Syndicate content

Hygiene

Inclusion in water: breaking down barriers

Soma Ghosh Moulik's picture
Also available in: Español | Français

In many countries, women walk over six kilometers to collect water. Between 2006 and 2012 in Niger, women traveled an hour, on average, to fetch water. Worldwide, 4.5 billion people lack access to safely managed sanitation services and 2.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water services.
 
Yet even these large numbers and stunning statistics cannot fully reflect the reality for pockets of societies which bear the brunt of inaccessibility. Marginalized groups and low-income communities often lack basic water and sanitation to a staggering degree - a  recent World Bank study found that in Guatemala only 33 percent of the indigenous population have access to sanitation, compared to 77% of the non-indigenous population.
 
So, what does this mean for the water sector? Visibly, it is the case that water remains largely unsafe and inaccessible. Less visibly, it may also be the case that marginalized individuals and groups do not have voice or agency when it comes to managing water. As people are excluded based on facets of their identity - such as ethnicity, social status, gender, sexual orientation, or disability status – their obstacles to safe and accessible water remain unchanged and overlooked. With the previous numbers in mind, these cases make it all too clear that women and other marginalized groups are absent from decision-making roles. They reveal that water and sanitation all too often become conduits of exclusion and disparity.  It is time for the water sector to fully recognize and scrutinize the overlap between inclusion and water.
 
Social inclusion can involve one or a combination of factors that exclude people from markets and services. It is the path to ensuring that marginalized groups are given a seat at the decision-making table. To this end, inclusion is an important component of the work of the World Bank’s Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership (GWSP). The GWSP aims to deepen social inclusion in water through knowledge generation and curation, country engagements, learning, and stronger partnerships. Moving into its second year, GWSP has supported a number of initiatives and projects to help advance the inclusion agenda:

What does it take to achieve universal and equitable access to water and sanitation in Guatemala?

Marco Antonio Aguero's picture
See the full infographic on key findings of the Guatemala Water Supply, Sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) Poverty Diagnostic.

Water and sanitation data figures in Guatemala show a challenging reality. Nationally, 91 percent of the population has access to improved drinking water, an increase of 14 percent points since the establishment of the MDGs.
 
Despite the improvement in coverage in relative terms, in absolute terms there are still a significant number of Guatemalan households using water from precarious or unimproved sources such as unprotected wells, rivers, or lakes. In addition, water quality is a concern -- from the monitoring of 20% of the water systems in the country, 54% reported to be at high and imminent risk for human health.

7 ideas on how knowledge can help us achieve universal access to safely-managed drinking water and sanitation

Guy Hutton's picture
It is vital that we better manage our knowledge, to make better use of it for delivering universal access to water and sanitation. This requires new ways of capturing, sorting, weighing, curating, and translating knowledge into practical, bite-sized chunks. The Disease Control Priorities project, now in its third edition (www.dcp-3.org), is an excellent example of what this looks like in practice. It aims to compile the best available evidence across multiple areas of health to provide a snapshot of the coverage of services, the problems resulting from lack of services, the effectiveness of interventions, and the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of those options.
 
Disease Control Priorities Network (DCPN), funded in 2010 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is a multi-year project managed by
University of Washington’s Department of Global Health (UW-DGH) and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 


As authors of the WASH chapter of DCP-3, we wanted to share some of our key takeaways below:

Chickens don't use toilets: Why managing animal feces helps children grow taller

Derek Headey's picture
Those who have tried toilet training a pet dog or cat know that it is a difficult proposition. How about toilet training a flock of 30 chickens?

“Why would I want to?” Because in poor countries, chickens are everywhere, they are pooping wherever they want, and chicken feces is dangerous for young children.

How we help countries track and report on the Sustainable Development Goals on water, sanitation and hygiene

Ana María Oviedo's picture
Enumerators in Ecuador collecting water sample
for water quality test.
Credit: World Bank team in Ecuador

Over the last few years, the international community has been busy establishing new indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which officially replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for the period 2015-2030. SDG #6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all, seeks to reduce the incidence of malnutrition, communicable diseases, and inequities that are directly related to lack of access to improved sources of drinking water (affecting 663 million people worldwide) and sanitation (which 2.4 billion people still lack). This new goal implies a commitment by countries to monitor and report on their progress, similarly to what was done for the MDGs, but with much more detail.
 
From MDGs to SDGs: What’s New for Water and Sanitation?
 
Under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), countries were requested to report the coverage of water and sanitation, distinguishing between “improved” and “unimproved” coverage. The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP), established specific indicators for each, using definitions that could be captured with information from standard household surveys, which typically rely on self-reported questions on access to services collected from a nationally representative sample of households.

A tale of two cities: how cities can improve fecal sludge management

Isabel Blackett's picture
Photo credit: World Bank

In previous blogs on Fecal Sludge Management (FSM), we outlined the lack of appropriate attention given to FSM as a formal urban sanitation solution and we presented new tools for diagnosing fecal sludge challenges. In this blog, we provide illustrations from Indonesia and Mozambique of the challenges and opportunities of using FSM.

5 lessons to manage fecal sludge better

Peter Hawkins's picture
Desludging in Tanzania
A motorized tricycle fitted with a small tank provides
desludging services in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Photo credit: Kathy Eales / World Bank

Our last blog outlined the neglect of Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) and presented new tools for diagnosing FSM challenges and pointing the way to solutions.  
In this blog, we’ll share some lessons learned from the city-specific case studies and analysis to highlight key areas which need to be addressed if the non-networked sanitation services on which so many citizens rely are to be effectively managed.

New tactics to nudge habit change for open defecation behavior

Jacqueline Devine's picture
Open defecation remains a critical global health challenge, affecting almost 1 billion people around the world and contributing significantly to the estimated 842,000 people who die each year because of poor sanitation, hygiene practices, and unsafe water supplies [1].
 
Most behavior change approaches and frameworks for addressing open defecation have focused on relatively conscious, “reflective”  drivers of behavior, including people’s emotions (such as pride or shame), rational knowledge (e.g., of germ theory), social norms, and explicit action plans (such as commitments to change). Using the framework popularized by renowned social psychologist Daniel Kahneman [2].<, these factors can be described as “System 2” drivers of behavior i.e., relatively conscious and motivational factors. It is now well established, however, that human behavior can also be heavily influenced by “System 1” drivers i.e., relatively automatic, cue-driven factors [3].

Can we really put a price on meeting the global targets on drinking-water and sanitation?

Guy Hutton's picture

When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were signed, a commitment was made to deliver improved water and sanitation to half the unserved population. This ambitious target was met for water but not for sanitation, with 2.4 billion people still lacking improved sanitation in 2015. The first part of our new study, The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, estimates the cost of finishing what was started as part of the MDG target.

The study found that globally current levels of financing are likely to cover the capital costs of achieving universal basic WASH by 2030. The global capital costs amount to $28.4 billion per year (range: $13.8 to $46.7 billion). However, despite this good news, the current allocations need to be redirected and there will need to be significantly greater spending on sanitation (accounting for 69% of the cost of basic universal WASH) and operations and maintenance, as well as in the most off-track countries which are mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

But this isn’t the full story.

Que se passe-t-il lorsqu’un enfant joue et fait ses besoins au même endroit ?

Emily C. Rand's picture
Also available in: English
Imaginons que vous êtes une maman en train de faire la lessive à la borne-fontaine située à proximité de la maison. Votre enfant de deux ans, qui joue par terre, a besoin d’aller aux toilettes. Que faites-vous ? Il y a de fortes chances pour que vous le laissiez faire ses besoins par terre, là où il se trouve.

Selon une analyse récemment menée par le Fonds des Nations Unies pour l'enfance (UNICEF) et le Programme pour l’eau et l’assainissement (WSP) de la Banque mondiale dans un certain nombre de pays clés, plus de 50% des ménages ayant des enfants de moins de trois ans indiquent n’avoir pris aucune précaution d’hygiène la dernière fois que l’un d’eux a fait ses besoins. Ce qui signifie, concrètement, que les enfants défèquent là où ils se trouvent et que leurs excréments sont laissés là, à l’air libre. Par ailleurs, les excréments d’autres enfants du voisinage sont jetés dans une rigole ou un fossé, ou bien enterrés ou jetés avec les déchets solides, et restent donc dans l’environnement direct de la zone d’habitation.

 

Pages