Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Hygiene in the Home
Further to the bit on hygiene at the end of the last blog, a good read is The Global Burden of Hygiene-related Diseases in relation to the Home and Community published last June by the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene, whose website has a wealth of information and resources on hygiene, so it’s well worth visiting.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Ed-loo-cation!
Even in so-called developed societies people need reminding not to chuck inappropriate objects down their flush toilet. Here in Yorkshire, England, the local water supply and sewerage undertaker, Yorkshire Water, has all sorts of problems due to this. Here what it says on its webpage Bin it. Don’t flush it:
Yorkshire’s sewers are being abused and it’s causing all kinds of problems. You wouldn't believe some of the things we find down the sewer − nappies, false teeth, fat, Christmas trees and even a Spacehopper! As funny as that sounds, all of these things can cause the sewer to stop working and this can lead to flooding. 50% of all blockages are caused by people putting the wrong things down the sewer and the effects can be very unpleasant.
Numptee is the cartoon star of Yorkshire Water’s campaign to get people to stop doing this – you can “check out his videos to find out how he’s creating all kinds of havoc in his home by putting the wrong things down his toilet and sink.”
In Victorian times ‘Cleanliness was close to Godliness’ – but we don’t seem to really value hygiene as we did a hundred years ago. I wonder why. See: Health/hygiene, sanitation, and water: Is cleanliness next to whatever has replaced godliness? by Astier Almedon.
Yorkshire’s sewers are being abused and it’s causing all kinds of problems. You wouldn't believe some of the things we find down the sewer − nappies, false teeth, fat, Christmas trees and even a Spacehopper! As funny as that sounds, all of these things can cause the sewer to stop working and this can lead to flooding. 50% of all blockages are caused by people putting the wrong things down the sewer and the effects can be very unpleasant.
Numptee is the cartoon star of Yorkshire Water’s campaign to get people to stop doing this – you can “check out his videos to find out how he’s creating all kinds of havoc in his home by putting the wrong things down his toilet and sink.”
In Victorian times ‘Cleanliness was close to Godliness’ – but we don’t seem to really value hygiene as we did a hundred years ago. I wonder why. See: Health/hygiene, sanitation, and water: Is cleanliness next to whatever has replaced godliness? by Astier Almedon.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Hashimoto II
The United Nations Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (which Kofi Annan set up in 2004) released the Hashimoto Action Plan in 2006 − pdf here. Read what it said on sanitation on pages 6−7 of this file. [Actually part of what it said was that it would “call on the academic and scientific community for accelerated research on alternative models and technologies to improve sanitation such as eco-sanitation, the vacuum car and treatment plant system, and urine separation from sewage” – so somewhat odd. Who on earth, you might reasonably ask, advised this Advisory Board?]
I’ve just received an email announcing the release of the Hashimoto Action Plan II which sets out UNSGAB’s “Strategy and Objectives through 2012”. Here’s part of what the email said:
The United Nations Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB) is embarking on their next strategic phase with the release of the Hashimoto Action Plan II. In only a few years, world leaders will assess progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals, including the targets to halve by 2015 the number of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Getting the right policies, strategies and actions in place during the next three years is absolutely critical. The Hashimoto Action Plan II contributes to this effort by motivating, convening and galvanizing its partners to achieve objectives in five key areas: financing, sanitation, monitoring & reporting, integrated water resources management, and water and disaster.
The Hashimoto Action Plan II articulates a time-bound vision, targeted actions and clear outcomes aiming to ensure a future where each child, woman and man enjoys clean water and safe sanitation.
The HAP II brochure says that, concerning sanitation, UNSGAB will “Bring pressure and attention to commitments undertaken during the International Year of Sanitation” and “Improve sanitation and water for schools”. There’s to be a new focus on “Building new impetus for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse”. And there’s more:
Since developing countries treat just a fraction of their wastewater, we need to encourage a move beyond toilets to the other side of sanitation — collecting, reusing and disposing of municipal waste as well as storm water. HAP II includes action on wastewater to protect human health, economic development and ecosystems while also alleviating growing water scarcity in many regions.
Isn’t there a major non sequitur here? Is UNSGAB really saying that, because so little wastewater is treated in developing countries, they should be encouraged to collect, reuse and dispose of municipal [solid, presumably] waste, and stormwater as well? And to do everything by 31 December 2015? Not a chance! But UNSGAB is right to keep reminding the world that it has to do more, much more, for sanitation.
A cynical observer (not that I’m one, of course) might look at the list of where UNSGAB has held its meetings (New York, Tokyo, Rome, Berlin, Mexico City, Paris, Tunis, Shanghai, Bogotá, Tokyo again, Riyadh, Sofia) and wonder if most shouldn’t have been held in countries where local watsan needs were [and still are] at least a little more pressing?
In case you’re interested, the Hashimoto Action Plans are named after the late Ryutaro Hashimoto (1937−2006), who was Prime Minister of Japan during 1996−1998 and the first chairman of UNSGAB.
I’ve just received an email announcing the release of the Hashimoto Action Plan II which sets out UNSGAB’s “Strategy and Objectives through 2012”. Here’s part of what the email said:
The United Nations Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB) is embarking on their next strategic phase with the release of the Hashimoto Action Plan II. In only a few years, world leaders will assess progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals, including the targets to halve by 2015 the number of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Getting the right policies, strategies and actions in place during the next three years is absolutely critical. The Hashimoto Action Plan II contributes to this effort by motivating, convening and galvanizing its partners to achieve objectives in five key areas: financing, sanitation, monitoring & reporting, integrated water resources management, and water and disaster.
The Hashimoto Action Plan II articulates a time-bound vision, targeted actions and clear outcomes aiming to ensure a future where each child, woman and man enjoys clean water and safe sanitation.
The HAP II brochure says that, concerning sanitation, UNSGAB will “Bring pressure and attention to commitments undertaken during the International Year of Sanitation” and “Improve sanitation and water for schools”. There’s to be a new focus on “Building new impetus for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse”. And there’s more:
Since developing countries treat just a fraction of their wastewater, we need to encourage a move beyond toilets to the other side of sanitation — collecting, reusing and disposing of municipal waste as well as storm water. HAP II includes action on wastewater to protect human health, economic development and ecosystems while also alleviating growing water scarcity in many regions.
Isn’t there a major non sequitur here? Is UNSGAB really saying that, because so little wastewater is treated in developing countries, they should be encouraged to collect, reuse and dispose of municipal [solid, presumably] waste, and stormwater as well? And to do everything by 31 December 2015? Not a chance! But UNSGAB is right to keep reminding the world that it has to do more, much more, for sanitation.
A cynical observer (not that I’m one, of course) might look at the list of where UNSGAB has held its meetings (New York, Tokyo, Rome, Berlin, Mexico City, Paris, Tunis, Shanghai, Bogotá, Tokyo again, Riyadh, Sofia) and wonder if most shouldn’t have been held in countries where local watsan needs were [and still are] at least a little more pressing?
In case you’re interested, the Hashimoto Action Plans are named after the late Ryutaro Hashimoto (1937−2006), who was Prime Minister of Japan during 1996−1998 and the first chairman of UNSGAB.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Manual scavenging − again
I’ve just come across WaterAid India’s excellent 2009 report Burden of Inheritance: Can we stop manual scavenging ? Yes, but first we need to accept it exists. Here’s an excerpt from the Preface:
The issue of manual scavenging in India evokes reactions ranging from disbelief and disgust to despair. It is widely believed to be a social practice rather than an occupation, which has its roots in the caste system of India. Almost all scavengers are Dalit and most of them are women. They are forced into this practice from an early age. Their untouchability and loathsome occupation forces them into living a life of indignity.
and one from the Executive Summary, which has the subtitle “Let’s stop the stink”:
It is very hard not to feel less human while talking about manual scavenging. More than three lakh [300,000] people, mostly women, are consigned to this inhuman occupation in India. In India it is illegal to employ or to indulge in manual scavenging. But in practice, it is very much present across the country irrespective of states’ performance on social and economic development parameters.
Why have we not been able to eradicate manual scavenging? This report – Burden of Inheritance – tries to seek answers to this question. To get to the bottom of this scourge, the report has first explored the question: why are people continuing in this occupation despite availability of other dignified livelihood sources? Why is manual scavenging in practice in towns and cities where other cleaner options for survival exist? When there are feasible and viable technological alternatives to dry toilets, one of the drivers of this occupation, why does the practice continue?
The report uncovers a complex socio-economic web that has trapped the community into this practice. Socially, we need to treat the manual scavengers as humans first, ensuring the fundamental human rights to them. The Indian caste system may be dying out in public perception but for the manual scavengers its grip is as strong as it used to be in the distant past. The report finds convincingly that this single attitude change will trigger a sequence of desirable outcomes for betterment of the community. There must be serious efforts to encourage and make available alternative employment opportunities for the manual scavengers. Examples cited in this report do point out that wherever such efforts have been made, there have been positive changes.
The whole report is a definite ‘must-read’ and let’s hope it’s read in all the ‘high places’ in India by all the ‘high’ officials (who are meant to be servants of their people).
Well done, WaterAid India!
The issue of manual scavenging in India evokes reactions ranging from disbelief and disgust to despair. It is widely believed to be a social practice rather than an occupation, which has its roots in the caste system of India. Almost all scavengers are Dalit and most of them are women. They are forced into this practice from an early age. Their untouchability and loathsome occupation forces them into living a life of indignity.
and one from the Executive Summary, which has the subtitle “Let’s stop the stink”:
It is very hard not to feel less human while talking about manual scavenging. More than three lakh [300,000] people, mostly women, are consigned to this inhuman occupation in India. In India it is illegal to employ or to indulge in manual scavenging. But in practice, it is very much present across the country irrespective of states’ performance on social and economic development parameters.
Why have we not been able to eradicate manual scavenging? This report – Burden of Inheritance – tries to seek answers to this question. To get to the bottom of this scourge, the report has first explored the question: why are people continuing in this occupation despite availability of other dignified livelihood sources? Why is manual scavenging in practice in towns and cities where other cleaner options for survival exist? When there are feasible and viable technological alternatives to dry toilets, one of the drivers of this occupation, why does the practice continue?
The report uncovers a complex socio-economic web that has trapped the community into this practice. Socially, we need to treat the manual scavengers as humans first, ensuring the fundamental human rights to them. The Indian caste system may be dying out in public perception but for the manual scavengers its grip is as strong as it used to be in the distant past. The report finds convincingly that this single attitude change will trigger a sequence of desirable outcomes for betterment of the community. There must be serious efforts to encourage and make available alternative employment opportunities for the manual scavengers. Examples cited in this report do point out that wherever such efforts have been made, there have been positive changes.
The whole report is a definite ‘must-read’ and let’s hope it’s read in all the ‘high places’ in India by all the ‘high’ officials (who are meant to be servants of their people).
Well done, WaterAid India!
Urban agriculture
If you have condominial sewerage (or any sewerage, for that matter) you have the opportunity to practise wastewater-fed agriculture – using treated wastewater to raise fish and/or (but preferably ‘and’) irrigate crops. In urban areas this is termed ‘wastewater-fed urban agriculture’. IDRC Canada has published many reports and books on urban agriculture (UA) in general and wastewater-fed UA in particular – for example, Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities (2004) and, just out this month, Wastewater Irrigation and Health: Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low-income Countries (though the hyperlinks to the chapters are not yet in – in the meantime there’s the pdf of the whole book here; hard copies can be purchased from Earthscan). See also Urban Agriculture and, more generally, Wastewater Use in Agriculture and Wastewater Use in Aquaculture.
The World Health Organization has published Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater in agriculture and aquaculture (3rd edition, 2006).
Remember: “Wastewater is too valuable to waste”.
The World Health Organization has published Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater in agriculture and aquaculture (3rd edition, 2006).
Remember: “Wastewater is too valuable to waste”.
Sulabh toilets?
Read this (from ‘Sanitation Updates’ here):
Experts from the UN and Asian Development Bank (ADB) today [27 January 2010] asked developing nations to adopt low cost Sulabh toilet to streamline their sanitation system.
The Sulabh technology is one of the solutions to the sanitation crisis and this low cost Indian method should be utilised in developing countries,” senior ADB official A Thapan said at a follow-up conference of the International Year of Sanitation being organised here [Tokyo] by UN and Government of Japan.
Thomas Steltzer, Assistant Secretary-General, UN, also advocated Sulabh model for streamlining of sanitation system in developing and third world countries.
[The ‘Sulabh toilets’ are described on the Sulabh website.]
High praise indeed, but is it informed praise? I have my doubts. Anyone really familiar with communal sanitation facilities would prefer the SPARC model over the Sulabh model – read Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities (Environment & Urbanization, October 2003). See the SPARC website and Community Sanitation Blocks, and also blog of 28 January 2008.
SPARC, The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres, is an absolutely brilliant Indian NGO that “that supports two people’s movements − the National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF) and Mahila Milan (MM) [‘Mahila Milan’ means “Women Together” in Hindi]. NSDF and MM organise hundreds of thousands of slum dwellers and pavement dwellers to address issues related to urban poverty, and collectively produce solutions for affordable housing and sanitation.” In truth, an approach that’s all together much better than Sulabh’s, though the Sulabh model does of course have its place in the provision of decent public (as opposed to community-based) sanitation blocks.
Who said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”?
[Actually it was Alexander Pope (1688−1744) in An Essay on Criticism published in 1709, although what he said was “A little learning is a dangerous thing”.]
Experts from the UN and Asian Development Bank (ADB) today [27 January 2010] asked developing nations to adopt low cost Sulabh toilet to streamline their sanitation system.
The Sulabh technology is one of the solutions to the sanitation crisis and this low cost Indian method should be utilised in developing countries,” senior ADB official A Thapan said at a follow-up conference of the International Year of Sanitation being organised here [Tokyo] by UN and Government of Japan.
Thomas Steltzer, Assistant Secretary-General, UN, also advocated Sulabh model for streamlining of sanitation system in developing and third world countries.
[The ‘Sulabh toilets’ are described on the Sulabh website.]
High praise indeed, but is it informed praise? I have my doubts. Anyone really familiar with communal sanitation facilities would prefer the SPARC model over the Sulabh model – read Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities (Environment & Urbanization, October 2003). See the SPARC website and Community Sanitation Blocks, and also blog of 28 January 2008.
SPARC, The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres, is an absolutely brilliant Indian NGO that “that supports two people’s movements − the National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF) and Mahila Milan (MM) [‘Mahila Milan’ means “Women Together” in Hindi]. NSDF and MM organise hundreds of thousands of slum dwellers and pavement dwellers to address issues related to urban poverty, and collectively produce solutions for affordable housing and sanitation.” In truth, an approach that’s all together much better than Sulabh’s, though the Sulabh model does of course have its place in the provision of decent public (as opposed to community-based) sanitation blocks.
Who said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”?
[Actually it was Alexander Pope (1688−1744) in An Essay on Criticism published in 1709, although what he said was “A little learning is a dangerous thing”.]
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Sanitation in India
ADB, the best regional development bank for water and sanitation, has published a couple of excellent reports this year on sanitation in India: India’s Sanitation for All: How to Make It Happen and, just the other day, Sanitation in India: Progress, Differentials, Correlates, and Challenges. The second section of the first report is “Sanitation in India: How Bad is It?” and here’s a quote:
However, while India may be “on track” in achieving the MDG sanitation target, it is important not to be complacent. MDG goals simply represent achievable levels if countries commit the resources and power to accomplish them. They do not necessarily represent acceptable levels of service.
This is especially true for India’s sanitation situation. Despite recent progress, access to improved sanitation remains far lower in India compared to many other countries with similar, or even lower, per capita gross domestic product. Bangladesh, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Viet Nam − all with a lower gross domestic product per capita than India − are just a few of the countries that achieved higher access to improved sanitation in 2006.
An estimated 55% of all Indians, or close to 600 million people, still do not have access to any kind of toilet. Among those who make up this shocking total, Indians who live in urban slums and rural environments are affected the most.
In rural areas, the scale of the problem is particularly daunting, as 74% of the rural population still defecates in the open. In these environments, cash income is very low and the idea of building a facility for defecation in or near the house may not seem natural. And where facilities exist, they are often inadequate. The sanitation landscape in India is still littered with 13 million unsanitary bucket latrines, which require scavengers to conduct house-to-house excreta collection. Over 700,000 Indians still make their living this way.
The second report has some pertinent figures: if you’re rich you’re OK, but if you’re poor you’re not – as shown in the following two charts (prepared from Table 1 in the report).
The report estimates that US$ 7.9 billion is needed to provide toilets for all households that currently lack toilets in India (US$ 4.7 billion for rural areas and US$ 3.2 billion for urban areas). The report goes on to say that it would cost about U$ 7.7 billion to connect all currently unconnected urban households to sewer systems (but the report doesn’t mention simplified/condominial sewerage, so this is likely to be an overestimate). “Since these financing requirements are so huge”, the report suggests “progressive improvement in the types of sanitation solutions. Sewerage systems tend to benefit richer households; hence, some form of capital cost recovery could be considered to finance sewerage-related infrastructure.” I should think so (and it should be “should” not “could”): the rich shouldn’t get subsidised sewerage when so many have no sanitation at all.
All in all, both reports are definite “must reads”. Well done, ADB!
However, while India may be “on track” in achieving the MDG sanitation target, it is important not to be complacent. MDG goals simply represent achievable levels if countries commit the resources and power to accomplish them. They do not necessarily represent acceptable levels of service.
This is especially true for India’s sanitation situation. Despite recent progress, access to improved sanitation remains far lower in India compared to many other countries with similar, or even lower, per capita gross domestic product. Bangladesh, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Viet Nam − all with a lower gross domestic product per capita than India − are just a few of the countries that achieved higher access to improved sanitation in 2006.
An estimated 55% of all Indians, or close to 600 million people, still do not have access to any kind of toilet. Among those who make up this shocking total, Indians who live in urban slums and rural environments are affected the most.
In rural areas, the scale of the problem is particularly daunting, as 74% of the rural population still defecates in the open. In these environments, cash income is very low and the idea of building a facility for defecation in or near the house may not seem natural. And where facilities exist, they are often inadequate. The sanitation landscape in India is still littered with 13 million unsanitary bucket latrines, which require scavengers to conduct house-to-house excreta collection. Over 700,000 Indians still make their living this way.
The second report has some pertinent figures: if you’re rich you’re OK, but if you’re poor you’re not – as shown in the following two charts (prepared from Table 1 in the report).
The report estimates that US$ 7.9 billion is needed to provide toilets for all households that currently lack toilets in India (US$ 4.7 billion for rural areas and US$ 3.2 billion for urban areas). The report goes on to say that it would cost about U$ 7.7 billion to connect all currently unconnected urban households to sewer systems (but the report doesn’t mention simplified/condominial sewerage, so this is likely to be an overestimate). “Since these financing requirements are so huge”, the report suggests “progressive improvement in the types of sanitation solutions. Sewerage systems tend to benefit richer households; hence, some form of capital cost recovery could be considered to finance sewerage-related infrastructure.” I should think so (and it should be “should” not “could”): the rich shouldn’t get subsidised sewerage when so many have no sanitation at all.
All in all, both reports are definite “must reads”. Well done, ADB!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
