The MDG sanitation target is, at current progress, unlikely to be met. The most important reasons for this are (1) that at local level, and in some countries at national

level, engineers and planners simply do not know what sanitation systems are available, nor how to design them; and (2) a lack of political commitment, commonly

at local level but again in some countries at national level. Local lobbying by the media and demonstrations (in urban areas) by the poor might change political

attitudes, but without the appropriate knowledge local engineers and planners will remain unable to design sanitation systems for the urban and rural poor. The

‘sanitation challenge’ from today to 2015 is how to get this knowledge to local professionals in their own language

Mara, D.D.

English

White Rose Research Online

promoting access to White Rose research papers    White Rose Research Online   Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/     White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/8577/     Conference paper Mara, D.D. (2008) Application of existing knowledge: the only way to meet the MDG sanitation target in developing countries. In: Pathways towards Sustainable Sanitation in Africa. Proceedings. NETSSAF Conference on Pathways Towards Sustainable Sanitation in Africa, 24-27 September 2008, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. eprints@whiterose.ac.uk  Application of existing knowledge: the only way to meet the MDG sanitation target in developing countries  D. D. Mara  School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (E-mail: d.d.mara@leeds.ac.uk)  Abstract   The MDG sanitation target is, at current progress, unlikely to be met. The most important reasons for this are (1) that at local level, and in some countries at national level, engineers and planners simply do not know what sanitation systems are available, nor how to design them; and (2) a lack of political commitment, commonly at local level but again in some countries at national level. Local lobbying by the media and demonstrations (in urban areas) by the poor might change political attitudes, but without the appropriate knowledge local engineers and planners will remain unable to design sanitation systems for the urban and rural poor. The ‘sanitation challenge’ from today to 2015 is how to get this knowledge to local professionals in their own language.  Keywords Low-cost sanitation; knowledge transfer; Sub-Saharan Africa   INTRODUCTION All countries in the world, including all those in Africa, have agreed to achieve the MDG sanitation target by 31 December 2015 - just over seven years from now. However, the February 2008 publication A Snapshot of Sanitation in Africa (WHO & UNICEF, 2008a) presents a very gloomy picture: currently no country in Sub-Saharan Africa is ‘on track’ to meet the MDG sanitation target (Figure 1). The                  Figure 1. Progress towards the MDG sanitation target in Africa in 2006 (WHO & UNICEF, 2008a)  situation in much of Asia and parts of Latin America is little better (WHO & UNICEF, 2008b). The announcement for this conference on the Internet is equally pessimistic: “Without concerted effort and action, the international community is likely to miss … the Millennium Development Goals relating to water and sanitation” (NETSSAF, 2008)  So what can be done?  Is there any way we can begin to get more countries on-track?   PREREQUISITES FOR ACTION  Political commitment There can be no solutions without political commitment. Governments have to actively support the achievement of the MDG sanitation target. This should be easier for them once they know that the benefit-cost ratios for sanitation are mostly >>1 (and all higher than those for water supplies  (Table 1) – i.e., once they understand that investing in sanitation is not only a good socio-political decision, but also a very sensible economic decision.   Table 1. Benefit-cost ratios for sanitation investments in selected African  countries to meet the MDG sanitation and water supply targets     Country Benefit-cost ratio for improved sanitation Benefit-cost ratio for improved water supplies        Benin 5.7 3.7 DCR 8.3 5.2 Ethiopia 1.6 1.1 Guinea 7.4 4.7 Kenya 5.5 3.5 Mozambique 3.6 2.6 Nigeria 4.2 2.9 Togo 4.7 3.1 Sudan 4.8 2.9             Source: Hutton et al. (2006)  The eThekwini Declaration of 20 February 2008 (AfricaSan, 2008), signed by 32 African Ministers and Heads of Delegations responsible for sanitation and hygiene, commits governments in Sub-Saharan Africa “to review, update and adopt national sanitation and hygiene policies within 12 months of AfricaSan 2008 [i.e., by March 2009]; establish one national plan for accelerating progress to meet national sanitation goals and the MDGs by 2015, and take the necessary steps to ensure national sanitation programs are on track to meet these goals.”    A bold statement but, of course, actions speak louder than words. Governments must be aware of the results of any inaction - these are very simply stated: if Sub-Saharan Africa just continues as at present, the MDG sanitation target will not be met until around 2076.  Countless tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands will die needlessly if nothing is done. In effect Governments will continue to allow their citizens to “defecate themselves to death”. They have to realise that the choice between action and inaction, between life and death, is theirs and theirs alone.   Knowledge Restrepo-Tarquino (2001) found that the most important reason for the failure of water supply and sanitation projects in Colombia was the lack of technical knowledge at local level. It does not seem unreasonable to suppose this is also the case in much of the rest of Latin America, but also in most of Africa and Asia – certainly general experience confirms this.  However, local government engineers and planners have to have the in-depth knowledge to plan, design and implement appropriate sanitation programmes and projects in their administrative areas. Without this knowledge there can be no progress. This applies equally to locally active NGOs. Knowledge transfer to the local level is probably the major constraint to the achievement of the MDG sanitation target.   Finance The financial requirements to meet the MDG sanitation target are ~USD 35.8 billions per year during 2005-2014 (Hutton and Bartram, 2008) - this may seem a very large amount of money but, to quote Feachem (2004) who was referring to the funds needed for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis but whose remarks apply equally to water and sanitation:   "Some people say that these numbers are too large and are over ambitious. One has to ask too large compared to what? Too large compared to the $70- 80 billion to be spent this year in Iraq and Afghanistan? Too large in relation to the $350 billion that the EU and USA spend in subsidizing their farmers in order that they can compete unfairly with the farmers of the developing world? Too much in relation to the $1.5 trillion that those who live in the USA will spend on their own health in 2004? ... I do not think so!"  In practice there will be plenty of money from international, multilateral and bilateral agencies available to governments to finance well-planned appropriate sanitation programmes and projects, just as there is for any well-planned development programme or project.  Good governance Good governance (especially no corruption, promotion of pro-poor sanitation policies, programmes and projects) is essential for success. ‘Free’ countries, sensu Freedom House (2007), are better at sanitation provision than ‘partly free’ or ‘not free’ countries (Mara, 2008a).   APPROPRIATE SANITATION SYSTEMS An informed choice of the most appropriate sanitation system has to be made for every sanitation project. A brief review of candidate systems given below, but it should be appreciated that, as noted above, many of these systems are currently in the ‘knowledge gap’ at local level in most developing countries, so making informed choices difficult at best and erroneous at worst.  High-density low-income urban areas The choice here is normally between simplified sewerage (Mara et al., 2001; Melo, 2005), low-cost combined sewerage (Guimarães and de Souza, 2004) and community-managed sanitation blocks (Burra et al., 2003). Few engineers in Sub-Saharan African are able to design these sanitation options, yet world population growth over the next 40-50 years will be mostly in these areas.   Medium-density low-income urban areas On-site sanitation systems are now feasible and here the choice is between alternating twin-pit VIP latrines (Mara, 1985), urine-diverting alternating twin-vault ventilated improved vault latrines (WIN-SA, undated), alternating twin-pit pour-flush toilets (Roy et al., 1984), and biogas latrines (Nguyen, 2003), although low-cost sewerage may also be an appropriate choice. However, it should be noted that in urban areas ecological sanitation systems are currently inappropriate as they are “not yet ready for large scale application” (Otterpohl, 2008).  Rural areas The choices are single-pit VIP latrines or pour-flush toilets, UD-VIV latrines, and very simple EcoSan systems such as fossas alternas and, especially in dispersed areas, Arborloos (Morgan, 2007; Mara, 2008b). Simplified sewerage has been successfully used in ‘linear’ villages in northeast Brazil (Sarmento, 2001).   APPROPRIATE SANITATION PLANNING There is much advice in the literature on sanitation programme planning, most of which has been reviewed in NETSSAF Work Package 4 (NETSSAF, 2008b; Saywell, undated; see also GHK Training & Research, 2002 and Mara, 2008c). It is a relatively straightforward task to select which planning models to use in low-income urban and rural areas, and it must be realised that good planning is essential for success and that poor projects are often the result of poor planning.   A ROLE FOR RESEARCH?  Actually, to achieve the MDG sanitation target, research has no role as 31 December 2015 is too close - any research done now will not be used in large-scale sanitation projects before this date. However, applied R&D may well have a role - for example, demonstration-scale Arborloos in dispersed rural areas, local adaptation of simplified sewerage, etc.    NECESSARY ACTIONS  Political commitment Central and local governments have to be involved: they must facilitate sanitation programmes and projects, and Sanitation Plans at both national and local levels are needed and they demonstrate commitment, at least on paper. Civil society and the media have a crucial role in cajoling politicians and ministries into action (this, of course, requires a relatively free press). ‘Sanitation demonstrations’ by the urban poor can also shame politicians into action.  Knowledge transfer No matter how committed politicians are, how well the intended beneficiaries are consulted, or how well gender is taken into account, if local engineers do not know what the available sanitation options are (and they are few in number, see Mara, 2008d), let alone how to design them, then any sanitation project is unable to serve the best interests of the poor. The major challenge we face during the run up to 2015, but actually well beyond this arbitrary ‘MDG date’, is how to get the appropriate knowledge to engineers and planners in developing countries, especially at the local level and in the local language. This will be very costly but, to quote Professor Derek Bok of Harvard University, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."  We have been trying ignorance for far too long and it is now time to invest in education and training.   REFERENCES AfricaSan (2008). eThekwini Declaration made at the AfricaSan conference on Sanitation and Hygiene 2008 during the International Year of Sanitation - available at: http://www-usa.africasan2008.net/AfricaSan%20Declaration%20draft%2013%20Feb-English%20edit s%202.pdf. Burra, S., Patel, S. and Kerr, T. (2003). Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environment and Urbanization 15 (2), 11-32. Freedom House (2007). Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2007. Washington, DC: Freedom House.  GHK Training & Research (2002). Effective Strategic Planning for Urban Sanitation Services: Fundamentals of Good Practice.  London: GHK Training & Research. Guimarães, A. S. P. and de Souza, A. P. (2004). Projetos de Pequenos Sistemas Unitários de Esgotamento. Brasília: Caixa Econômica Federal. Hutton, G., Haller, L. and Bartram, J. (2006). Economic and Health Effects of Increasing Coverage of Low Cost Water and Sanitation Interventions (Background Paper for the Human Development Report 2006). New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.  Hutton, G. and Bartram, J. (2008). Global costs of attaining the Millennium Development Goal for water supply and sanitation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86 (1), 13-19. Mara, D. D. (1985). The Design of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (TAG Technical Note No. 13).  Washington, DC: The World Bank.  Mara, D. D. (2008a). Sanitation coverage and ‘Freedom’ in Africa. Blog at http:// duncanmarasanitation.blogspot.com/2008/08/sanitation-coverage-and-freedom-in.html. Mara, D. D. (2008b). Arborloos, webpage available at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/ ~cen6ddm/ Arborloos.html. Mara, D. D. (2008c). Sanitation Planning, webpage available at http://www.personal.leeds. ac.uk/~cen6ddm/SanitationPlanning.html. Mara (2008d). Sanitation Practice: Short Notes on Good and Poor Practice, webpage at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~cen6ddm/SanitationPractice.html. Mara, D. D., Sleigh, A. and Tayler, K. (2001). PC-based Simplified Sewer Design. Leeds: University of Leeds. Melo, J. C. (2005). The Experience of Condominial Water and Sewerage Systems in Brazil: Case Studies from Brasilia, Salvador and Parauapebas. Lima: Water and Sanitation Program Latin America. Morgan, P. (2007), Toilets that Make Compost: Low-cost, sanitary toilets that produce valuable compost for crops in an African context. Stockholm: EcoSanRes, Stockholm Environment Institute. NETSSAF [Network for Sustainable Sanitation in Africa] (2008a). Conference announcement, webpage available at www.netssaf.net. NETSSAF (2008b). Outcome of Work Package 4, webpage at http://www.netssaf.net/264.0. html. Nguyen, V. A. (2003). Appropriate technologies for wastewater treatment for high-rise buildings in Vietnamese conditions: now and future. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality and Technology for Construction of High-rise Buildings. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Construction and Hanoi University of Civil Engineering. Otterpohl, R. (2008). Pathways for future development in sanitation. Presentation at the International Conference ‘Sanitation Challenge’, Wageningen, 19-21 May. Restrepo-Tarquino, I (2001). Team Learning Projects as a Strategy to Contribute to the Sustainability of Water Supply and Sanitation Services (PhD thesis).  Leeds: University of Leeds. Roy, A. K., Chatterjee, P. K., Gupta, K. N., Khare, S. T., Rau, B. B. & Singh, R. S. (1984).  Manual on the Design, Construction and Maintenance of Low-cost Pour-flush Waterseal Latrines (TAG Technical Note No. 10).  Washington, DC: The World Bank. Sarmento, V. (2001). Low-cost Sanitation Improvements in Poor Communities: Conditions for Physical Sustainability (PhD thesis).  Leeds: University of Leeds. Saywell, D. (undated). Effective Planning of Sanitation Services for Urban Areas with Limited Utility Provision, webpage at http://www.netssaf.net/286.0.html. WHO & UNICEF (2008a). A Snapshot of Sanitation in Africa. Geneva: World Health Organization.  WHO & UNICEF (2008b). Progress on Drinking-water and Sanitation: special focus on sanitation. Geneva: World Health Organization. WIN-SA (undated). eThekwini’s Water & Sanitation Programme. Pretoria: Water Information Network South Africa.  

Application of existing knowledge: the only way to

meet the MDG sanitation target in developing

countries

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/8577/2/Application_of_existing_knowledge.pdf

Application of existing knowledge: the only way to meet the MDG sanitation target in developing countries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

White Rose Research Online

White Rose Research Online