PT.1 Water Sanitation For All?

This blog will aim to address the constraints to improved access to water sanitation in Africa. The issue will be looked at through two blog posts, Part 1, talks about the social aspects of water provision and hygiene promotion. Followed by Part 2, which focuses on technology and inadequate finance as critical factors in identifying the challenges to improved water sanitation for all.

A report by WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program in 2015 revealed that globally 2.9 billion  (39%) people used a safely managed sanitation service and 600  million people used a limited sanitation service, that is, improved facilities shared with other households (WHO and UNICEF,2O15). Figure 1 below illustrates the lack of safely managed sanitation services in the least developed countries. Sub Saharan Africa is presented as having the lowest progress towards carefully managed services with the largest percentage in limited, unimproved sanitation and open defecation. This figure is also echoed in Sub-Saharan Africas'  failure to meet the MDG goals in 2015, and thus, it remains highly uncertain to whether sub-Saharan Africa will be able to achieve SDG 6 —to ensure access to water and sanitation for all by 2030 (Ndikumana et al., 2016).

Figure 1: Graph to show the Regional and Global sanitation coverage in 2015.
Source: WHO/UNICEF JMP

Social Aspects to Water Provision 

One argument for the un-improved water sanitation access is the lack of participatory knowledge and participation from the locals. Cases in Africa demonstrate the implementation of interventions such as WASH to improve sanitation access are not as effective as they may seem. The reasons for this will be examined, but pivotal to the failure is the lack of understanding and sanitation knowledge from the locals.

 An article by Montgomery et al. 2018, explores the obstacles to achieving improved water sanitation for all. In the report, they account the issue as occurring due to a lack of sanitation prioritisation, no accountability, inadequate finance, corruption and inefficient management. The case study to depict this is the six months implementation of a chlorine disease infection and safe-storage project in rural Kenya. In this local area, approximately 33% of households had chlorine residual, and less than 20% had purchased storage pots(Montgomery et al. 2018). This small percentage was a result of variable project participation in individual villages. This leads the article to conclude that increasing funding for projects is not enough. They argue a need for demand-based systems rather than supply based systems in which communities are committed to partnering in the instalment of projects to increase the usage of improved water sanitation. 

This above article is supported by the conclusion that communal sanitation is the only viable alternative for slums ( Schoten et al., 2010). Data collected to understand the priorities of the community in slums in Nairobi Kenya is shown in figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Pie Chart to show the most important factors for satisfaction with communal sanitation facilities.
Source: Schoten et al., 2010

The above data indicates that cleanliness is a vital factor for locals and that if communal sanitation facilities are well maintained and well constructed, it can enhance the use of sanitation service in slums. Moreover, the research concluded that what is necessary is the inclusion of all multiple stakeholders involved to improve sanitation. This cooperation of the community and slum dwellers will help in effective cooperation between the stakeholders allowing for better use of sanitation projects (Schoten et al.,2010).

Hygiene Promotion - WASH Alliance Kenya 

WASH Alliance Kenya seeks to address the relationship between state and non-state actors "in  enhancing their response towards the safe WASH needs of poor and marginalised Kenyans" (WASH alliance, 2018) This alliance is a clear progression to local involvement and participatory behaviour-change approaches as indicated by Scoten et al. article to achieve improved access to water sanitation. The steps of WASH community-led total sanitation (CLTs)  is illustrated below involving 7 main steps:

Figure 3: Diagram to show WASH seven-step approach to CLTs.
Source: WASH Alliance, 2018

However, when focusing on the statistics of this WASH programme little progress has actually been achieved. Crocker et al., 2016 conducted a study to identify the target outcomes of training programs promoting CLTs. The conclusions showed that ultimately the training did not achieve its outcomes among most trainees, this was caused by an initial limited amount of learning new skills and trainees did express worry about the long-term progress when the project ends and the drive for the community to carry on (Crocker et al., 2016). However, despite this, a positive outcome was increased ownership of sanitation leading to an increase in coordination and management among programmes.

WASH interventions are used over Africa, the use of hygiene promotion and knowledge has been shown to have positive effects on the implementation of improved sanitation interventions. The knowledge ensures the proper use of interventions and incorporates the communities needs. I believe this is a crucial factor in providing improved access to water sanitation amongst communities and in the short term when deciding interventions a vital involvement of locals are clearly needed. However, the positive results that CLTs projects are expected to have been illustrated by WASH alliance programme in Kenya as not always successful. The issue of long-term sustainability and what happens after the driving force of the programme ends questions if locals will still see the benefits and want to carry on the progress of improving access to water sanitation. 

Next weeks blog will continue this discussion by looking at technology and finance as hindering or improving access to water sanitation in Africa!