The Incredible Peepoo

Recently the Peepoo has been getting a lot of attention in the news media and blogosphere for its potential to be a cost-effective solution to the global sanitaion problem. The New York Times recently published an article on the Peepoo, Popular Science wrote a piece on it, development blogger Elizabeth Royte has also commented on the Peepoo,  and other websites have also written about this product.

Basically it's a cheap plastic bag, in which one can use the toilet.  However, the Peepoo is different from a regular plastic bag because it is lined with a chemical that is able to break down the faecal waste and transform it into fertiliser that can be used for growing crops.  Users are meant to relieve themselves in the bag, tie it up, and then bury it in the ground to use as fertiliser.  I have actually seen one of these bags at World Water Week 2009 in Stockholm and I am unsure why this has gained so much attention.  It is an innovative product, but there are some key issues that I have with advocating that people in developing countries poo in plastic bags. 

First, there is the issue of dignity in using this product.  In sanitation projects maintaining dignity is massively important because you are dealing with issues that many people are sensitive about already.  Dealing with toilets, faecal matter, and hygiene issues often involve dealing with the social element of shame, thus sanitation projects need to be developed cafefully as to not marginalise communities as a result.   In order to maintain the dignity of people in developing countries, sanitation projects particularly should not promote policies, behaviours, or ideas that people in the West would not also do themselves.  It is demeaning and dehumanising to have a lower standard for people living in developing countries. 

Could you actually see the Swedish inventor using his own product?  Could you imagine him doing his business in a plastic bag, carrying it around with the large words "Peepoo" on it, then using it as fertiliser for growing his everyday fruit and veg?

Second, the Peepoo has been praised for its low cost of only 2-3 cents per bag.  This seems like a small amount of money, but think about how many times you use the bathroom each day, multiply that cost per Peepoo, and then multiply that by number of people in a family to get the daily cost of using the Peepoo per household.  For a family of four, which each person using 5 Peepoos a day, that would cost 40-60 cents a day.  Again, this does not seem like a lot of money to some people, but for people living on $1-$2 dollars a day this is a large added expense.

Lastly, I would like to discuss is the implications of the marketing of the Peepoo.  The Peepoo website advertises the product as requiring "no infrastructure" and "no investment costs" as selling point for the product, which implies that development projects should cost nothing and provide nothing long-term.  This sends the completely wrong message about the goals of international development.  Development is not and should not be focused on providing solutions that require no investment of money or resources.  Development is about improving livelihoods, establishing equity, creating sustainable solutions, and it should be people-centered.  Development is actually about commitment, it is about long-term viability of systems, it is about changing and improving over time, and by advertising this way the Peepoo is short selling development and the people it is trying to help.

Although the PeePoo has gotten some major media coverage I am unsure how successful it will be in the longer run.  I mean.....what is wrong with actually giving people working toilets and sinks?  What is wrong with providing infrastructure and basic services? Would Westerners expect any less?  Then why should we expect others to accept less?

Does 40 days make an impact?

A while ago Water for Africa Twitter feed came in with a campaign from a charity called blood : water, which is trying to work against the HIV/AIDS epidemic and water scarcity problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.  The 40 Days of Water campaign encourages people to only drink water for 40 days, which I guess was to try to link its campaign with Lent which is soon ending.   After 40 days of only water, the participants are encouraged to donate all the money they save from abstaining from juice, coffee, tea, alcohol, etc, to the charity to support water projects in Ugandan communities.

I'm not going to criticise this campaign, despite having recently expressed my cynicism towards some development projects.  Rather the 40 Days of Water campaign made me think of how people can be everyday activists with regards to water and the environment.  The Water Footprint Network homepage states that a cup of coffee requires 140 litres of water.  (I personally feel this is a little exaggerated, but I also do not know enough about coffee production to back up that statement.)  However the my point is that we can all think about how much water could be saved by making small changes in our lives.  The 40 Days of Water campaign seems to be to encourage that sort of everyday activism and also combine it with a fundraising effort for blood : water. 

This has made me think, what are some choices I can make in order to ease the strain on the environment?  Does changing small things in our lives really make an impact?  With regards to the work of charities, do campaigns like this produce a sustained flow of donations, enough to translate to sustainable projects in local communities?  Does 40 days really make an impact?