SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication http://forum.susana.org/ Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:46:04 +0000 Kunena 1.6 http://forum.susana.org/components/com_kunena/template/default/images/icons/rss.png SuSanA - Forum http://forum.susana.org/ en-gb Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: christoph http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9954 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9954
Joes comment about the Blog of Brian Arbogast´s post was the reason to open this question.

Joe point out that it is not enough to have the reduction of untreated fecal material, he is of the opinion that it is necessary to link it to health indicators.

I am working in several countries in Latin America. One of our tasks is to prove that investment in sanitation really enhances the health of the population. This is quite tricky. Very often the health aspects are overlapped by a serious of aspects. We identified the following aspects as factors which make the health indicator only a “secondary” indicator as the direct relation is not valid:
  • Hospital statistics often do not differentiate between the rural and the city population. How do you measure the effects in a certain area if the numbers are just for a whole municipality?
  • There are practices where the family lives very close to domestic animals – therefore the positive effect of sanitation is overlapped by other factors.
  • The sewerage of an area for sure enhances the sanitation situation of that area but at the same time might be worse by the production of untreated wastewater for another area. When this affects less people, a positive balance points to a gain in health. Is that true?

But in contrary to Brian I do think the indicator should be treated fecal material or better “safe final destination for fecal matter”. Why? I saw to many treatment plants which are not working. So does a not working treatment plant count as “treated fecal waste or not”? I admit…this indicator is far more difficult to judge than “non treated fecal waste”. But I think it is not sufficient just to build fecal matter treatment plants – they have to be operated as well.

I agree as well that there might be a very large (necessary) discussion about what is treated. So I think the best indicator would be “safe final destination for fecal matter” - with a need to discuss "what is safe final destination".

Looking forward to your comments.

Christoph]]>
Global political processes Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:22:49 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: joeturner http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9944 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9944
There is some literature on the subject, I invite you to investigate it. I am away this week (coincidentally at a microbiology conference) if you really want to discuss the scientific research on this point, I am happy to have a robust discussion when I return.]]>
Global political processes Sun, 31 Aug 2014 05:28:22 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: canaday http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9943 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9943
Ecological Sanitation (EcoSan) is not equivalent to composting toilets. It is a much broader concept, very close to that of Sustainable Sanitation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_sanitation :
--
Ecological sanitation (Ecosan) is based on an overall view of material flows as part of an ecologically and economically sustainable wastewater management system tailored to the needs of the users and to the respective local conditions. It ... is ... a new philosophy in handling substances that have so far been seen simply as wastewater and water-carried waste for disposal.

According to Esrey et al. (2003) ecological sanitation can be defined as a system that:

Prevents disease and promotes health
Protects the environment and conserves water
Recovers and recycles nutrients and organic matter
--

One of the main (and potentially purist) manifestations of EcoSan is the Urine-diverting Dry Toilet (UDDT), which is the principal subject of the Ecological Sanitation book
www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/Ecological_Sanitation_2004.pdf

EcoSan also includes Constructed Wetlands, since natural processes are used and the nutrients go back safely to productive ecosystems.

It may be true that adding urea to feces helps to sanitize them, but there is much more water in urine than urea. One of the most important reasons to separate urine in UDDTs is to keep the feces as dry and aerated as possible, thus reducing smell (which is mostly due to the loss of valuable nitrogen in the form of ammonia).

Please share with us the studies that supposedly debunk the safety of the finished biosolids from composting toilets or UDDTs. If, in fact, a significant amount of pathogens remain, the biosolids could be spread out in the sun to receive UV radiation, heated in a solar oven (apparently 65°C for an hour is sufficient), thermophilically composted, or it could be added mechanically to cover new feces (and never be released into the open environment) ... and this would still be EcoSan, especially if the urine (with 90% of the nutrients) is used to fertilize plants.

I use my real name and I invite anyone who is interested to see, use and analyze our UDDTs here in Puyo, Ecuador. Finished biosolid samples could also be sent internationally for analysis, as there is apparently no limitation on their being shipped:
stamps.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/179/~/usps-content-restrictions
(The real risk is in the fresh feces that are already transported everywhere, inside people.)

I would like to invite you, Joe, to be less inflammatory and sweeping in your statements (including in blogs that are linked to). If we do not agree with someone, we should try to politely explain why we believe differently, without belittling or insulting anyone. When we criticize anything, we should hopefully pair this with a constructive suggestion of how to do things better.

I agree that it would be wonderful to monitor that everyone be healthy, but this seems very complicated. One indicator could be the number of cases of water-borne diseases (per 1000 persons), as reported by the health ministry of each country, although this depends entirely on the efficiency of each of these ministries (and would also be affected by politics).

I also think that there is much more agreement on what constitutes acceptable treatment. In particular, since Ascaris eggs are largely agreed to be the most resistant of all fecal pathogens and they can be identified with a microscope, any treatment that wipes out Ascaris eggs should be considered adequate.
(Plus they reportedly infect 25% of the world human population,
web.stanford.edu/class/humbio103/ParaSit...s/JLora_ParaSite.htm ) There are details to be worked out for the most efficient monitoring of Ascaris, but in no way does this mean that it is not feasible.

I suggest we should also agree that untreated wastewater going straight into the environment constitutes open defecation, in terms of sanitation, no matter how private and elegant the bathrooms may be.

Brian Arbogast is also correct that it is not just a matter of building the hardware of toilets. We also have to assure that the users assimilate the software about the importance of using toilets and managing them properly... via education, consciousness-raising, community involvement, and follow-up.

Best wishes,
Chris Canaday]]>
Global political processes Sun, 31 Aug 2014 04:19:45 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: Sowmya http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9932 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9932
Sanitation is recognized as a chain encompassing user apparatus, collection, treatment and utilization. We have focused on the first part till now viz., that everyone has access to the user apparatus. Brian's indicator focuses on something further down (fecal waste treated) because this step pre-supposes (and also requires as a pre-condition in actual practice) user apparatus being available - provided that the method of measuring fecal waste focuses on the entire population instead of waste quantified by measuring discharge from centralized collection systems (though it would be easier to collect such data from centralized systems) - measurement method perspective.

We could also select another process indicator which focuses on utilization viz., fecal waste utilized in a manner that forwards development goals (environment, agriculture, etc) because this presupposes (and requires) all the previous steps. What I essentially like about Brian's suggestion is the shift of focus on a step further downstream than focusing on only the first step.

Sanitation is essentially a solution (a suite of solutions) rather than a "feature" (health, ecology, natural resources, environmental sustainability) and so we need to assess how well a technology helps maximize impact in each of the relevant "features". For instance, safety of women as well as inequity faced by vulnerable population (differently-abled, low-income, children, et al) get addressed with the first step of access to safe user apparatus. Health (reduction in morbidity / mortality due to pathogen transmission) gets addressed at the treatment stage. However, deteriorating soil quality, eutrophication of water bodies and conserving rapidly-depleting natural resources (such as, phosphorous mined for manufacturing fertilizers - we hardly have a century's supply left in the world - or even fossil fuels considering the biogas option) get resolved only when the utilization step is addressed.

Regarding measurement methods, this could also be an important focus area but might be complex because we do not have the supporting science / technology to address important questions. It is important to be able to present an indicator that has adequate scientific certainty but this also means that we can only include criteria for which we have the means for scientific measurement. Therefore, a sanitation technology's impact on the microbiological climate, for instance, may be difficult to include in the measurement method as we do not yet have the right set of questions to be addressed and the scientific methods for measurement.

A possible solution could be to select indicators and measurement methods in a way that enables and accommodates possible trajectories along which technologies can develop in the future. Sanitation is essentially a "solution" and, therefore, it is important to take a future studies approach. We could probably have a framework that includes all important aspects and then develop the indicators that address the different dimensions (process, impact, unaddressed questions in science) in a way that can guide allocation of resources (time, effort, capital) and systems development.

And, from a future studies perspective, we could probably see all technologies in a "continuum" and simply determine what goals / aspects have been addressed and what needs to be addressed. From a sector perspective, it is important to address all relevant sanitation goals irrespective of the local contexts - make sanitation context agnostic.

For instance, people in temporary accommodation (Internally Displaced Persons (IDP), refugees and people taking shelter from flash floods or some natural disaster, village fairs or annual festivals at religious centers when there is a huge influx of population during only a few days in a year) will require ultra-compact user apparatus that can be built with locally or easily-collectible materials (or even repurposed articles) which provides safety and privacy as well as protect health (prevent cholera outbreaks). Constructing permanent user apparatus may not be an ideal solution for such contexts. Likewise, a "portable" toilet works better in such situations compared to "mobile" toilets. In conclusion, we should simply take each technology and see for which contexts it solves the entire set of sanitation challenges or what else needs to be done.

Thanks and regards,

Sowmya]]>
Global political processes Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:13:41 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: joeturner http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9930 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9930 canaday wrote:
Dear Joe,

Thank you for showing your true colors on your blog,
sanitation.joetnr.net/sanitation-good-in-parts/
where you state:
--
And the sector has its own crazy bunch of loons who want to insist that shitting in a bucket (also known as ecosan) somehow counts as treatment. It doesn't and it isn't.
--

EcoSan does not consist solely in defecating in a bucket and, in many cases, there are no buckets involved at all. And treatment does occur in these buckets and the other containers that are used because, as the feces dry and decompose, fecal pathogens die off at an exponential rate. The key thing is to keep the feces out of the general environment while this is happening, which is incredibly more feasible if they are in a small bucket, as opposed to an entire river of sewage. Solarization, heating, and thermophilic composting can speed up the die-off of pathogens found in the feces collected in UDDTs ... and it would still be EcoSan.


Whilst it might be true that pathogens reduce in ecosan systems, there is plenty of evidence that they never get to safe levels. The idea that it is feasible to treat human faeces via composting toilets is entirely busted.

I dispute the idea that solarization, heating and thermophilic composting are types of ecosan, which is short for ecological sanitation and is synomynous with composting toilets.



I would like to invite you to read this 2-part interview about the dangers of water-based sanitation and the benefits of dry, ecological sanitation:
www.chekhovskalashnikov.com/water-sanitation/
www.chekhovskalashnikov.com/human-waste-disposal/


I have never ever said that water-based sanitation is always preferable nor that dry sanitation is always a bad system. However there is plenty of evidence that dry systems are very often not destroying pathogens in human faeces to safe levels and hence handling faecal wastes even after storage is a major risk to health.

Please allow me to inform you that there are absolutely no loons that currently practice modern EcoSan, especially since they do not produce urine to be kept separate and their nitrogenous waste comes out mixed with their feces.


The seperation of urine and faecal waste has no bearing on whether pathogens are destroyed in the faeces and in fact there is some evidence that the addition of urea to faeces encourages the destruction of pathogens.

Being waterbirds, they mainly defecate straight into their watery habitat, where they have lived for millions of years in fairly low densities and apparently do not normally suffer from water-borne diseases. Humans, on the other hand, are land mammals and over the millions of years we have lived scattered out in the forest and savannah, defecating on the soil. The need for sanitation has arised over recent millennia, with the growth of human population, the formation of densely populated cities, and the concomitant evolution and transmission of disease.




By the way, Ascaris is not a ringworm (which is fungus and not a worm at all
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinea_corporis), but a roundworm or nematode. And it is an excellent indicator, as it is readily identified via the microscope and it is agreed to be the most resistant of all fecal pathogens.

Best wishes,
Chris Canaday


We have had many discussions on this forum about the difficulties associated with identifying active Ascaris. Ascariasis is caused by the roundworm Ascaris lumbricoides, thank you for pointing out my typo.

I reiterate my main point - the need for health and microbial standards. based on robust Quantiative Microbiological Risk Assessment in the sector rather than wishful thinking.]]>
Global political processes Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:09:08 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: canaday http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9929 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9929
Thank you for sharing your perspective on your blog,
sanitation.joetnr.net/sanitation-good-in-parts/
where you state:
--
And the sector has its own crazy bunch of loons who want to insist that shitting in a bucket (also known as ecosan) somehow counts as treatment. It doesn't and it isn't.
--

EcoSan does not consist solely in defecating in a bucket and, in many cases, there are no buckets involved at all. And treatment does occur in these buckets and the other containers that are used because, as the feces dry and decompose, fecal pathogens die off at an exponential rate. The key thing is to keep the feces out of the general environment while this is happening, which is incredibly more feasible if they are in a small bucket, as opposed to an entire river of sewage. Solarization, heating, and thermophilic composting can speed up the die-off of pathogens found in the feces collected in UDDTs ... and it would still be EcoSan.

I would like to invite you to read this 2-part interview about the dangers of water-based sanitation and the benefits of dry, ecological sanitation:
www.chekhovskalashnikov.com/water-sanitation/
www.chekhovskalashnikov.com/human-waste-disposal/

Please allow me to inform you that there are absolutely no loons that currently practice modern EcoSan, especially since they do not produce urine to be kept separate and their nitrogenous waste comes out mixed with their feces. Being waterbirds, they mainly defecate straight into their watery habitat, where they have lived for millions of years in fairly low densities and apparently do not normally suffer from water-borne diseases. Humans, on the other hand, are land mammals and over the millions of years we have lived scattered out in the forest and savannah, defecating on the soil. The need for sanitation has arised over recent millennia, with the growth of human population, the formation of densely populated cities, and the concomitant evolution and transmission of disease.

By the way, Ascaris is not a ringworm (which is fungus and not a worm at all
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinea_corporis), but a roundworm or nematode. And it is an excellent indicator, as it is readily identified via the microscope and it is agreed to be the most resistant of all fecal pathogens.

Best wishes,
Chris Canaday]]>
Global political processes Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:56:03 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: joeturner http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9916 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9916
One point I disagree with in the blog is this one:

We need to start thinking about — and measuring — our progress in a way that captures the full sanitation challenge, one that captures that cities like Dhaka aren’t today achieving sanitation levels nearing perfect, but rather recognizes they have a long way to go. Fortunately, one single indicator can capture this: the amount of untreated fecal waste that gets released into the environment. A commitment to reduce untreated waste would drive the necessary investments in fecal sludge management in urban and peri-urban areas, while complementing investments to end open defecation in rural areas.


If we cannot agree when faecal waste is treated and do not have the funds to tell objectively when it is safe microbiologically, this is a useless indicator.

In my view, the only indicator we actually have is based on health: how many people are getting sick from infections caused by faecal pathogens. Once we know that, we can discuss what is an 'acceptable' number of incidents (and/or possibly deaths) of infections and work out a safe dose rate of interactions with faecal wastes and safe ways to deal with it.

And we can then, for once, actually have a way to tell if sanitation systems are acceptably working or not and spend more time thinking about the holistic risks associated with systems and behaviours rather than simply focussing on the numbers of systems built.]]>
Global political processes Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:25:43 +0000
Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: Roshan http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9900 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9900-brian-arbogasts-blog-post-choosing-the-right-post-2015-sanitation-indicators#9900
Brian Arbogast, Director, Water Sanitation Hygiene, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently posted a blog on Devex*: Choosing the right post -2015 sanitation indicators
www.devex.com/news/choosing-the-right-po...ion-indicators-84219

As we had quite a few posts on the forum about the post-2015 sanitation indicators, I thought this blog post would be interesting for quite a few of you.

It's also interesting to read the comments he got for his blog post (5 so far).

Thanks.

Roshan


* Information about Devex: Our motto is "Do Good. Do It Well.™" because we believe a more efficient global development industry can change the world. We invite everyone working in the fields of international development, humanitarian relief, and global health to join 500,000 professionals in the world's most popular international development network on devex.com.]]>
Global political processes Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:58 +0000
Re: Countries with legislation that include material-flow-based and/or resource-oriented (sustainable) sanitation and waste management - by: Staeudel http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9790 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9790
thanks a lot for this reply and the xls-file. It helps me to give a short overview about the status quo of the legislation and helps in some points for the discussion. I will not work on this topic in particular and therefore will not be able to contribute to an update of this list.
However, I think it is a very interesting topic to work on, maybe in form of a Masters thesis. How future-oriented is environmental legislation in terms of wastewater, sanitation, reuse in this world and how seriously take governments the implementation of their own laws? Anybody interested to work on that?

My dissertation is about:
Development, Implementation and Operation of Integrated Sanitation Systems based on Material, Money and Energy Flows – Integrated Sanitation in the City of Darkhan, Mongolia - A Practical Example

Thanks a lot again and all the best to you,
Jürgen]]>
Global political processes Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:56:11 +0000
Re: Countries with legislation that include material-flow-based and/or resource-oriented (sustainable) sanitation and waste management - by: rahulingle http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9758 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9758
We had made a short review of the existing programs and policies in 2010 which I am attaching below. But as you can see it needs to be updated for the last 4 years. For Africa, the latest update of Ethekwini monitoring baseline with commitment 3a focussing on establishing national sanitation policies could be of help. Would be great if once you are done with your dissertation to post the updated list for the users.





All the very best for your dissertation,

cheers]]>
Global political processes Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:08:47 +0000
Countries with legislation that include material-flow-based and/or resource-oriented (sustainable) sanitation and waste management - by: Staeudel http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9700 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/9700-countries-with-legislation-that-include-material-flow-based-andor-resource-oriented-sustainable-sanitation-and-waste-management#9700 I have 2 particular questions on the status of worldwide legislation concerning material-flow-based sanitation and waste management.

1. Is there an overview existing about how many countries have currently legislation / policies effective on material-flow-based or sustainable sanitation and waste management?
2. How many of these countries have actually implemented the law?
(I am thinking of laws such as the german "Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management Act" (in German: Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz))

I am currently working on my dissertation and try to get an overview on how much all this work on sanitation issues (source separation, reuse etc) is actually reflected in worldwide policies.

Thanks a lot for you help,
Kind regards,
Jürgen]]>
Global political processes Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:49:04 +0000
Re: FW: WATER AND SANITATION PROPOSED AS SDG - by: dietvorst http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#9506 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#9506
  • water and sanitation/hygiene are now separate subgoals
  • the inclusion of the words "equitable" and "those in vulnerable situations"
  • a specific reference to ending open defecation
  • a quantifiable subgoal of "halving the proportion of untreated wastewater" by 2030, and
  • acknowledgement of the role of local communities in water and sanitation management.


If you are cynical you might conclude that the publicity surrounding the rape and murder of the two girls in India (see the discussion in the SuSanA Forum) has influenced the inclusion of ending open defecation in SDG subgoal 6.2, while the root of the problem remains unaddressed. Women's groups regret that the proposed SDGs "fall short of women’s aspirations for a strong set of transformative goals needed to achieve gender equality, women’s human rights, sustainable development in harmony with nature, and an end to inequalities". If you are not (or less) cynical, you might say that it is a result of the good work of UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson who launched the End Open Defecation campaign.

So what got left out? First, specific references to the human right to water and sanitation and to extra-household WASH (schools, health centers and refugee camps). One could argue that these issues are already covered by terms like "universal access", "equitable" and "for all" including "women and girls and those in vulnerable situations".

Secondly, as IRC's Catarina Fonseca mentions in her blog, missing in an emphasis on the actual provision of water and sanitation services rather than just infrastructure. She also points to the fact that there is still of lot of work needed to make all the targets smart and measurable.

Will the water SDG end up in the final list next year? Even though there is a strong UN and civil society lobby - led by the likes of UN-Water and End Water Poverty, respectively - we can't be complacent. In her blog, Catarina lists what sector organisations need to do keep the pressure on.

Here is the full text of Proposed Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

6.1 by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.2 by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

6.3 by 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and increasing recycling and safe reuse by x% globally

6.4 by 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity, and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

6.5 by 2030 implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

6.6 by 2020 protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

6.a by 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

6.b support and strengthen the participation of local communities for improving water and sanitation management]]>
Global political processes Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:30:37 +0000
FW: WATER AND SANITATION PROPOSED AS SDG - by: scherten http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#9490 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#9490
Following our earlier discussion on this subject, I would like to inform you that last Saturday, the Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals adopted a proposal for Sustainable Development Goals to be forwarded to the 69th session of the General Assembly for its consideration. The proposal contains 17 sustainable development goals, each with its set of targets and means on implementation. It is the fruit of nearly 18 months of discussion on the post-2015 agenda.

I think we can be very pleased that Water and Sanitation figure very prominently in the proposal.

First of all, water and sanitation is the subject of a dedicated SDG, goal 6 aiming to “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. Under this goal, 6 targets foster measurable and time-bound actions to: achieve universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene; improve water quality and increase waste water treatment; enhance water efficiency and sustainability of water withdrawals; implement integrated water resources management, including through transboundary cooperation; and protect and restore water related ecosystems. Means of implementation include international cooperation and capacity-building and participation of local communities.

Moreover, water and sanitation are also strongly mainstreamed in the other goals of the agenda: explicitly referred under the goals on health, cities and human settlements, sustainable consumption and production and terrestrial ecosystems, and more implicitly in many others, including the goals on poverty, gender equality and climate change.

At this stage, it is still unclear how much this report will remain unchanged during next year of negotiations: whether it will be reopened or adopted by the General Assembly as it is at the Summit in September 2015. Therefore, the advocacy efforts for water and sanitation must carry on next year. Moreover, next year will be also important for reflections on the implementation of the agenda, in particular the water and sanitation SDG, including on its monitoring, on the partnerships needed to support it, etc.

Whatever the course of the future negotiations on the whole agenda will be next year, it is important to recognize that the consensus on water and sanitation is very broad and the support to the goal on water and sanitation is strong and consistent throughout the regions and the groups of countries.

Therefore this report can be seen as a good summary of the global water agenda and will guide and influence the work of all of us both at the national and international levels.


With best regards
Roland Schertenleib


Independent consultant, formerly head of Eawag-Sandec (Dübendorf, Switzerland
One of the founding fathers of SuSanA
]]>
Global political processes Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:00:36 +0000
Zero Draft of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for post-2015 agenda - by: tmsinnovation http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#8903 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/2712-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-water-and-sanitation-proposed-as-sdgs?limit=12&start=12#8903
the zero draft for the SDG for the post 2015 Agenda are out and online here: sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html

The 6th of 17 goals is of interest to the SuSanA community:
List of Proposed Sustainable Development Goals to be attained by 2030
...
6. Secure water and sanitation for all for a sustainable world
...

Details of the goal from the zero draft:

Proposed goal6. Secure water and sanitation for all for a sustainable world

6.1 by 2030, provide universal access to safe and affordable drinking water, adequate sanitation and hygiene for all

6.2 by 2030 provide universal access to safe and affordable sanitation and hygiene including at home, schools, health centers and refugee camps, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls

6.3 by 2030, improve water quality by significantly reducing pollution, eliminating dumping of toxic materials, and improving wastewater management by x%, recycling and reuse by y%

6.4 by 2030, improve water-use efficiency by x% across all sectors

6.5 implement integrated water resources management, including appropriate trans-boundary co-operation

6.6 ensure sustainable extraction and supply of fresh water, and by 2020 protect and restore ecosystems and aquifers that provide water-related services

6.7 by 2030 decrease by x% mortality, and decrease by y% economic losses caused by natural and human-induced water-related disasters

6.8 provide adequate facilities and infrastructure, both built and natural, for safe drinking water and sanitation systems, for productive uses of water resources and for mitigating the impacts of water-related disasters

I look forward to when the X% and Y% are included.

Rgds
Trevor]]>
Global political processes Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:09:59 +0000
Re: Should shared sanitation services be considered 'improved' sanitation? (and MDG implications) - by: dineshmehta100 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/8299-should-shared-sanitation-services-be-considered-improved-sanitation-and-mdg-implications#8533 http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/80-global-political-processes/8299-should-shared-sanitation-services-be-considered-improved-sanitation-and-mdg-implications#8533
ideasforindia.in/article.aspx?article_id=276]]>
Global political processes Fri, 09 May 2014 06:24:23 +0000