thilde wrote: In my own research in Ghana, we see very nice and clean public toilets popping up now in peri-urban communities, run by a private-public enterprises, which channels money back to the community. Yes, its inconvenient indeed to having to go out for using a toilet. And many people would like to have their own off course.

But in this community, due to soil conditions, the nearby sea, migrant population and poverty, using a public toilet is practical for many people. The public toilets also include nice showers for the fishermen, who needs daily baths to wash the salt of their bodies, and its popular.

Well managed public toilets are great and governments and other organisations should not stop building and operating them!

But when looking at public toilets from a public-health point of view (as the JMP does), they are only a nice supplementary service that helps some people (those that are willing to pay the fee), some of the time (during opening hours or when they can be safely accessed, i.e. usually only during the day, especially for women).

Even with nice public facilities in place, there will be still a lot of people that continue to defecate in the open or use other unsafe toilets, at least some times (quite often actually). And that is under optimal conditions... more often public toilets blocks quickly deteriorate into actual health hazards due to miss management or lack of funds to maintain them.

++++++++
Note by moderator: The discussion continues in this thread: forum.susana.org/182-sustainable-develop...y-managed-sanitation

Hi,
Yes, I highly agree that we need to take a more nuanced approach to defnining shared sanitation. Grpoup sanitation, or multiple-Family sanitation is a positive Development.

But is it really so that we should never consider if public toilets could be an almost improved toilet in some places?

I am wondering about this questions my self...In my own research in Ghana, we see very nice and clean public toilets popping up now in peri-urban communities, run by a private-oublic enterprises, which channels money back to the community. Yes, its inconvenient indeed to having to go out for using a toilet. nd many people would like to have their own off course.

But in this community, due to soil conditions, the nearby sea, migrant population and poverty, using a public toilet is practical for many people. The public toilets also include nice showers for the fishermen, who needs daily baths to wash the salt of their bodies, and its popular.

So how should we acknowledge this? Should we still insist on private toilets for all here? And not fund public toilets? I am pro a more contextually informed sanitation approach. I believe we must have a look at the communities and their conditions, before pushing a private-toilets approach on to everyone.

But what is your thought on this?

Regards,
Thilde Rheinländer

Indeed, sorry if this was not clear from my reply, but I pretty much agree with the article (and you Thilde) that the JMP's definition of "shared toilet = unimproved" is overly simplistic and sharing a toilet between neighbours and having it for example managed by the landlord is a perfectly feasible step on the sanitation ladder and should be counted as improved by the JMP.

I do however agree with the JMP that shared toilets as in "public" toilets can not be counted as "improved"; not for technical but managerial reasons and also the fact that distances and access conditions are usually unattractive to the prospective users especially during the night.

But Thilde, if as you say there is a "very likely assumption" that nobody will take responsibility for shared toilets and by implication that they will become dirty and poorly kept - then why should they be regarded as acceptable forms of sanitation provision under the SDGs? How many shared toilets actually are acceptable? Is not the assumption that shared facilities are normally inadequate something that is well known?

I do think you are being a bit harsh in your reply to Krischan, who did not appear to me to be attacking your report but voicing an opinion.

Hi Joe,
Just to make it clear; YES; the definition of 'shared toilets' as being 'UNIMPROVED' is NOT based on the design or technical standards of the toilet.

It is ONLY based on the fact that it is being shared, and hypothesized that it therefore will be dirty.

The definition of shared sanitation from JMP is:
“sanitation of an otherwise acceptable type shared between two or more households.”

You are right, that this builds on the very likely assumption, that no one will take ownership over this type of toilet and esnure cleanliness and hygiene - because many share it.

BUT; my point with the article is to say; We can not just turn the blind eye to the millions of people who now share toilets, and just keep on telling them; 'to build your own toilets'. This is just not feasible for many many thousands of people!

See my response to Makalow in this thread for more details.

Regards,
Thilde

NB; There are may initiatives to create business models for public toilets around the Worlds, which proves that sharing does not neccesarily mean 'dirty' - but INCOME and BUSINESS for some entreprenual people running nice public toilets.

Dear Makowa,
I find that answer (to a very complex question) to be highly normative and simplifying; "Just imagine what it would be like to stand in a queu for a toilet..."

Yes, just imagine! Millions of people are doing that on a daily basis!
And they DO NOT have the option in the next generation or two to have their own toilet!
This is particularly true in poor urban areas - now making op the MAJORITY of the Worlds populations habitats! So sticking to a rigid no-to-shared-sanitation under any circumstances parole, would essentially rule out toilets for a HUGE Group of the Worlds population!

I really do think we need to be less rigid and more creative and flexible in our toilet-definitions and sanitation goals - we need 'sanitation pragmatism' instead of Engineering-based or emotional arguments. We need to look at the data; WHO Is in need of (better) toilets, and how can we get closer to the goals of improved toilets for all.

This quote from THE SAME article as you quoted, shows how:

"We argue that the focus for future sanitation programmes should be on improving the
hygienic standards of shared facilities to a level that satisfies and protects sanitation users – irrespective of the toilet design. If well managed, household shared sanitation CAN BE a feasible, economical, practical and a socially acceptable choice of sanitation for millions of sanitation users"

Not really (I think), this quote from the article linked above seems to point out the main issue with the definition of shared sanitation:

We also argue that it is necessary to have a new look at how we define shared sanitation and use specific sub-categories including household shared (sharing between a limited number of households who know each other), public toilets (intended for a transient population, but most often the main sanitation facility for poor neighbourhoods) and institutional toilets (workplaces, markets etc.). This sub-classification will identify those depending on household shared sanitation, which we consider to be only a small step away from achieving access to private and improved sanitation.

The problem is not by who & how they are used, but how they are managed.
Furthermore, a public facility will always be at best a supplementary service to another more private toilet near the house and will always be quite expensive to keep in good & sufficiently clean working order (just imagine having a few hundred guests in your house every day).

So, to be clear, are some arguing that there is nothing bad - in and of itself - about shared sanitation systems, it is the way that they are used which is the problem?

But isn't human nature that it will become a "tragedy of the commons"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

or alternatively that powerful people will limit access to shared sanitation facilities to prevent "undesirable" people from making a mess?

Dear All,
Just published this piece on 'shared sanitation definitons' on the WHO bulletin:
who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.14.144980.pdf?ua=1
The Bulletin is a peer reviewed academic jpurnal with focus on LMIC settings and Health. It is one of the most acknowledged journals in Environmental Health.

The paper is (by accident) online and freely assesible for one month, before going into the printed version. Feel free to download it.

I would like to take a more pragmatic and non-technocratic stand point on this issue of shared sanitation - especially since urban and low cost sanitation will be one of our times largest sanitation challanges, with a need for innovative solutions, and not just ingeneering wise 'good' solutions:

I think its high time we leave the rigid JMP classifications, and get a better sense of the range of sanitation solutions people use; A shared facility can be many different things - and CAN BE CLEAN! It all depends on maintenance - not on technical design.

For maybe millions of people in poor urban settings, shared sanitation will be the only realistic toilet option (maybe apart from open defecation); there is no Space, no Money and no Interest in investing in a private household toilet; Migrating people, temporary tenants, and single-person households, will never opt for investing in their own toilet.

We need to adjust our designs, our sanitation goals and our monitoring definitions to that reality.

Hope you enjoy (and maybe get a little bit provoked by the paper!),

Regards,
Thilde Rheinländer

Check this note on Open defecation in cities: A faltering India story. In this note we argue for shared services. We need to have a common taxonomy (see the footnote 2 in the paper) on the use of the term "Shared toilet"

ideasforindia.in/article.aspx?article_id=276

Meera Mehta and Dinesh Mehta of CEPT University in India have been doing research on group toilets as an alternative to community toilets (CTs). They have summarised their findings so far in Ideas for India :

Group toilets help address two key issues that affect demand for individual on-premise toilets. Household surveys across cities in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra suggest that principal reasons for households not having on-premise toilets is space constraints and lack of affordability.

A group toilet programme can overcome the space constraint, by identifying a location for a toilet that can serve 2-4 families, within the properties of the families. When these families share a toilet, the affordability issue is also resolved, as costs are shared and public subsidies become available to all the families sharing the toilet. Analysis in a small town in Maharashtra suggests that this programme can be fully supported through local funds, without waiting for any state or national funding. When more families shift to group toilets, CTs can be closed down. This would result in savings in expenditure on their operation and maintenance as well as free up public land. To accelerate this process, however, innovative financing from corporates under their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and social investors needs to be explored.

Conventionally public subsidy for toilets under programmes such as Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) is linked to the toilet. In many states, public funds are also used to build CTs. However, incentive for households to use the group toilet option is possible using smart subsidies that are provided on a per household basis rather than on a per toilet basis as conventionally done. The extent of subsidy can be minimised by facilitating access of households to a variety of micro-credit options through self-help groups (SHGs), microfinance institutions (MFIs), credit cooperative societies or the new housing finance companies being set up with a focus on small loans.

I have been following this discussion for a while. Excuse me for reiterating, but it seems to me that everyone is agreeing that including shared sanitation services (all of it) to the sanitation coverage is not advisable. I concur to this. The argument that it brings an incentive to implement shared sanitation facilities over household sanitation facilities technology is valid.

Elizabeth suggests that some of the shared sanitation services should be contribute to the sanitation coverage. This definitely makes sense in my opinion. I am wondering though, what are the implications on monitoring? Would it make monitoring too complex and time-consuming? Is there any merit to this concern?