Water and Sanitation: Solutions II?

'Money all the way..'

Privatisation:

Decentralisation in the late 1980s coupled with the promotion of good governance have shifted the responsibility for public goods provision from the centre to empowering local communities and authorities. Hoping that participation would ensure ownership and responsibility, participatory development was used as a strategy to seek accountability of service providers to users. Yet the multiple failures and weaknesses within this strategy sparked the adoption of privatisation to complement public actions; forging a public-private partnership (Golooba-Mutebi, 2012). People often argue that if the issue of safe water and adequate sanitation is fundamentally to do with the lack of access to such resources, then why can we simply not privatise water supply like how we do in the UK? Whilst this may seem like an ideal solution, given how successful and efficient the UK's water supply is with their management and continuous investment in infrastructure, this was only successful due to the people's financial abilities and already well established infrastructure when privatised in 1989. Thus when asking this question in respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, it becomes a different perspective.

The prospect of privatisation is often subject to much criticism as it encourages monopoly and potentially lead to greater disparities in society. There is also an assumption of expected financial returns on the investment in order to sustain these development initiatives for sanitation (WSP, 2010) and thus skepticism over whether the private sector may not uphold the values of public welfare when investing into water supply and management. This general argument that private companies simply do not share the same beliefs as SSA governments (Bayliss, 2003) has been exacerbated across media and by NGOs who think that the correct solution is through participatory development. However, over the past 30 years, privatisation has become central to SSA's development policies and I will like to use Carter and Danert's (2003) paper on privatisation to clarify why this has become so.

Private sector and Water and Sanitation (Carter and Danert, 2013):

What I really related to was Carter and Danert's (2003) paper on privatisation as they claim that 'the criticism of commercial participation or rejection of privatisation is unhelpful'. Personally, whilst I am a complete advocate of promoting participatory development, I do find that some organisations and the media in particular, love to point fingers and criticise the ethics of private companies and how they will simply exacerbate the already abysmal social exclusions that exist. Surely it would be possible, with the amount of money these investors have, for them to subsidise costs and provide a financially sustainable and rapid option to meet the urgent and ambitious targets of MDGs and SDGs? However, Carter and Danert heavily oppose the notion that privatisation is not a viable solution and highlight 4 key factors that people should consider about the role of privatisation in development goals for water and sanitation. 

1. Sector Goals: 

The laudable intentions of the MDGs and SDGs on an international level raises concerns over whether, once these targets are achieved, are they in fact sustainable? This focus on statistics and facts in achieving the milestones takes our attention away from ensuring that these implemented schemes are permanent. Such targets also require things like economic development, institutional capacity, organisational restructuring and more - all of which takes time and good financial funding to makes this easily obtainable. 

2. Instruments: 

The instruments in obtaining development targets include the likes of community management, privatisation, local NGOs and more. However, we must not assume that the private sector is willing to donate capital (often at their own risk) into water and sanitation development initiatives. We must also not assume that when all else fails, the private sector would be willing to come to the rescue. They should not be considered as a back-up resource. Furthermore, for such investment to be effective, there requires a strong public sector. 

This is also supported by Bayliss' 2003 paper which looks at the impacts of privatisation in 14 countries in SSA in improving access to safe water and adequate sanitation. Her findings support the notion that the impact of privatisation is highly dependent on the pre-existing conditions of the public sector and the physical water supply they inherit.

3. Needs of sector players: 

To achieve the sector goals, you need sector players. From international donors to academic experts, these range of players offer their strengths in enhancing the quality of water and sanitation services where all players have an important role. However, the generalisations of private sector being profit obsessed, NGOs as inefficient and corruption within African governments (UNICEF, 2016), there is a lack of mutual understanding and respect between fellow players. As private corporations, I would assume that it is natural for these companies to want to maintain a competitive advantage and in fact this applies across to all the other sector players. In fact the generalisations of the players are often not the cause of system failures but more to do with the asymmetry of power by such players - thus communication is vital. 

4. Ideologies: 

The way in which water is conceptualised is fundamental to promoting strategies and aims. This often acts as a tool for other actors to argue either for or against privatisation as the meaning of water adapts. For example, those who are anti-privatisation appear to emphasise the notion of water being a 'free' resource and thus argues that it is unfair for those to pay for their water, especially when they are in poverty. However these people also fail to acknowledge the 'costly service' of water. Thus there requires a greater dialogue as opposed to framing one ideology of water to shun the commodification of water. 

Thus although privatisation alone may not be the most effective solution, especially with water supply provisions that are in poor conditions, I do believe that they are necessary and the general negative stigma attached to privatisation should be taken half-heartedly when considered.  Taking into account my previous post on education, participatory development and private-public partnerships, it has become obvious that there needs to be an interlink of these solutions. The sheer magnitude of target 6 for 2030 SDG is too great for any one actor to be held responsible for. The importance of a tripartite partnership has been identified in Carter and Danert's paper where it is also clear that, without thorough evaluation of the specific areas and effective communication between the state actors, development initiatives and solutions will continue to remain unsolved.  

Bayliss, K., 2003. Utility privatisation in Sub-Saharan Africa: a case study of water. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(4), pp.507-531.

Carter, R.C. and Danert, K., 2003. The private sector and water and sanitation services—policy and poverty issues. Journal of International Development, 15(8), pp.1067-1072.

Golooba‐Mutebi, F., 2012. In search of the right formula: public, private and community‐driven provision of safe water in Rwanda and Uganda. Public Administration and Development, 32(4-5), pp.430-443.
https://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/WASHTheCaseForSupport.pdf

http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/Private_OperatorModelsforCommunity_WaterSupply.pdf

Water and Development: Solutions?

'But surely, this makes sense?..'

In this post I would like to address the potential solutions for safe water and adequate sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

What is the right solution? 

Participatory Development: 

The concept of participation, in theory, poses an ideal collaborative situation between the government and communities to work together and solve the main issues regarding access to water and sanitation. It is a way of ensuring actors on an international scale like the UN and WHO work in conjunction with local actors and NGOs to understand the direct needs of the communities they wish to develop. It is often presented as an alternative to state-led or private sector development as these methods were proved to be ineffective and too Euro-centric based. Commended as a positive ethical option, participatory development is often acknowledged for including the marginalised voices within communities and bringing their issues to the forefront. In the early 1990s, debates sparked regarding the binary tension between indigenous knowledge and western knowledge when applying this to potential development strategies around the world. Thus grassroots (bottom up actors) have become hugely important in forming partnerships and collaborating with as we have come to realised the importance of participatory development in today's society. 

However, with participatory development becoming an overly popular phrase used by organisations and international actors in the media, there are concerns on actually how much participation from these grassroots organisations and local communities are taken into account and whether this form of solution is sustainable. After all, many African governments simply lack the basic infrastructure and capital to supply sanitation and safe water to their countries, thus is it fair to say that participatory development is the solution?

This is supported in Harvey and Reed's (2006) work as they discuss how 'community management' has become the predominant model used for managing rural water supplied in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this literature, they highlight that if the management of water supplies are to remain sustainable by the community, then they require continual assistance, monitoring, participatory planning and other forms of technical support from an overseeing institution. Thus this shows that whilst the concept of participatory funding appears as an alternative approach to typical Western top-down development schemes, this reading exhibits that participatory development can only remain sustainable with the interaction of government or private support. With limited financial capacity and resources, support from such institutions and the government are necessary to sustain these facilities and act as a financial buffer in case of emergencies.    

Education: 

It is easy to assume that teaching young children at school or making governments include certain health lessons or policies in education curriculums mandatory would be a suitable option to ensure the future sustainability of safe water and adequate sanitation. However for adults this may not be the case. Creating that sense of ownership for the communities are a crucial aspect for development projects with sanitation and safe water to be sustainable. Stemming from Dr. Page's seminar, I was fascinated by the concept of creating the need for the local people. In other words, the government may provide a clean toilet with soaps for hygiene purposes, yet communities may not understand why they may need it or want it - thus, they need to understand why it is necessary for them and want to use it for themselves. Having never recognised the importance of creating the need prior to educating them about solutions, I was guilty in assuming and taking for granted things that were evidently obvious to me, but would not be to another person. 

Furthermore, understanding that solutions like participatory development is most likely to maintain successfully when the communities actually contribute and invest their personal efforts into the development projects themselves, the prospect of education is simply fundamental to ensure community management and ownership towards sustainable access to water. In Fielmua's 2011 research paper based in the Nadowli District in Ghana, the findings showed that the involvement of the communities in the process of acquiring and managing water facilities led to 88.2% of the District's population with access to potable water in 2008. Educating this community on the importance of safe water meant that they placed extra care and showed willingness in learning about maintaining the water facilities and how to repair materials. Osumanu's (2010) paper also demonstrates how community led savings and exchange programmes in relation to tenure and micro-finance actually empowered local communities to lead change and help the poorer areas of urban Ghana to secure adequate water and sanitation. Such case studies brilliantly exemplify the positive impacts of education on gaining access and managing safe water.

It is very easy to place the terminology 'participatory development', 'education', 'grassroots organisation' as an attractive solution for increasing access to safe water and sanitation as an alternative to the unpopular, expensive and inefficient top-down approaches. However, it is worth noting that all this investment in water and sanitation requires funding, of which Sub-Saharan African governments do not allocate a large proportion to. The next post will focus on privatisation of water and whether this offers a more viable solution to improve access to safe water and adequate sanitation.      

Harvey, P.A. and Reed, R.A., 2007. Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable or dispensable?. Community Development Journal, 42(3), pp.365-378.

Fielmua, N., 2011. The Role of the Community Ownership and Management Strategy towards Sustainable Access to Water in Ghana (A Case of Nadowli District). Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3), p.174.
Osumanu, K.I., 2010. Urban water and sanitation in Ghana: How local action is making a difference. Iied.

Water and Sanitation: WASH

'WASH..'

Although I have referred to the term WASH during my previous posts, it has come to my attention that I have not clarified this concept and its importance in relation to water and sanitation for Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) 

WASH is an acronym for 'Water, sanitation and hygiene' and acts as a holistic monitoring system for each of the these factors to be carefully evaluated by a range of different actors from international organisations, institutions to NGOs, creating a platform for poverty to be reduced through investment in water and sanitation. Fundamentally supported by UNICEF, the concept of WASH is utilised by multiple international development agencies as they have identified the importance of collaboration in bringing potential to improve life expectancy, gender equality, children education and other aspects of societal development (Kooy and Harris, 2012).  

Whilst living in the 21st century, it is quite tragic to think that almost 40% of the worlds population still do not have access to a clean toilet. The concept of washing your hands with soap prior to eating and after utilising the toilet is still not acknowledged as basic common sense world wide. Such lack of knowledge plays a negative effect on the global economy as poor sanitation is costing the world $260 billion annually (WASH-United). Thus the WASH initiative aims to fix these three core problems by 2030 as a result of the new SDGs (sustainable development goals) adopted in 2015. By brining together WASH sector experts together, this international platform hopes to create solutions that will empower those who lack access to safe water and sanitation. Implementing strategies through partnerships and leveraging off of each other's strengths and assets, WASH hopes to use their international scale to reach those who need attention the most.  

Success?

However whilst this concept of WASH and the collaboration of different actors appears favourable, schemes and initiatives are often inefficient and prone to conflicts and contradictions. As each actor has different aims in hindsight, the lack of communication between multiple actors working together means that simple things like the construction of a tap or type of material used, fuels conflicts and more costs. Battle (2015) talks about the issue of financing individual WASH projects which are often short term and fail to understand the bigger picture. In addition, investment is often unpredictable and insufficient as they fail to reach the people most in need of such services (SWA, 2016). Such issues stem from miscommunication by WASH actors and difference of opinions in the direction and type of development strategies these actors wish to implement. 

Furthermore, investment and funding in WASH faces competition by other development factors like infrastructure and education. Historically, it has been prioritised low on the political agenda as political leaders are often unaware of the fundamental importance of improvements in WASH. Furthermore, a lot of the countries within Sub-Saharan Africa lack the institutions, human resource capacity and reliable data to develop a realistic plan to implement and thus 'undermines credibility with investors' (GLAAS, 2012), making it almost impossible to track progress.

The SDGs are ambitious and clear in what it hopes to achieve. Target 6 hopes to ensure universal access, availability and sustainable management of a higher quality of water and sanitation. Within the MDGs, despite this being a sub-target which helped increase pressure for action and raise awareness of the issue, the world missed its MDG target for sanitation by almost 700 million people. With at least 1.8 billion people using sources of drinking water that are contaminated with faces, this situation only deteriorated in emerging urban areas within Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus with this pressing issue, development strategies are not being aligned amongst each other within SSA as multiple actors rush in with WASH initiatives, which in reality, results in ineffective development approaches. Collaboration and cooperation is fundamental to ensure a more effective and sustainable access to WASH services in SSA (Battle, 2015).  

Yet personally I would like to compliment this initiative. It is not often where you find unhygienic topics discussed and tackled with such excitement and positive attention. Since 2010, WASH have already trained more than 200,00 children in Sub-Saharan Africa on hygienic behaviour and have attracted attention through their campaigns and media telling an important message on sanitation and hygiene (with a focus on menstrual hygiene), catalysing commitment and harbouring interests from around the world. 

Future things to consider?

1. Which project? 

The 2014 GLAAS report highlights the concern over whether prioritising a higher quality of sanitation will in fact lead to a more costly outcome which are beyond the reality of on-site sanitation systems and actually simply benefit those who already have a basic sanitation facility? Questions must be asked over whether projects like developing complex sewage treatment systems are in fact actually diverting much needed funding and aid away from those who need it most.

2. Who is responsible? 

Considering there are hundreds of actors involved in WASH, it is incredibly hard to hold one main actor as responsible. However, one thing that is simply missing from Sub-Saharan Africa is data related to the WASH goals. This is something that must gain traction and attention with the governments if they are serious about improving and tackling sanitation issues. 

3. Who is priority?

There are concerns over who will receive the resources for greater access to a higher quality of WASH. With a lack of adequate data to monitor progress, there is a fear that the poorest will continue to be left behind as governments weigh the option of 'safely managing a few' or 'improving access for all'. 

WASH in conjunction with the SDGs for 2030 offer a clear ambitious target to achieve internationally. Effective collaboration between the WASH actors will be essential to produce a more effective outcome. There is hope that this will be fulfilled through the implementation of the 4 collaborative behaviours of SWA as a new strategy for partnerships. 

These are: 

Sanitation and Water for All's Four Collaborative Behaviours

Through placing these aspects at the core of all activities, there is hope that this will ensure the promotion of mutual accountability and provide a platform for sector actors to exchange useful information and work effectively in sync to achieve the vision of universal sustainable sanitation, water and hygiene by 2030 (Battle, 2015).

http://sanitationandwaterforall.org/about/

http://www.wash-united.org/
https://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/WASHTheCaseForSupport.pdf
http://www.wateraid.org/news/blogs/2015/october/changing-behaviour-to-achieve-water-and-sanitation-for-all

 Kooy, M. and Harris, D. (2012) Briefing paper: Political economy analysis for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) service delivery

Water and Sanitation: Females II

'What must not be named..'

In this post I would like to bring to attention the issue of female periods and damaging impacts this poses on females in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

A Taboo? 

In the previous post, I mentioned that sexual violence is often referred to as a taboo subject within Sub-Saharan Africa. However, menstruation is a topic that I feel is necessary to discuss with regards to water and sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. I do think that it is quite an awkward topic to openly discuss but whilst menstruation is only experienced by females, it is important to note that it is simply not only for females to tackle and overcome. In other words, it is fundamentally both a male and female issue that needs to addressed. Biriwasha (2008) highlights how menstruation places a negative impact in societies within Sub-Saharan Africa due to the 'absence of clean water, sanitation and products to cope with menstrual flow'.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of female children will attend primary education and from this, only 17% will be lucky enough to go onto higher education studies (Rees, 2014). Such a fall in proportion of females attending school results from an issue that is often frowned upon when discussed in public - menstruation. 

Got your period? Time to go home! 

...this is probably something which females in the UK appreciate out of choice, but for females in Sub-Saharan Africa, there may be no other option. Many young females have no access to sanitary towels or tampons and instead use cloth, rags, leaves, pretty much anything they are able to find to make do. Not only is this unhygienic, causing infections, it can also be ineffective and unreliable where leakages and blood stains can humiliate young girls (Lukale, 2004). Whilst this is a completely natural action for females which occurs on a monthly basis, women are still naturally incredibly conscious and sensitive due to smell, leakages, pain etc. Yet with a lack of adequate sanitation and safe water, coupled with insufficient toilets in school or work places, females often have no choice but to remain at home (Rees, 2014). Often for young girls, the concept of menstruation is one of many accumulated reasons as to why they face gender disparities and disempowerment in life (Biriwasha, 2008). As it is a private topic that is rarely discussed in public, females simply cannot voice their concerns and problems over unaffordable and unavailable sanitary products in fear of social damage they may receive.

 Furthermore, girls occasionally engage in sexual activities in return for financial income to raise enough money to purchase sanitary products, placing their health at a risk of sexual infections and HIV (Biriwasha, 2008).  Other young girls completely miss school during this period as they simply cannot afford sanitary towels and with a continuing stream of absenteeism occurring, Sub-Saharan Africa can no longer simply go by by ignoring this subject. It is estimated that within 4 years of secondary school, a girl will lose 156 days per year from failing to attend class due to their menstruation; the equivalent to 24 weeks (ibid). With millions of girls not attending education due to cultural stigmas related to menstruation leading to social exclusion of young vulnerable girls, they require protection and attention from the government to ensure the provision of appropriate services (Lukale, 2014).

Viable Solutions?

Global Alliances: 

Ideally, the provision of sanitary towels and tampons at a subsidised therefore affordable price would be most favourable. To ensure that sanitary protection is put in place by international and national actors, partnerships between rich and poor communities globally can act as a potential solution in providing necessary sanitary wear so that these marginalised populations have access to good sanitation facilities. These could be initiated by Sub-Saharan governments and implemented into policies where certain African governments have made progress in bringing this area of discussion to forefront and acting upon it. An example can be seen through the Kenyan government as they dropped their import tax on female sanitary products in 2011 which reduced costs by 18% to make it more affordable (Lukale, 2014). 

Education: 

As mentioned earlier, menstrual health is an issue concerning both males and females. It should be a topic which is discussed openly and understood by both sexes among the different Sub-Saharan communities. The former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon states that 'the greatest return comes from investing in girls and women. When they are educated, they drive development in their families, communities and nations' (2012). Thus the management of menstrual hygiene should be a serious matter the government takes into account. Without adequate provision of sanitation facilities, sanitary products and knowledge, females will not be able to live up to their full potential, hindering development practices of countries within Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Menstrual Cups: 

A rural area within Kenya have been distributed with menstrual cups in conjunction with a menstrual health and management workshop. Educating them about the female anatomy, the 'rugby cup' is a much cheaper alternative to sanitary towels and can be reused several times ensuring sustainability and offering the potential to not miss out on education. As these rugby cups are easy to use and can replace the use of up to 17,000 tampons, these eco-friendly alternatives eliminate the risk of bacterial infection due to the silicon material which is gentle on the body. To find out more, look at the link listed below:

http://rubycup.com/blog/distributing-menstrual-cups-in-kenya/

Local NGOs, UN bodies and UNICEF have acknowledged that there is a strong correlation between inadequate facilities of sanitary provisions and poor education attendance. Thus this must be fixed in order for bright young girls to also receive education at an equivalent level to their male friends. Menstruation simply cannot be ignored. Raising awareness about menstrual hygiene management in both sexes will reduce fear and gender discrimination and improve females' confidence in not being ashamed of being on their period, thus gaining the ability to remain in education. This will hopefully generate a domino effect as females aspire to enter more highly skilled employment and avoid early marriage/ pregnancy, which will in the long run contribute to reducing poverty (Mahon and Cavill, 2012). 

[Celebrate Menstrual Hygiene Day on 28th May]

http://menstrualhygieneday.org/

https://rewire.news/article/2008/03/25/in-africa-menstruation-can-be-a-curse/
https://en.reset.org/blog/lets-talk-about-menstruation-today-menstrual-hygiene-day-05282014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nelly-lukale/stand-up-tall-and-break-t_b_5405523.html
House S, Mahon T and Cavill S (2012) Menstrual hygiene matters – a resource for improving menstrual hygiene around the world.