When used strategically, external financing can strengthen national and local commitment, rather than undermine it.

First, external donors should ensure they are “minor stakeholders” when it comes to financing direct delivery of WASH in schools projects. Securing the bulk of finance (>50%) must remain the responsibility of (local) government and school authorities. This way they remain accountable and cannot pass on responsibility to donors when projects don’t deliver.

Secondly, donors should focus more on building the capacities of local stakeholders to live up to their commitments.

Finally, donors and local stakeholders should sign up to some form of (financial and institutional) sustainability clause. This would include an agreement to implement a transparent system to monitor the commitments of all stakeholders.

I fully agree that the WASH and the Education Sector must collaborate on defining WASH in Schools indicators. However, moving (all of) the targets to the Education Sector may not be practical. First, the actual provision of water and sanitation services is a responsibility of the service provider, who generally provides these services to domestic, institutional and business customers. Secondly, the human right to water and sanitation also extends to schools. Schools can be made responsible for the plumbing side of things (toilets, washstand installation and maintenance) but water supply and waste removal lie with service providers.

Dear Nripendra, your argument does not focus on the topic of this debate: are the specific indicators on WASH in Schools, as formulated by the JMP Working Groups, a step in the right direction. You can find a list of the proposed WASH in Schools indicators at http://www.washinschools.info/page/2034