shifting responsibility
Betman Bhandari - Saturday 20 May 2006Dear all,
I am Betman, working with the Center for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (CAWST) which is a Canadian humanitarian organization that provides technical training, consultation and acts as a centre of expertise in water and sanitation for the world’s poor (www.cawst.org).
Key Point:
CAWST has been working with ENPHO-Nepal in Biosand filter technology and arsenic removal. There is a good result in the removal of arsenic through Biosand filter by adding 5 kg of nails to the diffuser basin. We would like to clarify NEWAH’s statement on the conference concept paper “the community do not maintain the filter properly, since users must change the nails, sand, gravel and maintain the bucket and fittings frequently”. If the filter becomes clogged due to high sediment in the water, the sand can be cleaned in place. The sand is getting stirred up and the dirty water is dumped out with a tin can or old plastic bottle. As with all safe water containers, they should always be kept clean and well maintained. Note that there are no fittings or moving parts to be maintained. Therefore, the positive aspect of the filter is no need to change nails, sand and gravel frequently. One of the advantages of the Biosand filter is that it is easy to clean and operation. Furthermore, CAWST has consistently received positive feedback from trainees on the unique and innovative technology.
Regarding a discussion question, does promoting household water treatment and safe storage allow the government to shift the responsibility to individuals to finance their own safe water?
Although many countries have a high coverage of improved water in the report, due to inconvenient location of water point, a large number of people are still using unprotected water sources of their vicinity. Many research studies in Nepal show that rural people prefer sufficient quantity and a convenient location of source in term of distance. The geographical location of many village settlements of eastern and western region of Nepal is in a linear pattern along the riverside which also attracts people to use river water. In this context, household water treatment technology will be the most viable in such rural communities, where settlement is clustered and the quantity of unprotected water source is sufficient enough and close to the users.
Prior to the 1990, the implementers of Watsan project advocated that all piped water was safe to drink. The community management and water quality study of 179 governmental organization, INGO and NGO installed water supply schemes in Nepal shows that most of the rural schemes have fecal contamination particularly in the rainy season (Bhandari and Wickramanayake, 2000). Furthermore, the Nepal Government also realized that all Government installed rural water supply schemes are not safe. For this reason, the Government of Nepal has been integrating hygiene and sanitation programs into rural water supply programs. Although household water treatment technology is a new approach for the government program, the Household Water Treatment program will be worthwhile to integrate with rural water supply system as an entry point for improved water quality.
A recent cost-benefit analysis undertaken by WHO found that achieving the MDG target in water and sanitation would bring substantial economic gains: every $1 invested would yield an economic return of between $3 and $34, depending on the region. Similarly, there is a huge return in terms of lives saved and disease reduction from adoption of simple techniques for disinfecting water used for drinking and cooking. Household treatment cuts the primary transmission route for diarrhoeal disease and can pay back up to US$ 60 for every US$ 1 invested (WHO Water for life, 2005).
To achieve the 2001 Millennium Development Goals, every nation in the world should become responsible to develop and enforce policy in their water use and adopt new behaviours to ensure the livelihood of all people. We do not believe that without empowering people, promoting HWTS should imply a shift in responsibilities.
On the basis of our experience, to shift the responsibility to the individual, the best way to do this is as follows:
•To enhance knowledge about the value of safe water
•To build the capacity of the governmental and non governmental institutions including individuals involved in the delivery of a water and sanitation program including HWT which promotes independent action.
•To focus and support the institution, rather than the project i.e. provide services to support the activities and programs of key clients.