Posted on July 28, 2010 by dietvorst| 1 Comment
After more than 15 years of contentious debate on the issue, the United Nations General Assembly has passed a historical resolution (64/L.63/Rev.1) declaring “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights”.
In the non-binding text, the 192-member Assembly also called on UN Member States and international organizations to offer funding, technology and other resources to help poorer countries scale up their efforts to provide clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all. This clause appeared to put the onus of rectifying the situation on rich countries, a Reuters report suggested.
Bolivian initiative
The resolution, which was submitted by Bolivia and co-sponsored by 35 other developing countries, passed overwhelmingly with 124 states voting in favour and 42 abstaining. No countries voted against the resolution. According to the Earth Times, “the decision has no legal standing, but inclusion in the UN’s declaration on human rights is seen as an important political step for the issue”.
Ambassador Pablo Solon of Bolivia, representing a country that spearheaded the resolution, said human rights were not born as fully developed concepts, but are built on reality and experience.
The human rights to education and work, included in the UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], evolved over time with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
“The same will occur with the human right to water and sanitation,” he predicted in a statement to the General Assembly Wednesday.
Abstainers
The abstainers to the vote on the resolution were mainly developed countries, although European Union members Belgium, Germany and Spain voted for the measure, as did China, Russia and Brazil.
Developed countries that abstained included the United States, the UK, Australia, Austria, Canada, Greece, Sweden, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. Anil Naidoo of the Council of Canadians accused the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board (UNSGAB) of having sent a “very damaging letter to the President of the General Assembly, in an obvious attempt to derail the resolution”.
Several developing nations, mostly from Africa, also abstained on the vote, siding with rich industrial countries. These included Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Zambia, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago.
According to The Lancet:
Some delegates felt the decision to hold the vote was pre-emptive, and all countries could have reached consensus—and thereby avoided the need for a vote—if more time was allowed to interpret legal outcomes of the move for public and private suppliers. Most delegates who abstained, and some who endorsed the resolution, were anticipating a report to be published later this year by an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Brazilian delegate, who voted yes, decried the absence of an “appropriate forum” to debate the resolution, and the UK’s delegate, who abstained, said that the resolution was not proposed “with consensus in mind”. Nevertheless, the justifications given by the 41 countries that abstained, including the USA, Japan, and Canada, were not convincing.
Commenting on the USA’ s abstention, Pacific Institute’s Co-founder and President Peter Gleick wrote:
The United States, which has typically been a world leader on protecting and enhancing political human rights, has always had a flawed position on “economic and social” human rights, including the human right to water – a position characterized by bad logic and a narrow and inconsistent interpretation of human rights law.
[...]
This latest declaration is not the end of the debate. There is still an ongoing discussion about the nature of the human right to water underway at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. But the endless bureaucratic shuffling of this topic from one council to another; from one committee to another; must stop. After nearly two decades of debate, these games should be seen for what they are: delaying tactics rather than clarifying activities. And the U.S. must get its UN representatives to actually read, and interpret, economic and social rights laws in a way that permits such an obvious human right to be clearly acknowledged, indeed, even embraced, as a tool to help address gross and inexcusable failures to meet basic needs for safe water and sanitation around the world.
Victory for Water Justice Movement
The Council of Canadians called the resolution “a major victory” for the “global water justice movement”.
“This resolution has the overwhelming support of a strong majority of countries, despite a handful of powerful opponents. It must now be followed-up with a renewed push for water justice,” says Anil Naidoo, Blue Planet Project organizer. “We are calling for actions on the ground in communities around the world to ensure that the rights to water and sanitation are implemented.
Banner on the web site of Food and Watch, US-based advocacy group campaigning for the right to water
Water activist and national chair of the Council of Canadians Maude Barlow (pictured above) wrote:
This vote marked a historic landmark in the fight for water justice in several ways. Countries representing 5.4 billion people – the vast majority of the population on Earth – voted in favour of the human right to water and sanitation. The language of the resolution itself set the gold standard for all future deliberations on the right to water. While a resolution is not binding, it does nevertheless demonstrate the intent of the General Assembly, and when the time comes for a more binding declaration or convention, the clear and unequivocal wording of this resolution will serve as the template.
Finally, it was important because there was a clear split in the powerful countries of the global North. Many broke with the naysayers and voted for the resolution, including Germany, Spain and France. Most emerging powerhouse countries, including China, India, Russia and Brazil, also voted in favour. This demonstrates a global shift in influence away from the once-dominant Anglo powers and their model of development.
Washington-based advocacy group Food & Water Watch, also backed what it called a landmark resolution.
“It’s time to reach consensus that the world’s poor deserve recognition of this human right without further delay or equivocation,” it said in a statement that accused the United States of “obstructing recognition of the human right to water.”
UN Independent Expert
The resolution also welcomed the UN Human Rights Council’s request that Catarina de Albuquerque, the UN Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, report annually to the General Assembly as well. The abstainers to the vote on the resolution accused its sponsors of seeking to preempt the findings of Ms De Albuquerque. By rushing the current resolution through before a consensus could be reached, the US delegate John F. Sammis felt the work of Ms De Albuquerque could be even be undermined. The UN Independent Expert is due to report to the Human Rights Council on her work in October 2011.
Germany’s UN Ambassador Peter Wittig disagreed with those member states that voiced concern about the impact of the resolution on the Geneva process led by de Albuquerque.
“We see the resolution as a complement to the ongoing process on water and sanitation in Geneva,” he noted.
However, Wittig and others would preferred language with “a clearer message on the primary responsibility of states to ensure the realization of human rights for all those living under their jurisdiction.”
British delegate Nicola Freedman said London “does not believe that there exists at present sufficient legal basis under international law to either declare or recognize water or sanitation as free-standing human rights.”
In her own press statement, Ms De Albuquerque welcomed the landmark resolution as a “breakthrough for the United Nations General Assembly” and “a positive signal from the international community”. She underlined that:
“the fact that the right to water and sanitation was recognized, demonstrates that the General Assembly, instead of creating a new right rather formally acknowledged its existence. Hence the existing human rights framework, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, fully applies in this context.”
Criticism
Sahana Singh, editor of Asian Water, argued that “no more time should be wasted on drafting new laws and resolutions”, especially in developing countries, where implementation of laws is already such a big problem. Unless clearly specified upfront, the right to water could be taken to mean that water should be free or nearly free, she said.
“It has led to a situation where millions of litres of water are lost daily due to leakages from pipe networks. Would such a situation be allowed to exist with oil pipelines?” she asked.
The point to note is that the governmental authorities of Singapore, Manila, Phnom Penh and others, which understand the benefits of providing water and sanitation to all their citizens, are working hard to do so even without water being declared a human right.
On the other hand, the irresponsible governments which have done little for existing rights, such as the right to equality or the right against exploitation, are certainly not going to implement any more new rights, she warned
What is needed, according to Singh, are utilities that are properly management, have financial autonomy, and are allowed to charge appropriate tariffs so that they can invest in better services.
The harshest criticism of the resolution came from the head of legal affairs at the Danish think-tank CEPOS Jacob Mchangama. Not surprising as Mchangama fiercely opposes all social rights, which he claims are driven by a leftist ideological bias that is undermining classic civil and political rights (freedom rights). In his opinion piece he writes:
declaring water and sanitation as human rights constitutes a threat to both international law and the poor themselves. [...]. The right to clean water and sanitation [...] depends on economic development, technology and infrastructure. Above all, if people have a right to water and sanitation, other people must provide it – in practice, governments using public money. [...] So this is really a call for state intervention, at the expense of other priorities and freedoms – and water is no more a practically enforceable human right than other essential commodities, such as food, clothing or shelter.
Mchangama suspects the resolution is inspired by activists’ ideological resistance to the privatisation of water. He also is unimpressed by Bolivia’s motives as proposer of the resolution:
By demanding that developed countries “provide financial resources and technology transfer” to developing countries, the resolution implies that the rich are violating the human rights of people without water in poor countries. This allows many countries, such as the proposer, Bolivia, to deflect criticism away from their own real rights violations – arbitrary detentions, corruption, censorship – while portraying themselves as victims of the West.
Reactions from China and the Arab world
Writing for state-run Chinese news agency Xinhua, Ding Yi reacts to the abstention of many developed countries to the UN resolution by highlighting the different perspectives on human rights between developed and developing countries:
Different countries and people may have contrary understandings about “human rights,” but in the eyes of some Western countries those rights seem to involve equality only in social and political spheres. [...] [However] if one’s survival and development rights can’t be guaranteed, how can people talk about one’s social and political rights? [...] Perhaps those living in the developed world can’t understand the suffering of those struggling against death in the developing countries. [...] As the developed nations pour vast amounts of money into political campaigns and the promotion of their own human rights, what if they also provide more to help promote the survival rights of the people in underdeveloped countries?
A commentator for Arab News, Iman Kurdi asks if the resolution is really going to make a difference:
For a start, the resolution is nonbinding but even if it was binding, you only need to look at Israel’s flagrant disregard for UN resolutions to see how toothless they have become. A UN resolution is rather long way from a treaty on access to clean water and sanitation, though it is a valiant step in the right direction.
Kurdi also writes that:
[W]e should not be surprised that some rich countries preferred to abstain, given they are likely to be the ones footing the bill [and] that countries that are rich in water may also prefer to protect the right to sell that water and to see it as an economic and commercial resource.
[...]
At the end of the day, thinking of access to clean water and sanitation in terms of a fundamental human right is an important step in changing mindsets. It moves the issue from being an aid issue to being a right. But ultimately it is putting in the resources and the programs necessary to make that right a reality that matters.
Positive reactions from WaterAid and Amnesty
WaterAid also welcomed the UN recognition of right to water and sanitation.
Kate Norgrove, Head of Campaigns at WaterAid said: “It is good news that the resolution, recognising water and sanitation as a basic human right, has been passed by a majority vote. It is particularly encouraging to see the crucial reference to sanitation, due to its historic neglect and importance for human development.”
“It is however regretful that the vote wasn’t passed by consensus, which exposes a distinct lack of political will on this issue. Abstentions illustrate the continuing lack of priority given to sanitation – which is astonishing given that slow progress on sanitation is holding back progress on many of the other Millennium Development Goals.”
Amnesty International’s specialist on the right to water, Ashfaq Khalfan, said:
“After this promising first step, all states must now take the opportunity to protect the life and health of millions and unreservedly support the rights to water and sanitation”.
The rights will next be debated by the Human Rights Council in Geneva in September 2010.
Read the official UN General Assembly press release (GA/10967) on the resolution.
Sources: UN News Center, 28 Jul 2010 ; Patrick Worsnip, Reuters, 28 Jul 2010 ; Council of Canadians, 28 Jul 2010 ; Mark Leon Goldberg, UN Dispatch, 28 Jul 2010 ; Food & Water Watch, 28 Jul 2010 ; WaterAid, 28 Jul 2010 ; Right-to-water discussion list, 28 Jul 2010 ; Thalif Deen, IPS, 28 Jul 2010 ; AFP / The Independent, 28 Jul 2010 ; OHCHR, 30 Jul 2010 ; Amnesty International, 29 Jul 2010 ; The Lancet, 7 Aug 2010, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61203-2 ; Maude Barlow, Globe and Mail, 05 Aug 2010 ; Jacob Mchangama, Globe and Mail, 05 Aug 2010 ; Ding Yi, Xinhua, 29 Jul 2010 ; Iman Kurdi, Arab News, 02 Aug 2010 ; Peter Gleick, Huffington Post, 04 Aug 2010
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
* Water as human right threatens to split world body
* Rights to food and water are also human rights, says Dutch development mini…
* U.N. rights experts call for proper toilets in prisons
* Win! UN General Assembly passes historic Human Right to Water and Sanitatio…
Ads by Google
Youth For Human Rights
Raise Human Rights Awareness To Our Youth. Get Free DVD & Info Kit
YouthForHumanRights.org
This entry was posted in Policies & legislation, Sanitation, Water supply and tagged right to water, right to sanitation, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.
← Strategic evaluation of the Water Integrity Network: call for expression of interest
Humanitarian aid: 30-fold increase in spending on water and sanitation over last decade →
One Response to General Assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a human right
1.
Michael Hughes | August 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm | Reply
We, at Water for Humans, could not agree more with the United Nations General Assembly in approving this historical resolution. As the U.N. put it so aptly, “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights”.
We are working to alleviate the desperate water sanitation conditions facing the people of the Oaxaca Valley, Mexico. Scores of impoverished and under-served citizens in Santo Domingo Barrio Bajo Etla in the Oaxaca Valley are victims of raw sewage flowing from the defunct waste-water treatment plan there. Water for Humans is working closely with water experts, government leaders, and NGOs to bring about sustainable, clean-water solutions to the people of Oaxaca.
But as the U.N. General Assembly appropriately points out, UN Member States and international organizations must play a significant role in solving the worldwide water sanitation crisis. Offering funding, technology and other resources to help poorer countries scale up their efforts to provide clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation is one sensible way to bring this about.
All countries should sign onto this resolution as this plague affects all of us! Developed nations have no excuse in not signing this important U.N. resolution. It is irresponsible not to!
Now we need to work collaboratively and help the more than 1 out of 8 people in the world, or nearly 1 billion people, who lack access to clean, safe drinking water.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
UN Human Rights Council affirms that right to water and sanitation is legally binding
UN Human Rights Council affirms that right to water and sanitation is legally binding
Posted on October 6, 2010 by dietvorst| Leave a comment
The UN Human Rights Council has finally recognised the right to water and sanitation as legally binding in international law, in a landmark decision adopted on 30 September 2010.
[T]he UN affirmed [...] by consensus that the right to water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living, which is contained in several international human rights treaties. While experts working with the UN human rights system have long acknowledged this, it was the first time that the Human Rights Council has declared itself on the issue.
According to the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, “this means that for the UN, the right to water and sanitation, is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding”. She added that “this landmark decision has the potential to change the lives of the billions of human beings who still lack access to water and sanitation.”
Continue reading →
→ Leave a comment
Posted in Policies & legislation, Sanitation, Water supply
Tagged right to water, human rights, right to sanitation, WaterAid, United Nations, Catarina de Albuquerque, Human Rights Council, Freshwater Action Network, S1007-International
Posted on October 6, 2010 by dietvorst| Leave a comment
The UN Human Rights Council has finally recognised the right to water and sanitation as legally binding in international law, in a landmark decision adopted on 30 September 2010.
[T]he UN affirmed [...] by consensus that the right to water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living, which is contained in several international human rights treaties. While experts working with the UN human rights system have long acknowledged this, it was the first time that the Human Rights Council has declared itself on the issue.
According to the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, “this means that for the UN, the right to water and sanitation, is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding”. She added that “this landmark decision has the potential to change the lives of the billions of human beings who still lack access to water and sanitation.”
Continue reading →
→ Leave a comment
Posted in Policies & legislation, Sanitation, Water supply
Tagged right to water, human rights, right to sanitation, WaterAid, United Nations, Catarina de Albuquerque, Human Rights Council, Freshwater Action Network, S1007-International
Mapping a Healthier Future: How Spatial Analysis Can Guide Pro-Poor Water and Sanitation Planning in Uganda
* Share this
* Print this
Uganda Ministry of Health, Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, International Livestock Research Institute, World Resources Institute
October, 2009
Tags: equity mapping poverty uganda water
This report presents maps and analyses designed to inform the policies surrounding poverty reduction efforts in Uganda and to help reach the 2015 national targets on safe drinking water and improved sanitation.
Inquiries
* Florence Landsberg, GIS Associateflandsberg@wri.org+1 (202) 729-7693
Downloads
Full Report (PDF, 52 pages, 5.1 Mb)
* Front Matter & Executive Summary (PDF, 7 pages, 289 Kb)
* Introduction (PDF, 9 pages, 576 Kb)
* Safe Drinking Water Coverage & Poverty (PDF, 12 pages, 999 Kb)
* Improved Sanitation, Hygiene, & Poverty (PDF, 14 pages, 1.5 Mb)
* Conclusions, Recommendations & References (PDF, 6 pages, 193 Kb)
High Resolution Version (PDF, 52 pages, 30.0 Mb)
This larger document lets you print the maps at the highest available resolution.
Uganda GIS Data
Charts and Maps
*
Uganda: Density of Households Without Improved Sanitation Facilities, 2002
*
Uganda: Percentage of Households Relying on Open Sources of Drinking Water, 2002
More charts & maps »
Improving water supply, sanitation, and hygiene is central to Uganda’s successful development. Such measures would affect all Ugandans and are important to every sector of the economy, but they are particularly relevant to the poor. The availability of safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, and basic hygiene can improve health, lower mortality rates, and increase work and educational achievements. In particular, better sanitation and handwashing are among the most effective means to reduce morbidity and mortality from diarrheal diseases, which disproportionately affect the poor.
The central role of safe water and sanitation in addressing poverty in Uganda is reflected in national policy. The national framework for poverty eradication highlights the links between water, sanitation, and poverty reduction efforts. To implement the plans and policies related to safe drinking water coverage, Uganda’s policy-makers have established ambitious targets for 2015. As a result, the government and development partners have made large investments in the water sector, and signifi cant pro-poor benefi ts have been achieved. However, much work still remains to be done in order to ensure safe drinking water access and basic sanitation across Uganda.
One of the premises of the current report is that assuring future pro-poor benefits from water and sanitation investments will require more detailed poverty information. This is where maps such as those introduced in this publication can be helpful to decision-makers. Detailed information on the location of poor communities can help decisionmakers target these vulnerable areas for investment, thereby improving health while keeping implementation costs reasonable.
One of the principal challenges in planning and implementing effective pro-poor interventions in water and sanitation is coordinating multiple actors across many sectors and using many different data sets. This report offers new tools to meet this challenge. Examining subcounties in Uganda that have fallen behind in reaching 2015 targets, the report illustrates how integrating various spatial and demographic data on poverty, water, and sanitation can strengthen efforts to promote health. Stand-alone water supply interventions have less impact on health outcomes than well-coordinated interventions that improve water supply, sanitation infrastructure, and hygiene behavior simultaneously.
The unique information presented in this report is critical to achieving greater results and identifying additional pro-poor interventions to reach Uganda’s 2015 national targets. To this end, the authors identify the types of analyses available to Ugandan stakeholders, in order to encourage readers to develop their own poverty, water, and sanitation maps.
Audience and Aims
This report is intended for technical and high-level officers working both on poverty issues and in health and water departments at national and local levels.
* For decision-makers concerned with reducing poverty, the report demonstrates how comparing levels of poverty in a location with maps of access to safe drinking water, enhanced sanitation facilities, hygiene behavior, and other environmental health indicators can inform strategies to fight poverty.
* For decision-makers in the water and health sector, the publication shows how information on the location and severity of poverty can assist in setting priorities for interventions and how to integrate data sets about water supply, sanitation infrastructure, and hygiene behavior to support coordinated interventions.
Report Overview
*
Mapping a Healthier Future: How Spatial Analysis Can Guide Pro-Poor Water and Sanitation Planning in Uganda presents maps and analyses designed to inform the policies surrounding poverty reduction efforts in Uganda and to help reach the 2015 national targets on safe drinking water and improved sanitation.
*
Introduction: gives an overview of the links between water issues and poverty and sets the Ugandan policy context for pro-poor water and sanitation interventions.
*
Safe Drinking Water Coverage and Poverty: provides an overview of the national pattern of safe drinking water coverage; introduces a series of maps linking this subject to poverty rates to illustrate how poverty maps can inform future investments in safe drinking water infrastructure in order to make them more pro-poor.
*
Improved Sanitation, Hygiene, and Poverty: takes an in-depth look at policies and concerns surrounding sanitation and hygiene. Maps are included showing location-specific indicators of sanitation and hygiene coverage and poverty to help guide the discussion on resource allocation. Conclusions and Recommendations: summarizes observations from the map analyses and proposes recommendations for decision-makers regarding poverty reduction and water supply, sanitation, and hygiene in Uganda and in other developing countries.
Key Findings and Recommendations
Findings
While the maps and analyses discussed in this report are primarily illustrative in nature, they support the following conclusions:
* Poverty maps and maps of water and sanitation indicators can provide insight into the relationship between poverty, water, and sanitation;
* Maps showing water and sanitation indicators at the subcounty level can be used by planners to identify disadvantaged areas and examine equity issues;
* Combining map-based census data related to water, sanitation, and hygiene can guide more integrated campaigns to decrease the incidence of water-borne diseases; and
* The type of analysis presented in this report is most useful for identifying subcounties with similar poverty, water, and sanitation characteristics in order to guide geographic targeting.
Recommendations
Strengthening the supply of high-quality data and analytical capacity can improve future planning and prioritization of water, sanitation, and poverty reduction efforts. Priority actions for policy-makers include:
* Fill data gaps on sanitation and hygiene indicators; regularly update water, sanitation, and hygiene data; and continue supply of poverty data for small administrative areas; and
* Strengthen data integration, mapping, and analysis. Promoting the demand for such indicators and spatial analyses will require leadership from several government agencies. The following actions will help link relevant maps and analyses with specific decision-making opportunities:
* Incorporate poverty information into water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions and in regular performance reporting for the water and sanitation sector;
* Incorporate water, sanitation, and hygiene behavior information into poverty reduction efforts;
* Promote more integrated planning and implementation of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions; and
* Incorporate poverty maps and maps of water, sanitation, and hygiene indicators into local decision-making.
Publications
* View all
o Order Free Hard Copies
o Permissions
* Climate, Energy & Transport
* Governance & Access
* Markets & Enterprise
* People & Ecosystems
* Charts & Maps
* Data Sets
Related Links
* Uganda GIS Data
* Equity, Poverty, and the Environment
* People & Ecosystems
* Maps Guide Water and Sanitation Planning in Africa
* Uganda: Percentage of Households Relying on Open Sources of Drinking Water, 2002
Be a part of WRI’s vital work in protecting the world’s ecosystems. Join forces with WRI as a business partner or a donor.
10 G Street NE Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002, USA / Phone +1 (202) 729-7600 / Fax +1 (202) 729-7610
* Print this
Uganda Ministry of Health, Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, International Livestock Research Institute, World Resources Institute
October, 2009
Tags: equity mapping poverty uganda water
This report presents maps and analyses designed to inform the policies surrounding poverty reduction efforts in Uganda and to help reach the 2015 national targets on safe drinking water and improved sanitation.
Inquiries
* Florence Landsberg, GIS Associateflandsberg@wri.org+1 (202) 729-7693
Downloads
Full Report (PDF, 52 pages, 5.1 Mb)
* Front Matter & Executive Summary (PDF, 7 pages, 289 Kb)
* Introduction (PDF, 9 pages, 576 Kb)
* Safe Drinking Water Coverage & Poverty (PDF, 12 pages, 999 Kb)
* Improved Sanitation, Hygiene, & Poverty (PDF, 14 pages, 1.5 Mb)
* Conclusions, Recommendations & References (PDF, 6 pages, 193 Kb)
High Resolution Version (PDF, 52 pages, 30.0 Mb)
This larger document lets you print the maps at the highest available resolution.
Uganda GIS Data
Charts and Maps
*
Uganda: Density of Households Without Improved Sanitation Facilities, 2002
*
Uganda: Percentage of Households Relying on Open Sources of Drinking Water, 2002
More charts & maps »
Improving water supply, sanitation, and hygiene is central to Uganda’s successful development. Such measures would affect all Ugandans and are important to every sector of the economy, but they are particularly relevant to the poor. The availability of safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, and basic hygiene can improve health, lower mortality rates, and increase work and educational achievements. In particular, better sanitation and handwashing are among the most effective means to reduce morbidity and mortality from diarrheal diseases, which disproportionately affect the poor.
The central role of safe water and sanitation in addressing poverty in Uganda is reflected in national policy. The national framework for poverty eradication highlights the links between water, sanitation, and poverty reduction efforts. To implement the plans and policies related to safe drinking water coverage, Uganda’s policy-makers have established ambitious targets for 2015. As a result, the government and development partners have made large investments in the water sector, and signifi cant pro-poor benefi ts have been achieved. However, much work still remains to be done in order to ensure safe drinking water access and basic sanitation across Uganda.
One of the premises of the current report is that assuring future pro-poor benefits from water and sanitation investments will require more detailed poverty information. This is where maps such as those introduced in this publication can be helpful to decision-makers. Detailed information on the location of poor communities can help decisionmakers target these vulnerable areas for investment, thereby improving health while keeping implementation costs reasonable.
One of the principal challenges in planning and implementing effective pro-poor interventions in water and sanitation is coordinating multiple actors across many sectors and using many different data sets. This report offers new tools to meet this challenge. Examining subcounties in Uganda that have fallen behind in reaching 2015 targets, the report illustrates how integrating various spatial and demographic data on poverty, water, and sanitation can strengthen efforts to promote health. Stand-alone water supply interventions have less impact on health outcomes than well-coordinated interventions that improve water supply, sanitation infrastructure, and hygiene behavior simultaneously.
The unique information presented in this report is critical to achieving greater results and identifying additional pro-poor interventions to reach Uganda’s 2015 national targets. To this end, the authors identify the types of analyses available to Ugandan stakeholders, in order to encourage readers to develop their own poverty, water, and sanitation maps.
Audience and Aims
This report is intended for technical and high-level officers working both on poverty issues and in health and water departments at national and local levels.
* For decision-makers concerned with reducing poverty, the report demonstrates how comparing levels of poverty in a location with maps of access to safe drinking water, enhanced sanitation facilities, hygiene behavior, and other environmental health indicators can inform strategies to fight poverty.
* For decision-makers in the water and health sector, the publication shows how information on the location and severity of poverty can assist in setting priorities for interventions and how to integrate data sets about water supply, sanitation infrastructure, and hygiene behavior to support coordinated interventions.
Report Overview
*
Mapping a Healthier Future: How Spatial Analysis Can Guide Pro-Poor Water and Sanitation Planning in Uganda presents maps and analyses designed to inform the policies surrounding poverty reduction efforts in Uganda and to help reach the 2015 national targets on safe drinking water and improved sanitation.
*
Introduction: gives an overview of the links between water issues and poverty and sets the Ugandan policy context for pro-poor water and sanitation interventions.
*
Safe Drinking Water Coverage and Poverty: provides an overview of the national pattern of safe drinking water coverage; introduces a series of maps linking this subject to poverty rates to illustrate how poverty maps can inform future investments in safe drinking water infrastructure in order to make them more pro-poor.
*
Improved Sanitation, Hygiene, and Poverty: takes an in-depth look at policies and concerns surrounding sanitation and hygiene. Maps are included showing location-specific indicators of sanitation and hygiene coverage and poverty to help guide the discussion on resource allocation. Conclusions and Recommendations: summarizes observations from the map analyses and proposes recommendations for decision-makers regarding poverty reduction and water supply, sanitation, and hygiene in Uganda and in other developing countries.
Key Findings and Recommendations
Findings
While the maps and analyses discussed in this report are primarily illustrative in nature, they support the following conclusions:
* Poverty maps and maps of water and sanitation indicators can provide insight into the relationship between poverty, water, and sanitation;
* Maps showing water and sanitation indicators at the subcounty level can be used by planners to identify disadvantaged areas and examine equity issues;
* Combining map-based census data related to water, sanitation, and hygiene can guide more integrated campaigns to decrease the incidence of water-borne diseases; and
* The type of analysis presented in this report is most useful for identifying subcounties with similar poverty, water, and sanitation characteristics in order to guide geographic targeting.
Recommendations
Strengthening the supply of high-quality data and analytical capacity can improve future planning and prioritization of water, sanitation, and poverty reduction efforts. Priority actions for policy-makers include:
* Fill data gaps on sanitation and hygiene indicators; regularly update water, sanitation, and hygiene data; and continue supply of poverty data for small administrative areas; and
* Strengthen data integration, mapping, and analysis. Promoting the demand for such indicators and spatial analyses will require leadership from several government agencies. The following actions will help link relevant maps and analyses with specific decision-making opportunities:
* Incorporate poverty information into water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions and in regular performance reporting for the water and sanitation sector;
* Incorporate water, sanitation, and hygiene behavior information into poverty reduction efforts;
* Promote more integrated planning and implementation of water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions; and
* Incorporate poverty maps and maps of water, sanitation, and hygiene indicators into local decision-making.
Publications
* View all
o Order Free Hard Copies
o Permissions
* Climate, Energy & Transport
* Governance & Access
* Markets & Enterprise
* People & Ecosystems
* Charts & Maps
* Data Sets
Related Links
* Uganda GIS Data
* Equity, Poverty, and the Environment
* People & Ecosystems
* Maps Guide Water and Sanitation Planning in Africa
* Uganda: Percentage of Households Relying on Open Sources of Drinking Water, 2002
Be a part of WRI’s vital work in protecting the world’s ecosystems. Join forces with WRI as a business partner or a donor.
10 G Street NE Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002, USA / Phone +1 (202) 729-7600 / Fax +1 (202) 729-7610
Determinants of Child Mortality and Morbidity in China
Connection Speed:
: Determinants of Child Mortality and Morbidity in China
: 6/12/2002
: 52
: English
/ : World
: Environment
Health, Nutrition and Population
: Limin Wang
| Related Material | Recommendations |Related B-SPAN Videos |
This study examines the linkages between child mortality and morbidity, and the quality of the household and community environment in rural and urban China. The data source is the 1992 China National Survey for Children which resembles the demographic and health surveys (DHS). The methodologies used for the analysis are based on models widely employed in epidemiological studies. The findings from this study both confirm evidence from studies in other countries and add new information in the area of environmental health.
The key findings include (1) use of unclean cooking fuels (wood and coal) significantly reduces the neonatal survival probability in rural areas - an outcome that is also confirmed in two other studies (India and Guatemala); (2) access to safe water or sanitation reduces child mortality risks by about 34% in rural areas; (3) higher maternal education levels reduce child mortality and female education has strong health externalities (i.e. controlling for other factors, a child living in a neighborhood with more educated mothers has about 50% lower mortality risk); (4) access to safe water/sanitation, and immunization reduce diarrhea incidence in rural areas, while access to modern sanitation facilities (flush toilets) reduces diarrhea prevalence in urban areas; (5) significant linkages between ARI incidence and use of unclean cooking fuels are found using the city level data constructed from the survey.
This study indicates that effective policy interventions for improving health outcomes often lie both within and outside the health sector. Cross-sectoral approaches can potentially produce large health benefits.
Limin Wang of the Bank s Environment Department led the study. She noted that previous studies have shown developed countries have reduced incidences of diseases, and better case management in these countries also accounts for reduced child mortality. These studies imply there is a lack of integrated approach on health interventions in the developing world. Lack of access to safe drinking water, indoor and outdoor air pollution, poor nutrition are all well known factors. Policy interventions can be helpful in this area, because they can seek to prevent rather than cure problems, and often have a strong poverty focus. Global studies by the Bank and the UN suggest 20% of global diseases are linked to the environment. Other studies have linked environmental quality with child morbidity and mortality.
Wang said her study on China s data used household survey data, which had not been used in previous studies. Province level information was reviewed, as well as more disaggregated data in rural and urban areas. Most data is from 1992 and Wang said her study used more household data than previous studies. Key variables include housing characteristics and socioeconomic indicators such as education and health. She said she conducted a comparison of China s data with India and other countries. She looked at mortality, acute respiratory infections, and diarrhea and found China had lower mortality rates, but higher rates for respiratory infections, particularly in urban areas. Mortality rates also differed sharply between urban and rural areas. Respiratory problems in urban areas and diarrhea problems in rural areas varied little between income groups.
Based on the data, Wang projected that air quality in the cities and lack of access to clean water in the countryside are the key factors for children s health. She then looked at water, sanitation and cooking fuels as health indicators to verify this projection. She noted there is a great deal of literature identifying the key determinants of child morbidity. Mortality, on the other hand, is difficult to establish because information is often lacking, multiple causes are at play, and deaths often occur in the home. Wang looked at the age of death for children and found most death occurred in the first nine months. In rural areas, her results suggest unclean cooking fuel is a key factor in rural mortality rates for babies. These results are similar to evidence from India and Guatemala. Additional results include children born in hospitals and living in better neighborhoods are more likely to survive. Access to safe drinking water is another critical variable. The mother s education also plays a role in the survival rate for children under five years of age. Results in urban areas found male children had higher mortality rates than female children, a result Wang said is inconsistent with data from other countries. Access to flush toilets is also a significant factor in mortality rates.
: Determinants of Child Mortality and Morbidity in China
: 6/12/2002
: 52
: English
/ : World
: Environment
Health, Nutrition and Population
: Limin Wang
| Related Material | Recommendations |Related B-SPAN Videos |
This study examines the linkages between child mortality and morbidity, and the quality of the household and community environment in rural and urban China. The data source is the 1992 China National Survey for Children which resembles the demographic and health surveys (DHS). The methodologies used for the analysis are based on models widely employed in epidemiological studies. The findings from this study both confirm evidence from studies in other countries and add new information in the area of environmental health.
The key findings include (1) use of unclean cooking fuels (wood and coal) significantly reduces the neonatal survival probability in rural areas - an outcome that is also confirmed in two other studies (India and Guatemala); (2) access to safe water or sanitation reduces child mortality risks by about 34% in rural areas; (3) higher maternal education levels reduce child mortality and female education has strong health externalities (i.e. controlling for other factors, a child living in a neighborhood with more educated mothers has about 50% lower mortality risk); (4) access to safe water/sanitation, and immunization reduce diarrhea incidence in rural areas, while access to modern sanitation facilities (flush toilets) reduces diarrhea prevalence in urban areas; (5) significant linkages between ARI incidence and use of unclean cooking fuels are found using the city level data constructed from the survey.
This study indicates that effective policy interventions for improving health outcomes often lie both within and outside the health sector. Cross-sectoral approaches can potentially produce large health benefits.
Limin Wang of the Bank s Environment Department led the study. She noted that previous studies have shown developed countries have reduced incidences of diseases, and better case management in these countries also accounts for reduced child mortality. These studies imply there is a lack of integrated approach on health interventions in the developing world. Lack of access to safe drinking water, indoor and outdoor air pollution, poor nutrition are all well known factors. Policy interventions can be helpful in this area, because they can seek to prevent rather than cure problems, and often have a strong poverty focus. Global studies by the Bank and the UN suggest 20% of global diseases are linked to the environment. Other studies have linked environmental quality with child morbidity and mortality.
Wang said her study on China s data used household survey data, which had not been used in previous studies. Province level information was reviewed, as well as more disaggregated data in rural and urban areas. Most data is from 1992 and Wang said her study used more household data than previous studies. Key variables include housing characteristics and socioeconomic indicators such as education and health. She said she conducted a comparison of China s data with India and other countries. She looked at mortality, acute respiratory infections, and diarrhea and found China had lower mortality rates, but higher rates for respiratory infections, particularly in urban areas. Mortality rates also differed sharply between urban and rural areas. Respiratory problems in urban areas and diarrhea problems in rural areas varied little between income groups.
Based on the data, Wang projected that air quality in the cities and lack of access to clean water in the countryside are the key factors for children s health. She then looked at water, sanitation and cooking fuels as health indicators to verify this projection. She noted there is a great deal of literature identifying the key determinants of child morbidity. Mortality, on the other hand, is difficult to establish because information is often lacking, multiple causes are at play, and deaths often occur in the home. Wang looked at the age of death for children and found most death occurred in the first nine months. In rural areas, her results suggest unclean cooking fuel is a key factor in rural mortality rates for babies. These results are similar to evidence from India and Guatemala. Additional results include children born in hospitals and living in better neighborhoods are more likely to survive. Access to safe drinking water is another critical variable. The mother s education also plays a role in the survival rate for children under five years of age. Results in urban areas found male children had higher mortality rates than female children, a result Wang said is inconsistent with data from other countries. Access to flush toilets is also a significant factor in mortality rates.
Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Health: Results from the Last 45 Years
: 3/30/2004
: 76
: English
/ : World
: Water Supply and Sanitation
Health, Nutrition and Population
: Mariam Claeson
Lorna Fewtrell
Rachel Beth Kaufmann
It is well known that water supply, sanitation and hygiene education can improve health, but controversies persist about the relative importance of these factors. Is water quantity more important than water quality? Is sanitation more important than water supply? Is hygiene more important than hardware? And how does the impact compare to those from other "health" implications? Lorna Fewtrell of the Centre for Research into Environment and Health conducted a review that examined evidence from intervention trials over the past 45 years. The review used a meta-analytic technique to combine data from multiple studies into summary findings for each type of intervention. She presented the findings before a group of Bank public health specialists.
Rachel Beth Kaufmann, a senior public health specialist with the Bank’s South Asia region, and Mariam Claeson, a lead public health specialist in the Bank’s Human Development network, provided introductory remarks. Claeson said it was important to understand where the successful interventions were since resources were limited. Fewtrell said diarrhea remains a highly lethal disease in the developing world, especially for children. The key preventative action is clean water and sanitation services. She discussed an early 1990s study of diarrhea in countries with different sanitation systems that has been an important to subsequent research. Fewtrell said her study focuses on interventions. She looked at water quality and quantity, hygiene and drinking water. To maximize the number of studies that she could access, Fewtrell said she used morbidity rather than mortality as her criteria. She discussed some of the intervention criteria for hygiene, sanitation and water supply. Study periods, sample size, data collection methodologies varied substantially. The standard for study design, she said, is randomized, double blind trial. She then discussed relative risk adjustments. Meta- analysis uses statistical pooling of data to provide overall summary results. Fewtrell showed the stratification for developing countries for water, sanitation and hygiene. The research looked at pre-intervention scenarios for water and sanitation. Water sources and quality, and sanitation conditions varied widely. The data quantified rural and urban situations. Quality issues also were important. She discussed some of the difference between fixed and random effects models.
Some 60 studies were used to do the research. Water quality is the most popular intervention that was studied. Where there was no result or 95% confidence intervals, it could not be used in the meta analysis Fewtrell had described earlier. Only 11 studies were used in the meta analysis. She cited some of the findings. Hand washing is more effective than hygiene education on diarrhea reduction than dysentery. Under several scenarios, diarrhea was reduced markedly, as much as 44%. There were few sanitation studies, only two were used for the meta analysis. For water supply, she showed analysis for its impact on cholera and diarrhea. Hygiene seemed to be an added activity after water and sanitation had been improved in an area. Fewtrell said whenever hygiene is added, it is an effective intervention. She said there is a need for a good quality study on sanitation. Little data on water usage existed, she noted. Household connections probably play a more important role than village connections. She also noted that household storage had an important impact on hygiene and morbidity. More data is needed on water usage. Sustainability of interventions remains a question mark.
RELATED MATERIALS
* Water, sanitation and hygiene: interventions and diarrhoea – a review (PPT)
RELATED B-SPAN EVENTS
* Water Supply and Sanitation (31)
* Health, Nutrition and Population (116)
RELATED WORLD BANK LINKS
* Education and Water: Trying Harder but Could Do Better
* Determinants of Child Morbidity and Mortality in China
: 76
: English
/ : World
: Water Supply and Sanitation
Health, Nutrition and Population
: Mariam Claeson
Lorna Fewtrell
Rachel Beth Kaufmann
It is well known that water supply, sanitation and hygiene education can improve health, but controversies persist about the relative importance of these factors. Is water quantity more important than water quality? Is sanitation more important than water supply? Is hygiene more important than hardware? And how does the impact compare to those from other "health" implications? Lorna Fewtrell of the Centre for Research into Environment and Health conducted a review that examined evidence from intervention trials over the past 45 years. The review used a meta-analytic technique to combine data from multiple studies into summary findings for each type of intervention. She presented the findings before a group of Bank public health specialists.
Rachel Beth Kaufmann, a senior public health specialist with the Bank’s South Asia region, and Mariam Claeson, a lead public health specialist in the Bank’s Human Development network, provided introductory remarks. Claeson said it was important to understand where the successful interventions were since resources were limited. Fewtrell said diarrhea remains a highly lethal disease in the developing world, especially for children. The key preventative action is clean water and sanitation services. She discussed an early 1990s study of diarrhea in countries with different sanitation systems that has been an important to subsequent research. Fewtrell said her study focuses on interventions. She looked at water quality and quantity, hygiene and drinking water. To maximize the number of studies that she could access, Fewtrell said she used morbidity rather than mortality as her criteria. She discussed some of the intervention criteria for hygiene, sanitation and water supply. Study periods, sample size, data collection methodologies varied substantially. The standard for study design, she said, is randomized, double blind trial. She then discussed relative risk adjustments. Meta- analysis uses statistical pooling of data to provide overall summary results. Fewtrell showed the stratification for developing countries for water, sanitation and hygiene. The research looked at pre-intervention scenarios for water and sanitation. Water sources and quality, and sanitation conditions varied widely. The data quantified rural and urban situations. Quality issues also were important. She discussed some of the difference between fixed and random effects models.
Some 60 studies were used to do the research. Water quality is the most popular intervention that was studied. Where there was no result or 95% confidence intervals, it could not be used in the meta analysis Fewtrell had described earlier. Only 11 studies were used in the meta analysis. She cited some of the findings. Hand washing is more effective than hygiene education on diarrhea reduction than dysentery. Under several scenarios, diarrhea was reduced markedly, as much as 44%. There were few sanitation studies, only two were used for the meta analysis. For water supply, she showed analysis for its impact on cholera and diarrhea. Hygiene seemed to be an added activity after water and sanitation had been improved in an area. Fewtrell said whenever hygiene is added, it is an effective intervention. She said there is a need for a good quality study on sanitation. Little data on water usage existed, she noted. Household connections probably play a more important role than village connections. She also noted that household storage had an important impact on hygiene and morbidity. More data is needed on water usage. Sustainability of interventions remains a question mark.
RELATED MATERIALS
* Water, sanitation and hygiene: interventions and diarrhoea – a review (PPT)
RELATED B-SPAN EVENTS
* Water Supply and Sanitation (31)
* Health, Nutrition and Population (116)
RELATED WORLD BANK LINKS
* Education and Water: Trying Harder but Could Do Better
* Determinants of Child Morbidity and Mortality in China
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)