Sanitation for all is an achievable goal. But we can't risk distractions that might cause us to lose political will, says Jon Lane.
Published on: 07/06/2010
Sanitation for all is an achievable goal. But we can't risk distractions that might cause us to lose political will.
A recent article [1] in the Guardian newspaper (UK) reported criticism of the methods used to measure progress towards the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets for water supply and sanitation. This concerned me because it fell into the trap of focusing on a narrow argument about data.
Jon Lane
The World Health Organization recently reported that since 1990 1.3 billion people had gained improved drinking water and 500 million better sanitation. Professor Asit Biswas, President of the Third World Centre for Water Management, told the Guardian that official figures showing that many cities and countries had met their targets were 'baloney'. However, I believe the bigger picture is that even if the MDG goals were reached in full, billions of people would still live with very poor water and sanitation.
Solving the problem is more important than arguing about numbers and definitions. The climate change debate has demonstrated how dangerously disputes about methodology can distract attention, public support and political will, from the big issue.
Moreover, Biswas was misleading when he said that if, in the developing world, "we put concrete around [a] well – nothing else – it becomes an 'improved source of water'; the quality is the same but you have 'improved' the physical structure, which has no impact." But there is an impact. My experience is that such a simple measure, if properly done and accompanied by clear sensible hygiene education and environmental improvements, protects the well against faecal contamination or other pollutants.
For water and sanitation, there are numerous low-cost but highly effective technologies and interventions. To dismiss them unilaterally is unwise. During my 20 years in water supply and sanitation, I have seen a sufficient number of successful projects, in many of the least developed countries, to convince me that safe sanitation and drinking water for all is not merely a dream.
It is also wrong to call for politicians to be removed from water management and replaced by technical experts. Rather, both are necessary. There are many proven technologies: what is most lacking is political commitment. A large part of our efforts should be dedicated to persuading decision-makers of the economic and social benefits to be gained from investing in drinking water and sanitation.
The reality is that more people are gaining access to clean drinking water. There is increasing recognition of the business opportunities associated with sanitation. People should be persuaded to demand sanitation and to have this demand met by local entrepreneurs. In this way, toilets could become like mobile phones: everyone will want one, and affordability will improve. Human faeces (properly composted) should also be recognised as an economic commodity and not a waste product. The Chinese have known this for centuries, and only now are other nations catching up.
A few years ago talking about toilets was still a taboo; today, more politicians recognise its importance and are leading the sanitation revolution. The data from UNICEF and the WHO should be used as a means to help us measure progress, not be dismissed for its shortcomings.
[1] Doubt cast on claim that UN clean water targets will be met, The Guardian, 26 Apr 2010
This opinion piece is adapted from a response published in The Guardian on 6 May 2010.
About Jon Lane
Jon Lane, OBE, is a Civil Engineer by profession. He is the Executive Director of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). Mr. Lane was previously Director of RedR (Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief) and of WaterAid. Before joining the WSSCC in 2007, he worked as a senior-level consultant in water and sanitation. His special passion is to give sanitation and hygiene much greater global prominence and recognition.
You can post online reactions to this column using the 'Give your comments' box underneath the article.
At IRC we have strong opinions and we value honest and frank discussion, so you won't be surprised to hear that not all the opinions on this site represent our official policy.
