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