Paper title: Water, sanitation and hygiene in Bangladeshi slums: an evaluation of the WaterAid– Bangladesh urban programme
Aim(s): The paper summarizes the findings of an external evaluation of their effectiveness and discusses the difficulties of reaching the poorest while also getting full cost-recovery from users

Abstract, title and references
The title is clear and the authors clearly state the aim of the paper which is to present the main findings of the evaluation of the water and sanitation program conducted by the NGO “Water- aid” in Bangladesh. Surprisingly I do not see any reference section in the document. However, the authors put only two references in the side of the document / In the margin: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (1999), Census of Slum Areas and Floating Populations 1997, Volume 1, pages 2–3. Centre for Urban Studies (1996), “Survey of slum and squatter settlements in Dhaka”. The study was conducted in 2001, these two references are from 1996 and 1999. They are recent enough. But the second document is not referenced correctly. These documents are also key studies cited in the paper.

Introduction/background The introduction gives a fair background of the sanitation project with the main focuses. However, it fails to state the research question.

Methods This paper presents the implementation process and the challenges faced by the local NGO implementing the sanitation project in Bangladesh. The survey method is clearly pointed out but the methods that they used to present the results are not specified

Results The presentation of the data is quiet fair. The data used are relevant and give a good sense of the success and challenges of the project for access to safe water, access to environmental sanitation, community-based management, and hygiene promotion.

Discussion and Conclusions
There is not a discussion session. However, the conclusions made by the authors open a window to have more studies around the very poor people’s capacity and willingness to pay for the services based on their economic status. The limitations I have raised do not detract from the importance of paper for other research that would like to build on these findings. Since the purpose was to present the results of the evaluation of the sanitation project, the authors did a good job presenting that and the people verbatim from the discussion groups. It gives also a hint on the conditions under which the project could success among all the beneficiaries especially the very poor. This informs the decision-makers on the adjustment that they should undertake to success: “If the program is to meet the water and sanitation needs of the very poorest, some new cost-sharing arrangements must be devised. Monthly or weekly payments rather than per pot charges are far more likely to ensure that very poor households get ample supplies of freshwater. Already, most seem to have arranged for minimal supplies to cover drinking and cooking needs. Most people probably can afford to pay the cost of the water they use, but many will be unable to help much with loan repayments. If the very poor are to be expected to share the costs of expensive construction projects, payment terms may need to be either extended beyond the present program phase limits, or less than 100 percent of costs”

Overall The aim of the article is clearly presented. The major adding of this article to the existing literature regarding sanitation programs in the slums resides in the way that it describes the challenges that can face such communities’ projects while implemented amongst very poor people. Still, I honestly think that the authors would have gained in citing other works related to the topics in the conclusion.

Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings in your own words This article presents the findings of the evaluation of the sanitation project led by water-aid in Bangladesh. It describes the different components of this project: access to safe water, access to environmental sanitation, community-based management, and hygiene promotion. The beneficiaries of this project and their economic status and their propensity to pay for services and equipment are also presented in this document. An important aspect of this is the analysis of the economic situation of beneficiaries and their ability to pay for services. It also opens a window to dig deeper into the conditions for the development of fee-paying services by the poorest and most vulnerable groups in a community.

Overall strengths of the article and what impact it might have in your field
One of the ideas that cross my mind while reading this article is the benefit for any program to look at beneficiaries, their economic standing point, and their environment when implanting a project in a community. The system thinking approach is very relevant to the success of a program. In this article the use of the sanitation blocs and the replication of the hygiene practices are correlated with the economic situation of the participants. The poorest participants compared with the medium and solvent categories of people face enormous difficulties to access sanitation (since they should pay) as well as to apply what they learned from the training sessions. In this situation, a project would fail for that particular group just because It doesn’t consider making specific adjustments for them such as accessing at "no-cost» or at a "lower cost" condition.

Specific comments on the weaknesses of the article and what could be done to improve it

1. The reference section should be added
2. More studies in this field could have been cited just to seek for similitude with the overall findings.
3. Pointing the method of presenting the results would have been a good way to ease the reading process