The sanitation ladder – a need for a revamp?

Abstract

The sanitation ladder is a useful tool that is being used to monitor progress towards the sanitation target of the MDGs. This tool could be even more useful if it can be refined to be based on the functions of sanitation systems rather than on a hierarchy of predefined sanitation technologies. This paper presents a seven-rung function-based sanitation ladder where the functions can be broadly divided into health functions and environmental functions. The proposed ladder is intended as an inspiration for nations, and the JMP, to move towards a function-based rather than technology-based monitoring of sanitation progress. A functional approach to monitoring of e.g. the sanitation target of the MDGs would require some major shifts in the monitoring methods used but it is argued that such an approach would: (i) actually monitor the public good, which is desired from a sanitation system; (ii) stimulate donors, governments and municipalities to think beyond the provision of certain sanitation technologies; (iii) allow for local solutions to the sanitation problem to be developed; and (iv) spur innovation within the sector.

Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development

“…Nonetheless, access to improved sanitation facilities alone has failed to guarantee safe excreta containment (Baum et al, 2013;Irish et al, 2013), just as measuring access to sanitation solely through the use of improved facilities may not capture important environmental, economic, and social concerns that are critical for sustainable outcomes (Kvarnström, McConville, Bracken, Johansson & Fogde, 2011;Obani & Gupta, 2016). It is therefore necessary to explore a better understanding of what sanitation means and how technology can be adopted within national jurisdictions to effectively promote the HRS without compromising on ID.…”

“…Some definitions are limited to just access to toilet facilities, while others include emptying, transport, treatment and disposal of excreta. Other discourses enmesh sanitation in individual aspirations for a clean and healthy physical environment, dignity, and privacy (Joshi et al, 2011); complex interactions of culture, politics and institutions at various levels of governance (Akpabio, 2012;Akpabio & Subramanian, 2012;Chaplin, 1999); climate change (Geels, 2013;Lopes, Fam & Williams, 2012); the emerging story of Peak Phosphorus (Cordell et al 2009); and concerns for environmental sustainability (Feris, 2015;Kvarnström et al, 2011). Therefore, the meaning of the human right to sanitation requires further investigation.…”

“…Nonetheless, there is still a lot of investment in technocratic engineering sanitation solutions and a significant body of literature on promoting demand for predetermined sanitation goods and services (Barrington et al, 2016(Barrington et al, , 2017Evans et al, 2014;Jenkins & Scott, 2007). The environmental sciences and public health literature analyse the technological drivers of poor sanitation, such as sewerage connections without treatment (Baum et al, 2013) and the limits of monitoring progress towards sanitation targets based on a hierarchy of predefined technologies (Kvarnström et al, 2011). The engineering literature emphasizes the need to eliminate challenges in the bio-physical environment (environmental drivers), like weather variability, water scarcity and the topography of the service area, which affect the operations of sanitation infrastructure (Cairncross & Valdmanis, 2006;Dagdeviren & Robertson, 2009;Ensink, Bastable & Cairncross, 2015;Schouten & Mathenge, 2010).…”

“…The non-legal literature further offers a variety of qualitative and quantitative indicators for excreta containment, access, grey water management, pathogen reduction, nutrient reuse, eutrophication risk reduction, and integrated resource management (Kvarnström et al, 2011); proxy indicators for monitoring international and national sanitation targets, including the safety of sanitation technologies (Baum et al, 2013) and wastewater reuse options Ensink, Blumenthal & Brooker, 2008;Irish et al, 2013); and sanitary inspections for complementary safe assessments and identify corrective actions for water safety (Bain et al, 2014).…”

A Methodological Approach for Quantitative Assessment of the Effective Wastewater Management: Lebanon as a Case Study

“…However, the collected wastewater returns back into rivers, lakes or groundwater and may cause damage to human health or to the environment. The degree of environmental risk associated with the disposal or reuse of wastewater could not be evaluated by the present universal sanitation indicator (UN-ESCWA 2013a; Kvarnström et al 2011;Kuznyetsov 2007). In this regard, the global debates regarding the formulation of a Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) during the preparation of a post-2015 development framework recognize the importance of delivering effective sanitation systems that could monitor and report on progress towards collection, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater (UN Water 2014).…”