Kayaking for Water

Our friend Guy Collender at the London International Development Centre (LIDC) has kayaked an amazing 125 miles to raise money for WaterAid. The Water for Africa Research Project has worked with WaterAid throughout the last couple years and we recognise the importance of its research, policy, and operational activities. So we would like to encourage readers to help Guy reach his target of raising £1000 by making a small donation at the Just Giving webstite here. 

Thanks Guy for kayaking for water!

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?

Quick links

Here are a few interesting links related to water and sanitation:

1.  One toilet per five households is now the new sanitation standard in South Africa. 
2.  On decentralisation and its failures from a gendered perspective. 
3.  We can all look forward to a hotter and smellier world thanks to climate change. 
4.  People living near rivers are massively affected by dams: example from Vietnam.
5.  Surviving children in Haiti face health threats; good water and sanitation is needed in the coming rainy season.
6.  Spider webs catch water, and what we can learn from this.
7.  There are a ton of water clichés out there, WaterWired is now calling everyone out on their usage.  There is even a part 2 to expand on the original post!!

Cynicism/Criticism not Misplaced

Since I've started working in development and academia, I feel that I've become a little cynical or overly critical of NGO and charity work. This is something I have struggled with and I imagine others in development and/or academia might feel similar. This critical perspective often leads to negativity towards projects of development, and then spawns a sort of guilt for criticising the hard work of individuals who are sincerely trying make a difference. I have often felt like my criticism and cynicism is misplaced because rather than criticising development workers, I should be critical of people who have done nothing for development or those who engage in activities which are counter productive to broader development goal. It's better to do something good rather than nothing, right? It's better that to have a project will minimal positive impacts than no project and no improvements, right?

WRONG!

After reading a recent post on the Blood and Milk blog, I feel guilt no more! The entry entitled, "Three bad ideas for helping Haiti" critiques bad projects in a way that brings to light how development goes wrong and why. One of the main things I took away from this critique is the impact of the "culture of nice", on which Blood and Milk has previously posted, on development. I can empathise with this because of the guilt I feel about critiques I make of water and development projects; I feel like I should not be so negative because people involved are just trying to do something "nice". However I think it is key to remember that without the critique, there cannot be improvement and progress. If we cannot develop more effective ways to promote progress, then people, countries, regions will not benefit and development might more commonly be viewed as a sort of neo-colonial project of the West.

While I do not agree with all the critiques Blood and Milk launches at these three projects, humanitarian aid and development projects need to be thought through prior to implementation, especially if they are high-profile projects.  Projects need to be focused on needs of local people, even if it might not make logical sense to the development community.  I also believe that not all development projects are created equal and there is such a thing as doing development poorly; there are a lot of projects which are designed to help, but somehow end up leaving people worse off than before.  So my cynicism and criticisms are not misplaced, they are where there should be: on projects that can be improved to have a meaningful and lasting impact. If people do not critique bad projects, or bad parts of good projects, then there would be no progress.  The way I see development is that there is always a way to make things better; critiquing the way projects are currently done pushes our standards higher and we should accept nothing less.

A Development Christmas

Happy New Year to all!  The holiday times have just recently passed and the team at SOAS has been re-gearing for the New Year.  The SOAS buildings were closed for a short time, giving the academic and support staff time away from the office and hopefully more time at home with family and friends.  While I was wandering London’s streets over the holidays I saw parents rushing to get last minute gifts, families searching the aisles for large amounts of food, children buying small gifts and wrapping paper; London exuded the normal holiday joy, excitement and energy.

It was a nice…..until the cynic in me came out.  The more I wandered London, the more I began to see the excessiveness of this time of year.  In relation to water, I was thinking about how much extra water is used during the holiday season.  When one thinks about the additional production of gifts like toys and clothing, greeting cards, food and beverages, wrapping papers and ribbons and decorations, Christmas trees, it becomes apparent how much water (and other resources) must be used to support this cultural celebration. Also a lot of the water (and other materials) used in production have been “virtually” outsourced to the countries which are producing the range of goods the West consumes during this time of year.

In addition, thanks to modern technologies of telecommunications, it is easy for people in developing countries to see the excess of the West and their relative lack, which reproduces global socio-economic hierarchies.  In that sense, the season can be seen as reproducing inequity and relative poverty, and also arguably promoting the modern, western culture of “want”.

So after my holiday break, I still have questions about water and development.  Since the holiday season is a global phenomenon with global effects, should holiday celebrations be scaled down for the betterment of the world?  Here I have theorised some of the effects of the holidays, but what are some of the “real” effects of this season on developing countries where our food is grown and our toys are made?  Are developing countries affected, or am I just being a post-modern, development Scrooge?

Music and Water

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent" - Victor Hugo

For the last couple of weeks I have been thinking a lot about the links between music and water.  One of our project interns, Niko, studied music for his first degree at SOAS and is now pursuing a master's in development studies.  Dr Frances Cleaver, the project director, thought it would be a useful that Niko examine the link between cosmologies and water, given his interests.  Quickly this evolved into a mini-project on the links between water and music, which has prompted me to think about many different cultural references to water in musi and how music acts as a medium to reproduce cultural and/or cosmological beliefs

After doing a little bit of internet research I learned about some references to water in African American slaves' struggles for liberation.  For example the song "Wade in the Water" is a quite well known song and this website gives a brief description about what the song means.  It is interesting how water is conveyed as a protective resource, one that would allow for successful escape.  And it is similar with the song "Follow the Drinking Gourd", which folklore suggests was used to lead slaves to freedom up north.  In this song though it is the big dipper (drinking gourd) constellation which will lead slaves to freedom, there is still a link made between water and freedom.  Although these two examples are not referring to water for drinking, hygiene, or development more broadly, songs like these still frame the way water is conceptualised on the whole. 

A couple of days ago Niko and I met with Dr Angela Impey in SOAS's music department, to try to pursue this link in a more academic fashion.  We discussed a range musicological aspects which can be linked to water, and I became fascinated with the ways that water has been linked to music in different societies and within academic settings.  This makes me wonder:  What do water-related songs mean to the people who have created them and continue to pass them on?  What can music tell us about the way environments and ecosystems are conceptualised by different people?  What are the implications of the link between water and music for development scholars and practitioners?

Institutionalised

Our team recently met with our new interns for the year, which was exciting.  It was exciting to start our second year at SOAS and to have our second round of interns from the Department for Development Studies.  We went through the usual induction procedures and told them about our project, then spoke a little about our individual interests and how we all got into water and development.

When our interns were telling us about their interests, I realised that I was unable to escape my own framework for conceptualising development problems.  One intern was interested in the erosion of state sovereignty as a result of globalisation and another was interested in structural violence in natural resources management and issues of (in)equity within systems.  I immediately realised that both interns were interested in the roles of different institutions in international development, and they are lucky that Dr Cleaver, the project Director, specialises in institutions.  Then, I suddenly remembered that a few weeks back I was thinking of the dissertation of our former scholarship student, who wrote on the role of institutions in response to the 2008 cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe.  Then it became evident that I was consumed by institutions and their role in water governance and governance more widely; that it is one of the main lenses through which I see development problems.

When I discuss the role of institutions, I am using a broader sense of the word, which encompasses both formal and informal institutions.  Having studied gender at a post-graduate degree, and having focused on gender and land rights in my master's dissertation, I have a foundation for beginning to explore debates on the interface between formal institutions (eg water committees) and social institutions (eg gender, class, race, sexuality).  Participation in local, national, and international water events, as well as discussions with the Water for Africa Research project team has also influenced my perspective on institutions for water and development.  Dr Cleaver also has some great publications on social institutions and natural resource management (eg 2002 "Reinventing Insitutions: Bricolage and Social Embeddedness of Natural Resource Management"; 1998 "Moral Ecological Rationality"), which have helped me to understand how a range of social factors play a role in water governance.

In development there is also a really big emphasis on "getting institutions right" which is more along the lines of Ostrom's work.  This body of work focuses on formal institutions, standardisation of systems, issues of rights, and other related things.  For example it has become a part of standard, mainstream policy to decentralise water supply systems, as well as systems for good water governance.  These decentralised institutions are thought to promote community management, local participation in decision making, and help to empower marginalised communities by giving them access to a space to have a voice.  Although there are some major limits to a focus primarily on formalised institutions, I can also see why they are important.

So between all the recent and ongoing debates I have with myself on the role of institutions, I realised that I have been "institutionalised" into institutional approaches to development.  I find it difficult to escape many times.  It is hard to ignore the role that institutions play in governance and governmentality.  They are so pervasive, so powerful.  I wonder,  is everything is about institutions?  How can I be more inclusive in my analysis of water and development?  Within the scope of development certainly there is a large interest in institutions, but how can we enable them to work together?  How are people able, or unable, to challenge the range of institutions that exist?  How can we improve these institutions to foster the equity of livelihoods?

International Symposium on Rural Water Services

International Symposium on Rural Water Services

“Providing Sustainable Water Services at Scale”

Kampala, Uganda - 13th and 14th April, 2010

The Thematic Group on Scaling Up Rural Water Services is organising an international symposium on providing sustainable rural water services at scale in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Environment of the Government of Uganda.

The main aims of the symposium are to bring together research findings and lessons learned on how to improve sustainable rural water services at scale, to debate and analyse these lessons and to identify common principles to improve policy and practice.

The target audience of the symposium includes practitioners and policy makers from governments, donor organisations and local and international NGOs. 

The format for the two-day symposium will allow participants to share and learn from global experiences in the form of key note presentations, country case studies and interactive work-sessions. It is envisaged that this two-day symposium will provide inputs for the development of a general framework of principles for sustainable rural water services. Topics for debate will include:

·         What are the real costs of sustainability and who pays for them?
·         How can the role of the private sector in rural water be encouraged?
·         Is there a future for the community management model?
·         How can self-supply of services be encouraged?
·         What are the mechanisms to encourage harmonisation and alignment at intermediate (local government) level?
·         What are the most appropriate funding flows – for national governments, the private sector and donors – for supporting more sustainable service delivery?
·         How can decentralisation be strengthened in order to provide sustainable services at scale?

Call for Participation

There will be no open call for papers, but instead participants who have specific experience are encouraged to submit inputs in the form of short presentations with a two-page summary; guidance will be provided. Participants are encouraged to share their work and ideas at the symposium through other media such as film, photo essays, animated presentations or other methods.  All inputs will be reviewed by a committee created for the event.  More details on the format of the symposium, guidelines for submission of presentations and for registration will follow in the second announcement.

The symposium is supported within the framework of the Triple-S (Sustainable Services at Scale) initiative being managed by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 

Water Governance in a Falling Metropolis

One of the non-development, but still nerdy, blogs I follow is Ecoconomics, which discusses economic issues within the context of all our favourite comic book heroes and villains.  As someone who has not been trained in economics, following this blog is a fun way to learn about basic econ theory.

Last week I read a post about water in Metropolis, the home of superman.  To sum up the water and sanitation system in Metropolis is destroyed and its citizens are extremely dehydrated, lack adequate sewerage, and are paying ridiculous amounts of money for water sold to them by 'thugs'.  The entry poster, ShadowBanker, thinks that the comic exaggerates the level of suffering because there would be decent humanitarian response from the government and the private sector, thus ensuring the security of the citizens of Metropolis.

I can see what ShadowBanker is saying....in theory a city with resources that Metropolis has should deal relatively well with disasters.  However if we can compare this to a real life example such as New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we can see that the depiction of post-attack Metropolis in the comics might actually be more accurate than what ShadowBanker imagines.  Granted New Orleans is not one of the richest cities in the world, but the US government is wealthy and did not do enough for the people of New Orleans with respect to water and sanitation.  This brings me back to the role of the government in service provision.  Governments (in the global north and south) are key in providing basic infrastructure for everyday use, but also in responding to natural or evil-villain-made disasters.  Also when looking at New Orleans we can see how politics and social issues impacted humanitarian response, but the ShadowBanker's analysis of what happened in Metropolis is presented in an apolitical or asocietal manner.  In the DC Universe, cities, states, and governments may act apolitically or altruistically, but water governance in the north and south cannot be seen as separated from its political, historical, cultural context.

Another interesting issue brought up in the post is that of informal providers.  ShadowBanker talks about 'thugs' supplying water to the city's people for high prices, but small vendors are a very important part of water supply systems.  The Asian Development Bank found that in some parts of Manila up to 50% of people rely on informal vendors for water, which means these vendors are filling a massive gap in service provision.  Water is often sold at higher prices, and this is a big problem when trying to service the poor, but in some places there may not be another option.  Instead of demonising these vendors, perhaps it would be better to discuss the issue of regulation.

Despite my qualms with this Ecocomics post, it raises some good issues with regards to water governance.

Until next time superfans...

Toxic Water

The issue of water quality is very important because of its strong links to health and livelihoods of water users. The NY Times has been writing a series on water called Toxic Waters, which talks about some ways water can become contaminated and its impacts on lives of people in the US. This series examines the links between different types of pollution and water quality, and also shows that for some Americans this is a hindrance on their day-to-day-life. I particularly liked Duhigg's entry on the neglect of water laws because it displays the role of politics in dictating water policy, the detrimental effects of poor water quality on people, and highlights the flaws in current systems of regulation. Also Duhigg's focus on the EPA throughout the series provides readers with a well-needed critique of current environmental policy.

One interesting thing that has been gaining attention recently is the link between water quality and gender "bending". While there seems to be a growing body of work focused on water quality and gender bending in fish and other animals, there have been growing concerns about how this effects men. One Canadian study shows that tiny traces of birth control hormones dumped into a lake (I do not know how environmentally friendly that was) caused a crash in the fish population due to its effects on male fish. Scientists are worried about the implications for human populations since the traces of hormones peed out by women on birth control end up in our drinking water and are so small that they cannot be filtered out.

Toxic Waters and the issue of gender bending leaves us with questions about water quality that are applicable to developed and developing countries. What can we as individuals and communities do to keep our waters clean for our usage? How can we improve regulation and technology? How can we ensure that water provision improves economic, health, and livelihoods aspects of people's lives?

Squatter Water

One large problem in trying to provide water and sanitation in cities is trying to reach communities in peri-urban areas and slums. People who live in these parts of cities often reside there informally, albeit rather permanently. The blog squattercity does a good job of highlighting many of the problems slum dwellers face and exposes how governments can make problems worse by trying to either ignore the existence of these communities or by neglecting the range of urban and rural problems that peri-urban communities have to deal with.

Recently squattercity has been commenting about Sodom and Gomorrah communities in Accra, which have been receiving a lot of attention from the Ghanaian government, but not in a positive way. Accra Metropolitan Assembly is currently in talks with local utilities to cut off water and electricity to these communities, beginning the process of demolition of these communities, The Daily Graphic states. In addition the government is trying to force people out of these communities, without providing adequate housing elsewhere. Here a Ghanaian academic voices frustration with the government's way of dealing with the problems in these communities.

This case brings up some interesting issues in how to deal with development in peri-urban and slum areas. Although it is relatively common for governments to tear down areas deemed to be 'slums', this causes massive problems for water and sanitation in the areas where these people move and usually ends up transferring other problems as well. Inevitably people from Sodom and Gomorrah will move to another community, or create a space to live, and these people will suffer from the same problems that used to plague them in their old communities. Failure to provide proper water and sanitation infrastructure will perpetuate the same sorts of livelihood, health, food, sewerage problems that previously existed.

Squattercity also has some interesting commentary on how the people of these communities have been labelled as "dirty" and have also been called a threat to national security. These posts highlight how squatter or informal communities suffer from social exclusion and are further marginalised because they reside in these poor areas, with no infrastructure, and very few public resources.

Governments need to find a way to deal with informal communities in a better way. Destroying homes and cutting off basic services (like water, sanitation, electricity) does not help to improve the lives of people in these communities and only creates more problems for governments to deal with in the future. This is not to target the Ghanaian government, similar situations have occurred in Brazil, Cambodia, Liberia, and elsewhere. It is more to raise the question of what are the aims of the governments in these situations? How do people get access to water in the interim period between eviction and settling, and how much do they pay? How does this affect water and sanitation in areas where people settle? And on informal settlements and water in general, can you justify charging people for water and water systems when they do not have a claim to the land they live on?

Hi! We are the Water for Africa Research Project.

This is the Water for Africa Research Project blogging on 'Working for Water'. The Water for Africa Research Project (WFA) is a project based at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Development Studies Department. This project is primarily concerned with issues linking water governance, equity, and poverty in Africa and other developing regions. For more information about our project also check out our website.

'Working for Water' will not necessarily be about the WFA project per se, but it will encompass many of the issues that we find important and issues that we have particular knowledge in. This is a place to openly discuss water issues and broader problems in development. We look forward to engaging with our readers and fostering a better understanding of water-related issues.