.
 A good person would never profane the land because it belongs to the ancestors
 Boys and girls can’t use the same latrine because they can’t defecate in the same place; therefore to use
latrines in schools is taboo
 Structures built with cement are sacred and can’t be used to put excreta inside.
A change is required
 We have a strongly endorsed social norm in the south of Madagascar based on solid
beliefs about what is sacred and what are the most important values in life
 Overriding the norm will be perceived as a moral violation of the most important and
sacred beliefs and therefore they won’t have the possibility to burry their deaths in the
future and will be named and shamed by the community. This is a very heavy sanction
 This makes the challenge bigger
 Unlike other situations where CLTS creates a social norms, in this context we will need to
change the norm by using some of the tools CLTS provides and additional ones based on
the change of social norms theory
How do we cook it?
Applying social norms theory to change
 Scripts & schemas
Core group
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Related with privacy and dignity. Women
need to go to the bush at night in order to
prevent being seen by others
Boys and girls need to use different places
for defecation
 Relevant network
Inhabitants of the same community and the
people belonging to the same ethnics. With
the exception of the ethnic leaders, all are in
the neighbouring communities and shared by
a group of villages (fukutany)
the traditional leaders
religious leaders
the natural leaders
the heads of big families (or heads of clans)
nobles
community agents
chief of fukutanye
delegate of population
teachers
influential leaders at national level that may
come from this particular area or belong to the
same ethnic group
Applying social norms theory to change
Higher order of values
Value deliberations (pre and
partial triggering)
1.
Value of life of children
1.
2.
Value of a REAL clean land for
ancestors
2.
3.
Religious value
3.
4.
Links between lack of sanitation and
diarrhea, CLTS tool
Show case diffusion of excreta on the
land through rain water
CLTS tool on shit calculation
Bible quotation
deuteronomy 23:13-14: dig a hole and cover your faeces. for the lord your god moves about in your camp to protect
you and to deliver your enemies to you. your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent
and turn away from you
Maximizing and enlarging the change
“enough people see that enough people is changing”
Multiple Core Groups participate in value deliberations with the purpose of:
-
-
More critical, genuine and challenging discussions
More endorsement when realizing contradictions, incoherence or higher values
Amplify engagement to change
More empowerment to go back and promote change if others are also doing it (fear
to work on isolation in the same ethnic group will deter from action)
Maximize numbers of people that believe in need of change will legitimate their
localized actions in the context of a global action
Amplify and diffuse better the positive results of change
Applying social norms theory to change
 Publicity / public declarations





Diffusion from Core group to the community  triggering
Public declarations and action plans in each village
Signaling in multiple villages the desire to change (diffusion from community to community)
Signaling the change achieved (ODF)
Public declaration ODF - common celebrations in a fukutany
 Incentives
•
•
CLTS discourages the use of subsidy o rewards for individual households, because the sense of
proud is very high and may be contra producive
Things like panels, radio programs diffusions or collective celebrations with local authorities
once a geographical area is collectively ODF may be a powerful positive incentive that works
well with this sense of proud.
 Moral, social and legal norms coherence in a later stage
Thank you!