Addressing Failures

In a hurried response to intense lobbying, the clause ‘to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation’ (UN, 2002) was added to MDG 7 in 2002. Rather predictably, this seemingly last minute addition to the existing clean water target, failed to meet its objective. This failure was felt nowhere greater than sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure 1: Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility, 1990 and 2015 (percentage). Source: UN 2015 MDGReport (Page 59)

The figure above demonstrates the scale of the disaster in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with only a feeble improvement from 1990 to 2015. Sanitation coverage here is less than half the world average and over three times smaller than that of the developed world.

Why the failure?

Despite others, the root cause of the MDG failure in SSA (and beyond) was one of understanding. As stated in my previous post, sanitation is dissimilar to water use in that its practise must be learned. People need to understand the risks of poor hygiene and sanitation facilities. A study in India found that after public investment in toilet provision without accompanying education, only 37% of men actually used the facilities despite 100% coverage (World Bank, 2002). Sanitation is an innately personal exercise, often implicit and unspoken, closely bound up in long-held beliefs of what is ‘clean and unclean’ (Black & Fawcett, 2008:9). Sub-Saharan Africa’s struggles to enact change are corollary to this. More emphasis must be placed on specific sanitation awareness programmes. Promoting hygiene can ‘start a virtuous cycle that builds demand for better sanitation, raising awareness…and establishing codes of conduct and new life standards’ (Foster & Briceño-Garmendia,2010:330). A lack of understanding underpins poor motivation for sanitation in SSA, in turn producing lacklustre financial support and inefficient resource allocations. 

Yet, an important caveat is the scale to which this applies. Recognition of the true value of sanitation was a problem shared at both local and global scales. Black & Fawcett describe the need to ‘de-link water supply & sanitation in both public and official minds’ (2008:9). This follows the international failure to properly recognise existing hygiene habits and admit an understanding of sanitation outside a Western perspective. Indeed, a rather rigid acceptance of what constituted sanitation dismissed existing practises where adaptation may have been more suitable.

In spite of this, it is also important to note that whilst the target was missed, sanitation improvements did occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Population growth has hidden advances in absolute provision and averages hide modest regional triumphs. For example, Rwanda and Senegal have both found success implementing basic latrines and septic tanks (Foster & Briceño-Garmendia, 2010:323). These are examples of perhaps more ‘appropriate’ sanitation technologies that must not be ignored if Africa is to achieve future targets.

Ironically, the real benefit of the MDG for SSA may have been the awareness of its failure. It has highlighted a gap in understanding, kindling new ways of thinking about sanitation and policy. These are themes I plan to explore in my next post.