Paper details
| Paper authors | Andrew Cunningham |
| In panel on | How to include marginalized groups in risk communication and community engagement |
| Paper presenter(s) will be presenting |
In-Person / |
Abstract
How best to communicate and engage with communities in setting up WASH infrastructure in a camp setting?
Often in refugee camp settings WASH interventions are generic in approach. A generic approach is often taken to community engagement -- who is spoken to and how information is collected on the particular cultural practices of the refugee population. Risk management concerning marginalised groups is also often generic. Examples may include illiterate populations confronted with latrines which are labelled with English signage, situations where only male community leaders are engaged with and women’s groups are left out of consultations, or when the most vulnerable community members are not able to communicate about their particular risks and needs.
This paper explores the way WASH programming was implemented in the Cox’s Bazar Rohingya refugee camps after the last major influx from Myanmar. How were the Rohingya communities engaged with by WASH programme managers? How could the most vulnerable communicate their particular needs to those designing WASH infrastructure? A case study of shower use and latrine construction is discussed in order to tease out some basic policy considerations for WASH programme implementers to consider in order to build trust, improve communication, and improve the quality of WASH programming.
