The global conversation on "the world we want" continues. The results of the thematic discussions - including water - are expected in June. There are many hints that the goals and targets on basic services like water and sanitation - as included in the MDGs - will be enhanced with greater emphasis on equality and rights.

The Beyond 2015 campaign coalition has developed a position paper suggesting that "while the current MDGs have served to focus efforts on poverty eradication and overall development, progress has been uneven and governance and human rights have been neglected."¹ It hence calls for the foregrounding of the human rights to water and sanitation in the future post 2015 development framework.

WaterAid’s report "Everyone, everywhere" released for the World Water Day this year proposes that the post-2015 framework for development should:
1)    Target universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene by 2030
2)    Address inequalities in water, sanitation and hygiene access
3)    Embed human rights in water sanitation and hygiene provision²

The working groups of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme’s also suggest universal coverage and the monitoring also of water, sanitation and hygiene at schools. From a rights perspective, it can be noted that the groups agree that progress towards universal coverage should not only be measured as increasing number of people with access to services, but also in terms of reducing inequalities. Such inequalities are to be monitored between:
-    Rich and poor
-    Urban and rural
-    Slums and formal settlements
-    Disadvantaged groups and the general population³

The UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, who chairs the Equality and Non-Discrimination Working Group in the JMP process, presents these ideas on monitoring in a succinct form. (Whereas this document suggests that data should also be "disaggregated according to gender, age and disability," such inequalities related to individual status are not deemed possible by the JMP to monitor as they rely largely on surveys conducted at the household level.)

The extent to whether a rights-perspective actually furthers access to water, sanitation and hygiene is debated. Is it a weakness that so few national legal frameworks include the (human) rights to water and sanitation? Clearly, without legal provisions at national level it is difficult to claim access rights through court processes. Or, human rights can be seen primarily as ethical demands⁴ to be argued as effectively outside of the courts by organized social movements.

The human rights to water and sanitation will be the topic of one of the workshops at the World Water Week in September, 2013. It will look into how research on the rights can be translated into relevant regulatory, legislative and policy instruments, and what are the benefits of using judicial processes for enhancing access to water and sanitation. And in relation to the post-2015 agenda: What are the human rights' implications for monitoring access to water, sanitation and hygiene locally, nationally and globally?

Reference
1. Beyond 2015 (2013) Water in the post-2015 development agenda. Beyond 2015. Global Thematic Consultation on Water and the Post-2015 Development Framework, page 2
2. WaterAid (2013) Everyone, everywhere: A vision for water, sanitation and hygiene post-2015. London, WaterAid. - page 35
3. JMP (2012) Proposal for consolidated drinking water, sanitation and hygiene targets, indicators and definitions. Summary of the consultations. - page 3
4. As argued in Sen, A. (2004) Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32, 315-356.

Recently I was in Botswana giving a course on planning for wastewater and sanitation management for the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) who has recently taken over the mandate for provision of these services. It became very obvious during the week that the participants were interested in managing conventional centralized wastewater systems and did not see a place for decentralized or on-site services in their mandate. In fact, there seems to be no clear institutional mandate for non-centralized services. Previously DWA had responsibility solely for water provision. So perhaps it is not surprising that they see their new sanitation responsibilities purely from the "how do we clean the water" perspective.

This perspective is not at all unusual in the sector which is generally referred to as the water and sanitation sector. The water-sanitation connection is deeply ingrained in the sector. Engineers are trained on technologies based on centralized sewerage and politicians promote these big investments as "state-of-the-art" solutions for their populations. The trouble comes of course when we start to realize that the vast majority of the world’s population does not have access to water-based sanitation and that the costs of building and maintaining such systems are prohibitive to providing sanitation for all. On-site and dry solutions are and will continue to be a critical part of providing the health and environmental benefits of universal sanitation.

Often responsibilities for sanitation get divided up based on desired out-comes, e.g.  health, water or environmental protection. However, this often leads to one-sided thinking on solutions. Such is the case in Botswana where the DWA aims to "promote water conservation through the reuse of treated wastewater" without considering that dry toilets can also conserve water. Housing sanitation in health departments can have the opposite affect with the focus being on pathogen control to the exclusion of reuse potentials. If the contents of pit latrines and septic tanks are classified as solid waste rather than wastewater, responsibility for on-site sanitation can end up with the waste management department who are often not invited into wastewater sector discussions. Determining the proper home for sanitation has major consequences for what type of system is promoted for use and on the potential for treating the waste flows as resources.

So the challenge is how do we find a proper home for sanitation that covers service provision for all (not just those with flush toilets) and at the same time provides opportunities for resource recovery?
A number of Swedish utilities (e.g. Roslagsvatten) have now taken over responsibilities for both wastewater and solid waste which gives them the flexibility take a holistic perspective in handling "waste fractions". Another example is Telge in Södertälje which has collaborated with the Swedish Farmer Association in development of their black water treatment, allowing for out of the box thinking and more possibilities for recycling.  Both have created a home for sanitation by working in wider collaborations than the typical institutional silos of the water-sanitation sector. Perhaps we can share some of these experiences with our colleagues in Botswana?

My youngest daughter and I just finished watching the BBC series on filthy cities, where the journalist Dan Snow digs deep into the historical dirt of London, Paris and New York. For someone in the sanitation business of today it is quite compelling to see how many parallels can be made between e.g. New York of the 19th century and the reality in many mega cities today on dirt and disease, corrupt politicians taking the cash and leaving the trash, slum landlords making fortunes on impoverished slum dwellers, and sewage treatment plants that are unable to cope with the sheer volume of wastewater. My only disappointment on this otherwise excellent series is that Mr Snow misses out on this very obvious link to today’s cities in e.g. South Asia.

Dan Snow also talked about the gong farmers, or muck rakers, of medieval London, who did their best to remove solid and liquid waste from the city. The equivalent of gong farmers also exists today in many cities and towns all over the world. It is easy to forget that the majority of people in African and Asian cities rely on on-site sanitation, if they have access to any sanitation at all (WHO&UNICEF 2000, kolla Chowhudry). These on-site sanitation systems usually consist of pit latrines or septic tanks, both types eventually fill up and are in need of emptying to function in a sustainable way.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has financed an excellent study on fecal sludge businesses (can be downloaded here) in thirty different cities and towns across Asia and Africa, a study in which authors found out that 34% of the over 13,000 interviewed households across the thirty cities still use manual emptiers (Chowdhry and Kone, 2012), hence the equivalent of the English gong farmers. I have seen manual pit emptying in peri-urban Dakar, and it is indeed a gory business. An indoor household septic tank was emptied by a local adolescent who had formed a sort of canal on the slightly from the loo towards the entrance sloping hallway floor, between two for the purpose built sand walls about 0.2 m high. He then scooped up the septic tank content with a bucket and sent it into the little canal, in which the sludge slowly found its way out of the house, into the street and over  into a hole the pit emptier had prepared before the onset of the operation. Incredibly messy and very unhygienic; raw fecal sludge is disease-carrying and poses health risks to today’s manual pit emptiers.

In rural Bangladesh manual pit emptiers are probably holding 100% of the market share of the pit emptying business. The organization BRAC (www.brac.net), one of the world’s largest NGOs, has engaged in pit emptying businesses after having been very successful in providing single and double pits to rural Bangladeshis (read more on their sanitation program here). The pit latrines need to be emptied in order for the access to sanitation to be sustained over time. Manual pit emptying in Bangladesh is as stigmatized, unhygienic and hard job today as it used to be in Europe in the past. It is, however, difficult to see how we can quickly move away from manual emptying in many contexts. A more productive and pragmatic solution today is probably to try and improve the situation for manual pit emptiers, which is one aim of BRAC. Fecal sludge has more characteristics than only being a smelly disease-carrier in its raw form. Treated fecal sludge, in which disease-causing microorganisms have been reduced to reasonable levels, actually represents a value as a fertilizer. This is known among farmers all over the world, and fecal sludge, unfortunately often raw, is often used as a fertilizer input in agriculture. BRAC is interested in trying to put the fecal sludge from the pit latrines they help construct into that type of good use, but without the pathogens. One line of BRAC development is therefore micro enterprises with e.g. pit emptiers working together with farmers to produce organic fertilizers out of fecal sludge. The most important nut to crack for this organic fertilizer business to work is development of cheap and simple treatment methods of raw and semi-raw fecal sludge from pit latrines to kill off the sturdiest of the sturdiest among the disease-causing organisms: helminths. BRAC has in fact launched, through IRC, an international call for proposals on this very topic, click here, so please, if you have good and simple ideas on fecal sludge treatment methods, do not hesitate, submit your proposal before Jan 11, 2013 to help sanitation development in general and Bangladeshi pit emptiers in particular!

Dan Snow ended the program on NY by highlighting how cities are tethering on the edge of destruction under their own filth and how we over the centuries have found ways to deal with the filth, not only through technical inventions but also through good governance. He said that the battle against filth will never be over, which is of course true (there is every day evidence of that in my own kitchen!). When sanitation systems break down, as in NY during the hurricane Sandy, cities are flooded with both liquid and solid waste. Other cities and towns, like e.g. Dhaka, are flooded on a daily basis with liquid and solid waste irrespective of whether a hurricane has passed by or not. There is still a long way to go to get the world as a whole up to speed on sanitation. Improvement of fecal sludge treatment is one good way of contributing to the sector development, so do check the above link and submit your ideas!

References

• Chowdhry, S. and Kone. D. 2012. Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge Management: Emptying and Transportation Services in Africa and Asia, Accessed on Dec 4, 2012.
• WHO & UNICEF. 2000. Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 report. Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.

More interesting reading material on fecal sludge management and emptying

• Eales, K. 2005. Bringing Pit Emptying out of the Darkness - A Comparison of Approaches in Durban, South Africa and Kibera, Kenya.  Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.
• Kone D., 2010. Making urban excreta and wastewater management contribute to cities' economic development: a paradigm shift. Water Policy 12 pp. 602-10.
• Kvarnström, E., Verhagen, J., Nilsson, M., Srikantaiah, V., Ramachandran, S., Singh, K. 2012. The business of the honey-suckers in Bengaluru (India): The potentials and limitations of commercial fecal sludge recycling - an explorative study. Occasional paper 48 (online). The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. Accessed on Dec 5, 2013. 
• Mbéguéré, M., Gning, J.B., Dodane, P.H. and Koné, A., 2010. Socio-economic profile and profitability of faecal sludge emptying companies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, pp. 1288-95.
• Schaub-Jones, D., 2005. Sanitation Partnerships: Beyond Storage: On-Site Sanitation as an Urban System. [online] London: Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation. Accessed on Dec 5, 2013. 
• Seidu, R., 2010. Disentangling the risk factors and health risks associated with faecal sludge and wastewater reuse in Ghana. PhD, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology.
• WRC. 2011. What happens when the pit is full? Developments in on-site fecal sludge management. Seminar report. Accessed on Dec 5, 2012.

In 2010, the United Nations recognized water and sanitation as a human right. The right is derived from provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Political and Civil Rights and their Operational Protocols form the International Bill of Human Rights.

This year, 2012, has seen several comprehensive publications on the human right to water (and sanitation). The United Nations Special Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, published her collection of good practices in realizing the rights (two rights in the view of the Special Rapporteur!) to water and sanitation (de Albuquerque, 2012, page 27), providing a range of examples of small and big steps towards realizing the rights. The examples and topical discussions are organized into chapters on Legal and institutional frameworks, Financing and budgeting, Implementation, and Accountability. The book touches upon a range of related issues of great importance to the actual practice of enhancing access to water and sanitation services. It breathes hope and optimism; finding that increasing participation and strengthening of accountability is transforming the landscape and making the rights to water and sanitation a reality. (Downloadable in English, French and Spanish from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/SRWater/Pages/SRWaterIndex.aspx)

The edited volume on The Human Right to Water (Sultana and Loftus, 2012) takes a more critical stance; and while lauding the recognition of the right to water as a human right, it also problematizes the individualistic and technocratic treatment of rights. The collection of papers by scholars, practitioners and activists, presents cases of concrete historical struggles for water at local scales and how they articulate with global discourses. Concerned with politics and justice, the book analyses how moral arguments for access to water can become transformative yet workable claims.

With yet another perspective, Winkler’s (2012) review on the background, foundations and characteristics of the human right to water, as well as its implications and benefits seems to be a near complete work on the legal implication of the human right to water. The human right to water is seen as significantly more powerful than the MDGs since “[a]ccess to water becomes a matter of legal entitlements rather than of charitable benevolence” (page 272), this way linking access to water to institutional and democratic strengthening.

Yet, whereas judicial enforcement of the human right to water is possible, the legal basis in the Economic, Social and Cultural rights generally puts it outside of the courts. The human right to water has, up until now, mainly been pushed through social struggle and advocacy. Indeed, there are only a few countries which have explicitly included the right to water into national law (The Rights to Water and Sanitation, 2012). Moreover, it is internationally acknowledged that the State – the duty bearer – has the duty to respect, protect and fulfill the claim-holders’ right to water. However, as suggested above, the realization of socio-economic rights is subject to progressive realization – depending on the availability of resources {Winkler, 2012 #6496}. It means that while States are obliged to take ‘deliberate, concrete, and targeted steps’ towards meeting, it is recognized that “the full realization of human right s is a long-term process that is frequently beset by technical economic and political constraints” {de Albuquerque, 2012 #6501, page 23}. However, the progressive realization can also be seen to excuse the status quo in how available resources are invested within the water sector.

Another look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adds an interesting angle to this: As pointed out in a doctoral thesis at the KTH last year: “Few in the water sector seem to be aware that ‘equal access to public services’ is a human right laid down in Article 21 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights” (Nilsson, 2011, page 99). Thus, whereas indeed the International Bill of Rights does not mention water explicitly (Winkler, 2012), there is no reference to equal access to public services: Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country (United Nations, 1948: Article 21(2)). This draws the attention to how we define public services, and what are the legal implications of this. Most urban areas have public services – including that of water supply.  However, legal access to such services is typically restricted to those privileged with a functioning connection. The haves and have-nots are in nearby areas: Are such inequalities to be subject to progressive realization? Or is this a violation of human rights?

References:
de Albuquerque, C. with Roaf, V. 2012. On the Right Track: Good practices in realising the rights to water and sanitation.
Nilsson, D. 2011. Pipes, Progress and Poverty: Social and Technological Change in Urban Water Provision in Kenya and Uganda 1895-2010. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
Sultana, F. & Loftus, A. (eds.). 2012. The Right to Water. Politics Governance and Social Struggles, London: Earthscan.
The Rights to Water and Sanitation. 2012. Progress so far [Online]. WaterAid, WASH United, Freshwater Action Network, Rights and Humanity, End Water Poverty. Available: http://www.righttowater.info/progress-so-far/
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Online]. General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Available: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Winkler, I. T. 2012. The Human Right to Water. Significance, Legal Status and Implications for Water Allocation, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
 

As the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in June approaches, human rights experts and civil society organisations are disappointed about the lack of attention to human rights in the negotiations. The latest draft for the Rio+20 statement does include a reference to the human right to water and sanitation, but it remains contested. In an open letter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, reminds the governments going to Rio that this right is essential for the full enjoyment of life and other human rights. She strongly calls on States to recommit to the human right to water and sanitation at Rio+20 in order to achieve sustainable development that places people at the centre.

This is not a call for new positions. The struggle at this point is more to maintain the support for a human right that has already been recognized under international law, in order not to start moving backwards on the issue. Therefore it is vital to keep explicitly referring to the human right to water and sanitation in the document, in order to prioritize the under-served and to ensure non-discrimination. There are also fears that the recognition of sanitation as central for human dignity and sustainable development will be lost in the negotiations. The UN special rapporteur therefore calls for an inclusion for sanitation in the Sustainable Development Goals, just as sanitation is already part of the current Millennium Development Goals efforts.

The Special Rapporteur's open letter reiterates what the key features of the right are: "A sustainable development target for water and sanitation should aim at achieving access to safe and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all without discrimination, in sufficient quantities to protect human health and dignity, particularly for the most marginalized."

Taking a broader perspective, 200 African NGOs in the NGO Forum preceding the 51st session of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) issued a joint resolution in calling for a strengthened national resources governance framework in compliance with human rights principles and harmonizing minimum standards. The NGO Forum agreed that governments in Rio should reiterate that all legal frameworks governing natural resources, including  use and pollution of water resources for industrial purposes, should comply with human rights commitments and ensure human rights, prior, free and informed consent for the protection of customary rights, access to information for empowerment, and participation for sustainable and equitable outcomes.

The international organisation Freshwater Action Network joins the choir of civil society organizations applauding the UN Special Rapporteur’s open letter and states that “Now, on the first day of the third round of ‘informal informals, we are calling loud and clear with a united voice: States must recommit to the human right to water and sanitation to achieve true sustainable development.”

Informal discussions in preparation for Rio+20 are taking place this week.

References

1. Resolution by NGO Forum to the Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
2. Open letter by the Special Rapporteur
3. Statement by Freshwater Action Network
    

A year and a half ago I wrote my first sanitation blog on the cholera crisis in Haiti. Today the epidemic is on-going and getting worse. This month the Pan American Health Organization estimated the disease could strike 200,000-250,000 Haitian this year. More than 7,000 have already died from the disease. Efforts to control the outbreak have been patchwork and investments slim as aid organization are beginning to leave. The solution is of course investment in adequate sanitation and water systems, estimated at a price of US$1 billion. This is small portion of the billions that were pledged to Haiti following the earthquake, but contributions have flagged as attention from the crisis fades.

Unfortunately, this situation is typical. It often takes a tragedy or a crisis for a problem to make the headlines and stimulate action to correct the situation. Yet what about the quiet tragedies that happen on a daily basis which no one seems to notice? When news becomes old or repetitive we tune it out. How many of you have heard the statistics on children mortality linked to lack of proper sanitation (millions of deaths per year) so often that you hardly react to it anymore?

One of the major challenges in the sanitation sector is making it a priority issue - for households as well as politicians. I am convinced that part of the solution will be finding a way to bring sanitation issues into the limelight on a more regular basis. Getting more press coverage does not always need to be negative. Many organizations in the sector are already using media tactics. Football stars support WASH campaigns (for water, sanitation & hygiene) around the world and this month the Bollywood actress, Vidya Balan, was named India's sanitation brand ambassador. Another Indian woman made the news when she threatened to divorce her newly-wed husband because he lacked a toilet. In March this year, she received a cash reward and the "Sulabh Sanitation Award" by the Union Minster for Rural Development.

People need to hear the sanitation news - both the bad and good. The only way to break a taboo is by talking about it. This can be done at high levels, like the Ministerial delegations that were assembled by the global partnership Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) last month to raise spending commitments for improved sanitation and water. Yet, it can also be done at a grass-roots level through local media, editorials, social-networking sites, and sharing stories at a personal level. We need to keep reminding ourselves of the importance of sanitation so that it is not quietly forgotten.

Maybe you have a catchy slogan to help get the issue stuck in people's heads?  The Sanitation Drive to 2015 seeks to support and inspire people to take action towards achieving the sanitation MDG. They need a slogan - submit your idea on their website (http://www.sanitationdrive2015.org/).

On March 6th of this year the Joint Monitoring program of UNICEF and the World Health Organization announced that the world has met the MDG target of halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. Yet, the same report highlights that the world is still far from meeting the sanitation target and is unlikely to do so by 2015. According to the report, only 63% of the world has access to improved sanitation, well below the target goal of 75%. Without a significant change in the rate that sanitation in delivered, it will take until 2026 until the sanitation target is met.

So the pressure is on to find solutions and new approaches. In fact, that is the theme of the World Water Forum held in Marseille. The conference organizers have started a webpage where people can post their solutions and even gather votes and feedback (http://www.solutionsforwater.org/. The solutions for sanitation include, increasing the capacity of system operators, backing the human right to sanitation, planted wetlands for biomass production, public education and awareness-raising, empowering young people as change leaders, strengthening women’s roles, decentralized treatment options, and pro-poor financing schemes. Nearly 150 sanitation solutions have been submitted. What is striking about the list is how few of the solutions are technology-based. The majority have to do with providing an “enabling environment” for positive behavior change, pro-active politics and increased affordability. Where there are technical solutions, they tend to focus on the potential for reuse of water and nutrients or gaining energy through biogas or biofuel.

To me the message in this is quite strong - sanitation does not stand alone. The solutions to reaching global sanitation coverage must be integrated into the web of society and its use of resources. Sanitation is not a “thing” that can be packaged and sold like the latest cell phone or pills to cure malaria. It is essentially about hygiene habits and attitudes towards cleanliness. It is a state of being that is created through education and behavior change. Yet, it is also about the management of physical waste streams; waste that is increasingly recognized as a potential resource. The solution to global sanitation thus lies in fostering the values of sanitation and linking it directly to economic gains.

There are of course huge challenges remaining in how to do this on a global scale. But like many changes, it can also start small - with individual changes. It starts with the education of our children; teaching them to appreciate a clean restroom, to pick up trash, to use the toilet properly. It starts with consumers using biogas from wastewater treatment and demanding produce fertilized with recycled nutrients. It starts with citizens pushing their representatives for more closed-loop options that increase resource efficiency in waste management, and supporting the export of these ideas to the areas that need them most. It starts with a global movement and dialogue about the value of sanitation.

Urban dwellers in general enjoy better health and higher incomes than rural inhabitants. Yet, the squalid sanitary conditions of many high-density, low-income informal settlements forfeit the urban advantage. In the urban slums where dwellings lack toilets and where water and waste management is unreliable or ineffective; daily life becomes cumbersome, inconvenient and undignified. Children suffer the consequences through debilitating diarrheal disease.

The high cost for society induced by the lack of sanitation has been diligently calculated and the corresponding social and economic benefits of investing in sanitation quantified by the WSP Economics of Sanitation Program (1).

For actually putting resources into sanitation, you however need to resolve; who is to pay? How much? For what? And how? A welcome contribution to this challenge is the recent IRC report Sanitation Financing Models for the Urban Poor (2) which sorts out the variegated institutional arrangements to finance different urban sanitation options. The report reviews the ways in which the private citizens and others (e.g. national and local government, NGOs, external donors) have (co-) financed different sanitation solutions, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Naturally, there is not one solution, nor need there be. There are many modalities which can be made to work better, including through more systematic sharing of lessons learned in the sanitation sector.

A more specific finding worth highlighting in relation to the urban poor is that the pay-per-use, being the most common way to finance (recurrent costs of) public or communal toilets in low-income areas, will never be able to make away with open defecation. The poorest people will never be able to pay to use a toilet, and certainly not for all household members and at all times. While paying for each visit may be suitable for busy commercial areas, for low-income more residential areas, an alternative to the pay-per-use could be a monthly flat rate for the use of toilets as well as washing and laundry facilities.

The monthly subscription model is reportedly preferred by SPARC, an Indian NGO that has supported community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks serving hundreds of thousands of poor urban dwellers. Their experience also highlights the contentious issue of securing land for communal facilities (3) and the importance of working closely with communities and supporting their incremental organization - including the power of women's groups, as well as "the art of gentle negotiation" - in order to get reluctant urban governments involved (4).

In crowded slum areas, individual household toilets are often not an option because of lack of space, house ownership or sheer poverty. Shared facilities may in such situation be the most viable way forward. However, where densities are lower, household installations may be plausible for providing basic sanitation for the urban poor.

In Durban - now a renowned success story on extending sanitation and water services to all - the municipality pays parts of the cost of installing urine diverting toilets and hygiene promotion (5). With a grant from the Gates Foundation, nutrients are being extracted from the urine as a way of turning waste into a resource (6). If business plans become successful, this could provide a much-needed financial incentive to help increase sanitation coverage. In any case, there is the potential of closing the urban nutrient cycle.

Different sanitation technologies and institutional arrangements have different requirements in terms of land, money and water availability. (Urban) sanitation blogger Duncan Mara (7) is concerned about the relative costs of different solutions, and often argues for the cost-effectiveness of condominial sewerage for high-density periurban areas (Mara & Alabaster). These systems, a form of simplified sewerage based on the sharing of smaller-diameter piping at relatively flat gradients, are considerably cheaper than conventional sewers. Still, the condominial systems rely on water and sanitation cooperatives and thus the ability of communities to organize to manage shared facilities. And, all sewerage engineering needs to be correctly done.

Urban sanitation systems are complex, and without appreciating the whole, certain parts are easily neglected. The report on Sanitation Financing Models (2) found that the costs for excreta transport and final disposal were not given sufficient attention in the planning and budgeting. Needless to say, without all its parts coming together, the system will not serve its users well.

With great humility to the task, we need to mobilize funds, expertise and urban land along with the insights, engagements and priorities of low-income communities. Rather than allowing 'cholera' to be dubbed 'the best of all sanitary reformers' - governments should take a resolute lead in this collective concern for the health and dignity of its citizens. 

References

1. WSP (2012) "Economics of Sanitation Initiative" Water and Sanitation Program
2. Sijbesma, C. (2011)Sanitation financing models for the urban poor. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Hague.
3. Making Urban Sanitation Safe and Fair. World Water Week Side Event 2011-08-21, convened by SHARE Consortium, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Shack/Slum Dwellers International (SDI), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and WaterAid
4. 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.
5. Gounden, T., B. Pfaff, et al. (2006). Provision of Free Sustainable Basic Sanitation: The Durban Experience. 32nd WEDC International Conference. Colombo, Sri Lanka, WEDC: 4.
6. Frederikse, J. (2011) "South Africa: Harvesting nutrients that are flushed away." all.Africa.com, 28 June 2011.
7. Mara, D. (2012) "S a n i t a t i o n. Personal and fairly maverick views on how international sanitation targets can be achieved."
8. Mara, D. and Alabaster, G. (2008) A new paradigm for low-cost urban water supplies and sanitation in developing countries. Water Policy. 10:119-129.

2011 was the year when the UN Human Rights Council took the human right to water and sanitation one step further, with recommendations on how to realize it. Does it mean that in 2012 the battle is over and that it is now "only" up to authorities to start realizing this right? Or, should I say rights? In fact, the distinction between whether this is one or two rights shows that there are still important debates to be held at the global level.

The UN special rapporteur Catarina de Albuquerque has since her appointment constantly highlighted the right to sanitation, attempting to lift it out of the shadow of the water issue. International organizations and UN agencies have campaigned successfully since the 2008 International Year of Sanitation to break the taboo of sanitation issues so that we can talk frankly of the vital need to have a safe place to pee and poo. But in a legal sense, the right to water and sanitation has often been treated as one combined right. The UN human rights resolution from 2011 (A/HRC/RES/18/1), talks of "the right to safe drinking water and sanitation" - in singular.

Amnesty international however emphasizes that while the Human Rights Council appears to be treating water and sanitation as a single combined right, Amnesty International's view is that water and sanitation are two linked human rights. Amnesty's research from Nairobi's slum areas shows that women have to choose between not using a toilet at night or going to a public toilet and risking sexual violence - thereby pointing to specific problems related to a lack of sanitation and claiming it should be recognized as a distinct right.

Indeed it can be misleading to automatically connect sanitation rights with a right to water, for example there are many forms of dry sanitation that do not and should not require water. But perhaps what defines sanitation more than many other human rights issues, is the concept of human dignity that it evokes. For half of the world’s population, sanitation issues also include how to safely and hygienically manage menstruation. Within the sanitation field, this subject has so far been quite invisible and, in many countries, a taboo within the taboo as it were.

Menstruation management - the new taboo to break
Sanitation is crucial for the health and survival of men, women and children. But some of the most serious aspects of sanitation are more relevant to women and girls, and menstruation management is one of them. Menstruation is taboo in many countries, but the difficulty to manage it under poor living conditions have serious impacts on a woman's health as well as her social and economic conditions. Because access to separate toilets is lacking, approximately 30% of girls from poorer communities in South Africa do not attend school during menstruation. So not only do separate toilets at school enable girls to attend school in the first place, but more girls are likely to stay after puberty and during menstruation periods to complete their education.

Ms. de Albuquerque stresses, however, that "better sanitation conditions will not be achieved simply by building latrines and sanitary tanks". In her view, real changes in hygiene standards are only possible if the population is fully sensitized about improved hygiene practices. To this end, the South African Water Research Commission (WRC) in 2011 arranged a dialogue on menstrual management in support of the Sanitary Dignity Campaign for Women and Girls. In a report made together with The Department for Women, Children and People with Disabilities, Stockholm Environment Institute and the Water Information Network South Africa, the commission shows that 60% of women and girls in South Africa do not have access to traditional sanitary ware (pads and tampons). Forced to use "alternatives" such as rags, toilet paper, newspaper, leaves, "recycled" tampons / pads and disposable nappies. This has dire consequences for women's and girls' health and hygiene, productivity, as well as dignity - and, as the report concludes, confidence to be active members of a society.

Future steps within this field will be for the UN system to clearly define whether the right to sanitation should be singled out s a right on its own. Another challenge for the UN as well as for development partners will be to continue lifting menstruation management out of the shadows and integrating appropriate measures in development programming.

References

• Women and girls and their right to sanitation - press release by UN special rapporteur
• World Toilet Day - press release by UN special rapporteur
• Report of the UN special rapporteur Ms. De Albuquerque on sanitation
• Menstrual hygiene management report, Water Research Commission

Investments for improving sanitation can mean big money. Within the past monthin Romania, a US$70 million sewerage treatment plant in Braila was opened and anotherUS$47 million projectlaunched to build a large wastewatertreatment station in Constanta County. The sewage treatment plant in Fallujah, Iraq has so far cost US$108 million and is due for completion in 2014.In Africa, a World Bank sanitation project for $30 million was approved for Cameroon in June 2011.

While this may sound like lots of money, it is important to keep everything in perspective. Spending on sanitation is generally a fraction of 1% of national budgets and barely registers on many donor budgets. Yet, lack of sanitation is one of the most wide spread health problems of our time (in addition to causing environmental degradation). Every year, 1.8 million people die from diarrheal diseases related to poor sanitation. In terms of illness, fecal-borne diseases result in the loss of 82 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year. In sub-Saharan Africa, half the hospital beds on average are occupied by people with fecal-borne disease, which consumes 12% of national health budgets. The WaterAid report "Fatal Neglect - How Health Systems are Failing to Comprehensively Address Child Mortality" (2009) potently showed how both HIV/AIDS and malaria receive significantly more funding even though they cause fewer deaths (see figure below).

Yet, at the same time we know that sanitation is important and economically viable. A recent poll conducted by the British Medical Journal voted sanitation the greatestmedical advance of the past 166 years. A number of studies have shown that investments in sustainable sanitation bring an average return of US$ 8.1 for every US$1 invested. So, why this neglect of sanitation by municipal, national and international decision-makers?

Research by the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program that came out this year (The Political Economy of Sanitation) suggest that the current limited focus on sanitation is driven largely by political motivation in the context of competing demands for resources, and to a lesser extent by technical or economic considerations.In some ways this is good news. Political motivation is something that can be influenced. We as global citizens can stop considering sanitation as a taboo subject and raise the issue as a serious debate. We as tax-payers, donors, social activists and individuals can put sanitation on the table by lifting the issue in our daily conversations, our votes, and our donations. Increasing awareness increases the chances that priorities will shift and the needed investments will be made.

The World Water Week in Stockholm this year focused on one of the increasing challenges for sanitation and water service delivery - urbanization. The global population is now more than half urban and cities are growing at a tremendous rate, especially in the developing world and in the small and medium-sized towns. This rapid urbanization process poses many challenges for those trying to provide services. First and quite simply, the increasing human density corresponds to increasing quantities of waste. This of course leads to environmental degradation, water pollution and a multitude of related health and livelihood impacts. Urbanization exacerbates the need for improved sanitation. Secondly, cities are often experiencing population growth that far exceeds their absorptive capacity in terms of shelter, water, sanitation infrastructure, public health services, employment, education, food supplies and environmental protection - a striking new challenge that has arisen within the span of a lifetime. The service backlog thus gives rise to an increasing number of slums and informal areas lacking adequate sanitation services.

There are a number of recent initiatives moving the focus of urban sanitation to the spotlight. For example, the City Sanitation Strategies in Indonesia that have developed over the last 5 years focusing on city-wide operational which transformed the sector. Increasingly investors such as the World Bank, Gates Foundation, African Water Facilities and European Union are financing urban solutions. The urban environment is challenging, but also leading to innovations in service delivery and financing, like the private entrepreneurs supported through Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WUSP).

In our attempts to come to grips with the scale of the urban challenges there is increasing recognition that the term "urban" hides a complex mix of heterogeneous contexts. There is amazing diversity in the level of service provision within cities, from high income-high water consumption areas connected to sewerage systems, to proper toilets without proper waste management, to nothing at all. Although statistics usually show urban areas as having greater access to sanitation services, this can be misleading. In the case of urban slum dwellers, proximity doesn’t mean access to improved services. At the World Water Week, sector professionals were increasing recognizing that this spatial diversity needs to be taken into account when planning, designing and monitoring for urban sanitation.

In many ways meeting the urban challenge requires a paradigm shift in how we view the urban context and how we design urban sanitation services. The heterogeneous nature of the problem means that the solutions will also have to be heterogeneous. Instead of rolling out a single standard of city-wide services, meeting the needs of ALL city dwellers will mean adapting technology, management and financing structures that are matched to the urban context in which they are living. Matching services to specific contexts and social demographics will mean looking at a multitude of solutions and integrating them along the entire chain of environmental service delivery (including solid waste and drainage). Future city-wide planning may need to allow different standards and options at different levels of the city. One way of doing this is to start looking at the functions that services provide instead of focusing on specific technologies. This will open the door for innovation and critical linkages to complementary services. We need to start thinking out of the box, adapting solutions to specific urban contexts (http://susana.org/lang-en/library?view=ccbktypeitem&type=2&id=1019), and taking action at a variety of levels within the urban context. The urban challenge is also an exciting opportunity for a paradigm shift within the sanitation sector - as long as we remember that this transition requires advocacy and our active engagement at both local and global levels (see my news stream entry from 16th July).

It is standard procedure for international sanitation researchers to quote the vast statistics of how many people lack access to improved sanitation services and criticize the lack of resources and attention paid to the sector in general. There are calls for greater action, the "Sustainable Sanitation: Five-Year Drive to 2015", greater publicity and change. Yet, forward process often seems incremental and sometimes non-existent. I was in Botswana last week for a scoping trip regarding new approaches for more sustainable sanitation and was struck again by how entrenched conventional wastewater ideas are with practitioners and decision-makers in the sector. This is not only the case in Botswana, it is the same scenario in Sweden. What is it that is creating such inertia in the sector and how do we start transitioning towards more sustainable options?

A recent report from the Sanitation Global Practice Team of the Water and Sanitation Program and the World Bank looked to political-economy as one way to why sanitation is not given adequate priority and why interventions often do not reach the poorest populations . The study looked into the social, political and economic processes determining the extent and nature of sanitation investment and service provision. What it found was that cultural and historical contexts are significant determiners of sanitation investment. In other words, social taboos and fractured or hierarchical politics lower political motivation to prioritize resources for sanitation. And when there are resources for sanitation, there is a strong preference for highly visible, big infrastructure investments. This can be explained in part by the technical bias of engineers, who have all been trained in sewerage systems; desires to gain power and prestige from big infrastructure, and perhaps ignorance that other options exist.
 

Looking closely at these causes for inertia can give us some tips on how to overcome them. Diversifying the education of sanitary engineers is needed, but will hardly give short-term results. Perhaps there is a way to design sustainable sanitation investment that is even more visible and nice-looking as the conventional sewerage so as to tempt politicians and voters. Here generating public demand and communication can lead to higher visibility and political incentives for sanitation investment. Linking fractured water and sanitation sectors and creating cross-sectorial bridges in political hierarchies is also crucial. In this way, sanitation can find an institutional home with a mandate, capacity and resources to create change.
 

At the same time we need to consider how to build pressure for leapfrogging the sector into more sustainable regimes. There are several ways to do this, either through international cooperation or through internal change. Swedish actors are well-positioned to create this change either abroad or at home. Partner driven cooperation or direct investment for sustainable approaches with foreign partners is one approach. Swedes are good at working across sectors and can provide needed institutional and technical support. Expanding the education of sanitary engineers through courses taught in Sweden or abroad is another. On the home front, a global movement can be started right here by aligning our own thinking and sanitation systems for sustainability. These ideas can eventually be exported to the rest of the world. Finally, we need to remember that in spite of challenges, individual champions can and do make a difference.

But the fact that behaviour change is necessary is not an argument against improving laws and regulations. Both things need to be done. Law shapes politics and reflects the vision of a society. Safeguarding the rights of people is a crucial role of the law. The lack of access to water and sanitation is an obstacle to human development so vast that it should be beyond dispute that constitutions, laws and legal systems need to reflect the problem and define the obligations of government institutions. In the two years since the last SACOSAN conference in 2008, a staggering 750,000 South Asian children under the age of five have died from diarrhoea, caused by poor sanitation and unsafe water. Whose fault is it – the local communities’ or the governments’? Developed countries who did not devote enough assistance to water and sanitation projects? It is probably fair to say that it is a combination of these things, which is why efforts on all fronts are crucial. Strengthened provisions in international law mean stronger tools for national lawmakers, civil societies and donor countries alike to focus their respective resources in order to realise access to water and sanitation access for the many individuals who lack it.

References to the resolution:
The English version of the resolution is available here
Proceedings in the webcast
Unofficial summary of the proceedings on the adoption of this resolution

In February of this year Sierra Leone announced its 1000 open-defecation free village at the same time as organizations in Niger are geared up for a campaign to produce similar results there (IRIN, 2011). Only 2% of the population in Niger has access to adequate sanitation and a majority of people use no toilet at all, defecating in the open and giving pathogens ample opportunity to spread. Organizations such as Plan Niger and UNICEF are working to change this, using a well-known method for driving behavior change, Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS). The techniques used in CLTS focus on building feelings of disgust and shame related to open defecation – thus motivating people to stop open defecation and use a toilet.

The popularity of CLTS is derived from the realization within the sanitation community that simply building better sanitation facilities may not be enough to get people to use them. One of the biggest stumbling blocks for improving the sanitation and corresponding health situation around the world is that it means changing the hygiene and defecation practices of individuals. Humans are creatures of habit and motivating change can be an extremely difficult task (ask anyone who has tried to break a bad habit), perhaps especially when it has to do with a taboo subject such as sanitation. The tactics of CLTS have meet with some success in Asia and Africa, yet in other areas they have been criticized as manipulative and inappropriate for the local culture. But at least one thing is sure – stronger drivers than a shiny toilet are needed to get people to change.

While many people understand the need for behavior change when it comes to open defecation, it is actually an issue for sustainable sanitation across the globe. There is growing agreement that achieving sustainable sanitation will require new innovations, even in places like Sweden where wastewater infrastructure is nearly universal (Lüthi et al., 2010). For example, future sanitation systems will need to drastically reduce water use and close the loop on nutrients. The toilets of the future may very well look and work differently than the standard flush-toilet with which we are familiar. New innovations will mean changes in the current system and will require users to adapt accordingly. The changes to the actual user interface may be large or small, but if the new systems are to achieve the ambitious health and environmental goals it will demands that people change.

school education on how to use a urine-diverting toilet (from SuSanA site, photo by Robert Gensch)

That an individual’s behavior can make a difference for all is true for more than just sanitation. In order to meet ambitious climate change policy and reduce the carbon footprint for the entire city, the City of Stockholm has started a public awareness campaign aimed at changing the inhabitants’ lifestyles and consumer behaviors. Being climate smart is rather trendy these days, yet the City is spending significant time and resources to really motivate change. However, imagine how much more effort would to needed to convince consumers, the housing market and politicians to back a change that would gradually replace all flush-toilets in Stockholm with, say dry composting toilets. There just isn’t enough incentive to change right now; just as many open-defecators in Niger see no reason to change their morning routine of visiting the nearest bush. Yet achieving sustainable sanitation for all will require that we overcome this societal inertia and find a way to motivate change in hygiene and sanitation behavior at all levels.  We need to start critically assessing our current behavioral and organizational practices in order to identify how technologies, knowledge, and policy can act as catalysts for change.  The message has to be right.

References
IRIN Humanitarian News and Analysis, 23 February 2011
Lüthi, C., Panasar, A., Schütze, T., Norström, A., McConville, J., Parkinson, J., Saywell, D., & Ingle, R. (2010). Sustainable Sanitation in Cities: A Framework for Action. Papiroz Publishing House: Rijswiik, The Netherlands.

As this year begins, we know that a series of crucial events will take place that will affect the status of drinking water and sanitation as human rights. Last year, two milestone events took place on the international arena.

On 30 September last year, the UN Human Rights Council affirmed for the first time that the human right to water and sanitation is legally binding. This was a welcome move for all those who have worked hard to clarify the responsibilities for the provision of water and sanitation, and strengthen international support for these rights. The Council now made the clarification that the right to water and sanitation is derived from the right to adequate standard of living, included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Council resolution was preceded, in July 2010, by resolution in the UN General Assembly. The resolution, an initiative of Bolivia, "recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights".

What do these statements mean for the one billion people suffering from lack of access to an improved water source, and the 2.6 billion without access to improved sanitation?

Indeed the resolutions provide useful tools for those who work to extend access. By recognising access as a human right, access is not only seen as a need to be fulfilled but as an entitlement for everyone, also those who face physical, institutional, cultural, language or other barriers in society. Human rights prohibit discrimination and they focus on situations of systematic exclusion. What more is, participation in decision-making processes is a key component of any human right. These are some of the sides to the right to water and sanitation that have the potential to change billions of lives. But first, States themselves have to come up with strategies on how they will work to implement the right.

At the next session of the Human Rights Council, the Independent Expert Catarina de Albuquerque, who has been working since 2008 with sorting out all the question marks in the debate on the right to water and sanitation, will present her final report to the Council with recommendations. This will take place in Geneva in late February –early March. The council will then decide whether her mandate will be prolonged and governments who are still hesitant about these human rights will have an opportunity to follow her recommendations and unanimously support the right to water and sanitation.

Some governments, including the Swedish, persist in saying that making access to water and sanitation human rights is not the best way to help people in the South. The best way to solve their problem is through development cooperation. In their scenario, because the lack of water is common, and society’s institutions are not well equipped and developed, Courts will be overloaded as masses of unserved people will claim their right. However, in countries that have recognised the right, this has not been the case.

I cannot help but wonder why developing rule of law and good governance cannot be done in parallel with strengthening legal obligations. Supporting institutions and judiciary systems, while working with those who lack water and sanitation to know their rights and who is responsible goes hand in hand in other issues. Just because many husbands beat their wives, and many wives therefore could take their husbands to court, we still would not dream of giving up freedom from violence as a human right. Human rights set a standard, so that we know what to work for.

by Ann-Marie Karlsson, Project Officer, Swedish Water House

The United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP16) is drawing to an end and the world is still waiting for a binding agreement on climate policy. While there is still hope for an eventual deal on mitigation policies, it is time to recognize that climate change is already upon us and that additional budgets and adaptive solutions will be necessary to deal with the consequences.

Climate change increases the likelihood of extreme weather events and the resulting natural disasters. The floods in Pakistan that directly affected 20 million people this summer are a striking example. Yet, while the storms and floods make the headlines it is the after-effects that may take the greatest toil. In Pakistan, a widespread waterborne disease outbreak following the floods has so far been avoided, but the current situation in Haiti proves that sustained action must be taken in post-disaster areas to prevent the spread of disease. In October, ten months after the earthquake, cholera was detected in Haiti. As of December 4, the Haitian Ministry of Public Health & Population reported a total of 93,222 hospital visits and 2,120 deaths due to cholera. Waterborne diseases such as cholera will be one of the most significant risk factors resulting from climate-change disasters. Currently, 5000 children die a day from diarrhoeal diseases that are closely linked to lack of hygiene, clean water and proper management of human waste. In a changing world where extreme weather events destroy or compromise the functionality of our sanitation systems, these numbers are likely to be even higher.

Adapting to climate change means major changes in how vital systems, such as sanitation, in our society are managed.  If major waterborne disease outbreaks as a result of climate change are to be avoided, many nations, especially in developing countries, will need support in adapting sanitation systems to manage the source of disease, wastewater. However, to date donor spending on sanitation and water is very low. Today, Sweden spends less than 2.5% of the state’s aid budget on sanitation and water, down from 5% several years ago. If we are to overcome the challenges of climate adaptation this figure will need to be higher. Similarly, technology innovation in the sector is low and today’s sanitation systems are generally inflexible, fixed infrastructures with little variation across the globe. In the future, we will need flexible technical solutions that can be implemented quickly in post-disaster areas or adapt to prolonged droughts.

There are opportunities for Swedish actors to support this change, both by lobbying for better sanitation policy and funding, and through the development of innovative and adaptive sanitation solutions. The initiative of Peepoople (collaboration SLU and KTH) is one example of Swedish researchers testing the limits of traditional sanitation services and offering possibilities to sterilize human waste in a fast and infrastructure-free manner.  More work is needed to make sanitation systems more flexible to varying water flows resulting from climate change. Other adaption possibilities include coupling sanitation systems to the energy grid (biogas) or decoupling the centralized system to smaller treatment centres during crisis periods. Climate change may be the opportunity we have been waiting for to finally take our pioneering ideas for new sanitation systems off the shelf and put them into reality. The world is waiting.
 

by Jennifer McConville, Chalmers

While the first week as an intern at the Swedish Water House has come to an end, it is time to summarize. So far I'm of the perception that I during this summer have learned more than during my three years time at the university. Pieces are falling into place and a more complete view approaches while moving from the theoretical based education at the department of Political Science at Uppsala University, to a more daily based reality.

Some people gets access to clean drinking water, in a plastic bag / photo by Erik Forhammar 

Working at the Swedish Water House I've gotten some insight in crucial issues such as the conception of everyone's right to safe water and sanitation which vast numbers of people lack access to. The later part of the first week was very exciting since Sweden abstained from voting in favour of the UN Draft Resolution on Human Right to water and sanitation adopted by the General Assembly. This resulted in putting SIWI and SWH in the media centre and kept the phones busy the day after. Questions such as "Why doesn't the Swedish government support everyone's right to water and sanitation?" were raised. But the answer is more complicated then what appears … Sweden does support everyone's right to water and sanitation but agrees with the UN independent expert that it is implicit in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

During my internship I'll be working with the preparations of the World Water Week and find material to seminars that will be arranged later on the year. I will also link to my own experiences from Ghana where I spent my first part of the summer. Apart from having four interesting weeks in Ghana- partly working at a local NGO (Light for Children) based in Kumasi and partly gathering material for my thesis - I was trying to get used with the primitive living standard. Bringing buckets every day from the common water pump- which only runs at a certain time in the day- in the yard in to the house, made me realize how much I actually appreciate the clean running water we have from the tap in Sweden and all the efforts that is being saved through this system.

Water pump site in a rural village, Ghana / photo by Erik Forhammar

Ghana has a sanitation coverage of only 10%, a water supply coverage of 80% and like the most countries the lack is even more critical among the rural population. They are combating common diseases such as diarrhea, cholera and guinea worm caused by contaminated water. I wonder how the recently heavy floods will hit the people and affect their right to "adequate standard of living". Myself,  I had no problem of getting access of potable water from plastic bags which could be bought in every street corner, and in my case, for a very reasonable price. Likewise I had the pump of clean water just outside the house not several hours away which is the case for many people living in rural areas.

So far this summer has been full of new impressions and I'm looking forward to the rest of my time at the SWH and also to follow the continuing process of providing safe and accessible water and sanitation for everyone.

by Erik Forhammar, Intern at SWH

I was sure my Swedish employers thought long and hard to find somewhere even colder than Sweden to send me on assignment.  Perhaps they were thinking that “if we send him to Mongolia, he will never again complain again about our winters.”
 

So a short flight from crowded Beijing (population 12 million ) brought me into Chinggis (Genghis) Khan airport on the edge of Ulaan Baatar, capital city of the emptiest country in the world.  The rural areas – the vast Gobi Desert and steppes - did indeed look more like the surface of the moon, home to just 300,000 nomads who occupy a rural area the size of Western Europe.
 

I was visiting Mongolia at the request of UNDP, who had identified the country as being ‘off track’ and at risk of missing the Millennium Development Goal targets for water and sanitation.  Water scarcity may be the issue in some countries, but overwhelmingly the failure to deliver these basic necessities is due to poor governance, and to a lack of will to address taboo or “unglamorous” subjects.  UNDP’s GoAL-WaSH programme seeks to address these issues, supporting national efforts to meet the MDGs.
 

And water and sanitation do indeed seem to have been neglected.  Two huge new coal mining deals with China – that could potentially double the size of Mongolia’s economy – seemed to be the talk of the town.  Hummers and large 4x4s crowded Ulaan Baatar’s dilapidated streets, and the city centre was surrounded by vast tented camps – ‘ger’ areas containing former nomads who had abandoned their traditional way of life and set up their tents on the edge of town.  Water, sanitation and other public services in these areas are dire.
 

Mongolia’s extreme climate complicates the sanitation situation further.  Open defecation when it is -40˚C outside is no joke.  And when summer comes – and temperatures rise to 40˚C - untreated waste rapidly becomes a health hazard.  
 

I was pleased that our workshop was so well attended by stakeholders in the Government and other actors involved in water and sanitation.  But much more resources are needed to ensure that Mongolians’ most basic needs are met.  Let us hope that the new mining revenues actually help?
 

by Alastair Morrison, Projrct Manager, UNDP Water Governance Fercility at SIWI