Bangladesh arsenic mitigation programs: lessons from the past

Abstract

Ensuring access to safe drinking water by 2015 is a global commitment by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In Bangladesh, significant achievements in providing safe water were made earlier by nationwide tubewell-installation programme. This achievement was overshadowed in 1993 by the presence of arsenic in underground water. A total of 6 million tubewells have been tested for arsenic since then, the results of which warranted immediate mitigation. Mitigation measures included tubewell testing and replacing; usage of deeper wells; surface water preservation and treatment; use of sanitary dug wells, river sand and pond sand filters; rainwater collection and storage; household-scale and large-scale arsenic filtrations; and rural pipeline water supply installation. Shallow tubewell installation was discouraged. Efforts have been made to increase people's awareness. This paper describes the lessons learned about mitigation efforts by the authors from experience of arsenic-related work. In spite of national mitigation plans and efforts, a few challenges still persist: inadequate coordination between stakeholders, differences in inter-sectoral attitudes, inadequate research to identify region-specific, suitable safe water options, poor quality of works by various implementing agencies, and inadequate dissemination of the knowledge and experiences to the people by those organizations. Issues such as long-time adaptation using ground water, poor surface water quality including bad smell and turbidity, and refusal to using neighbor's water have delayed mitigation measures so far. Region-specific mitigation water supply policy led by the health sector could be adopted with multisectoral involvement and responsibility. Large-scale piped water supply could be arranged through Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in new national approach.

The consolidation of deep tube well technology in safe drinking water provision: the case of arsenic mitigation in rural Bangladesh

“…Furthermore, due to pressure from outsiders, such as international development agencies and scientists, regime actors including the government of Bangladesh and NGOs deliberately promoted the dissemination of deep tube well technology instead of filter and treatment technologies as a priority to achieve one of the Millennium Development Goals 28 (Milton et al, 2012). Despite the prevailing debate in overall achievement of these goals, safe drinking water coverage in rural Bangladesh has been restored up to 84% from an earlier 72%, mostly due to the contribution of deep tube well technology to safe drinking water provision (see e.g.…”

“…Massive arsenic contamination in shallow hand pump tube wells -the main drinking water source in rural Bangladesh -severely limits rural people's access to safe drinking water (Ahmed, 2002;Atkins et al, 2007;Nahar, 2009;Chakraborti et al, 2010;Milton et al, 2012). An estimated 52 million people are exposed to arsenic by consuming arsenic-contaminated drinking water beyond the Bangladeshi safety limit of 50 mg/L (Milton et al, 2006;DPHE and JICA, 2009).…”

Groundwater arsenic in Bangladesh: what's new for policy research?

“…A number of critics argue for a public policy response, supported by targeted research that is clearer and stronger (Adams, 2013;Bose & De, 2013;Khan & Yang, 2014;Chakraborti et al, 2015). In a review of lessons learned about arsenic mitigation, Milton et al (2012) point to a number of operational concerns including inadequate coordination among stakeholders, differences in attitudes, poor quality of some of the interventions that were funded and inadequate information sharing.…”

What is a successful environmental geochemical study?

“…Yet, it is surprising how little success in respect to feasible solutions is visible, given the still ongoing studies (Davis, 2001;Hanchett et al, 2002). One of the lessons learnt in Bangladesh appears to be that the health sector should take the pivotal role and that community participation is necessary for any sustainable public health program (George et al, 2013;Milton et al, 2012). An expanded and improved public education programme is essential to ensure that the Bangladesh public, especially the less educated, will benefit from future technological improvements.…”