Water Pakistan

Water Hygenie and Sanitation Issues Of Pakistan

South Korea to help Pakistan, set up water quality institut

Filed under drinking water, What's New by admin

Development: South Korea to help set up water quality institute

Published: August 24, 2011

The institute will help formulate viable and environmentally sustainable solutions.

Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) is setting up a water quality institute in collaboration with Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) at Islamabad, said a press release issued by the council here on Tuesday.

A record of discussions was signed between PCRWR and KOICA on Tuesday, under which KOICA will provide a grant of $3 million for the establishment of the institute, construction of which would also be carried out by KOICA.

The campus of the institute will be constructed within the premises of PCRWR and its objective will be capacity building of the water supply agencies, public health engineering departments, and local governments, which at present are not duly trained to address the water quality issues related to chemical, biological and physical contamination causing serious hazards to human life.

It will be a premier institute of the country and will offer certificate and diploma courses in Water Quality Management, the press release said.

The institute will provide trained manpower for induction into water supply agencies to ensure supply of safe drinking water.

The institute will work with the government, industry, NGOs and individuals to formulate viable and environmentally sustainable solutions through knowledge-sharing and disseminating best practices.

That will highlight the crucial role played by safe drinking water in the achievement of economic and environmental goals through academic productivity, professional leadership and consulting environment, which is in line with the government policy to
develop knowledge-based economy.

The signing ceremony was attended by Mir Changez Khan Jamali, Federal Minister for Science and Technology, Akhlaq Ahmad Tarar, Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Dr Muhammad Aslam Tahir, Chairman, PCRWR and Jeon Jun Ho, resident representative of KOICA.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2011.

 

,
August 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm Comments (0)

The WASH Sustainability Charter

Filed under drinking water, hygiene, Sanitation, Way forward by admin

The Charter

PREAMBLE

We, the undersigned, believe:

  • That the lasting provision of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene education (WASH) is a leading development priority of our time. Around the world, almost one billion people live without access to improved water sources, while 2.6 billion people live without access to adequate sanitation facilities;
  • That the lasting provision of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene education is key to sustaining human health, education, and economic development, empowering women, and maintaining ecosystems that support all life;
  • That sustainability requires the development of meaningful partnerships that recognize the diverse roles of all actors, including communities, governments, donors, implementers, and all other stakeholders;
  • That our efforts to promote ongoing safe water, sanitation, and hygiene education are critical to the stability and development of communities around the world and can end the needless suffering and premature death of men, women, and children due to waterborne illness;
  • That there are still enormous systemic challenges to providing sustainable safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services in many countries. Most critically, many of those who may have benefited in the short-term from WASH projects now have systems that are not working adequately, or have failed completely.
  • That the premature failure of these solutions is unacceptable.

The first steps in partnering to address these systemic challenges are to build on our successes, learn from our failures, and agree on a shared vision of sustainable WASH services regardless of one’s role or perspective. Specifically, WASH should be viewed in the developing world as it is in the developed world – as a service, not as a project.

Together, we propose to advance sustainable solutions[i] in water, sanitation, and hygiene education through the following mission and guiding principles. These are intended to serve as a common framework that stakeholders[ii] in the sector can agree upon when collaborating with communities in pursuit of these basic services[iii] around the world.

MISSION

To collaboratively promote the delivery of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services that produce high-quality, lasting benefits to consumers.

PURPOSE

This Charter seeks to align WASH stakeholders around collaboratively developed sustainability principles and catalyze adoption of these principles around the world. In recognition of the many approaches to achieving each principle, the Charter provides a framework for the development of corresponding best practices and metrics to facilitate ongoing learning rather than prescribing specific practices to achieve these principles.

Those endorsing this Charter will strive to incorporate these principles and actively promote WASH sustainability throughout their work. The Charter is an aspirational document, not a governing one. Endorsers agree to pursue the mission and strive towards the principles incorporated in the Charter. It is intended that WASH stakeholders will encourage and assist each other in applying the Charter’s principles, and ultimately, in improving the sustainability of WASH services around the world.

SUSTAINABILITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This mission will be enabled by guiding principles in the areas of:

STRATEGY AND PLANNING

In order to ensure that WASH services are properly planned, designed for long-term operation, and coordinated with the local community and other stakeholders, we will:

  • Consider solutions that are equitable, environmentally-friendly, and well-suited to the specific needs and long-term operations and maintenance capabilities of the local community.
  • Align planning efforts with other stakeholders, including development organizations and national/local governments.
  • Meaningfully include consumers and other stakeholders throughout the planning and budgeting processes.
  • Assess full life-cycle[iv] risks during planning and develop appropriate risk mitigation strategies.
  • Consider the long-term education, capacity-building, and training needs of stakeholders.

GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

In order to ensure effective management of resources and communication amongst stakeholders, we will:

  • Clearly articulate and document roles, responsibilities, commitments, and expectations of all stakeholders while recognizing the central role of women in WASH solutions.
  • Promote and deliver programs where all stakeholders are accountable to each other and operate in a transparent manner.
  • Evaluate the capabilities and capacity of the consumers, community, and service providers when determining their roles in ongoing service delivery.

SERVICE DELIVERY SUPPORT

In order to ensure that an operational infrastructure is in place to meet ongoing service delivery needs, we will:

  • Develop and promote a local operational infrastructure (e.g. replacement parts, curriculum, maintenance capability, supplier network, etc.) that enables long-term service delivery.
  • Prepare the consumers and/or other stakeholders to take responsibility for the service delivery support processes.
  • Establish mechanisms to educate stakeholders and to ensure that education transmission is sustained over time.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

In order to ensure that capital is available to meet the full life-cycle costs associated with ongoing service delivery, we will:

  • Utilize financial resources for their intended purposes, as agreed-upon by all stakeholders, throughout the service delivery life-cycle.
  • Establish a long-term financing plan that realistically accounts for all phases of the service delivery life-cycle.

REPORTING AND KNOWLEDGE-SHARING

In order to ensure timely identification of service delivery challenges and to continuously improve our efforts, we will:

  • Utilize appropriate and consistent metrics, evaluation criteria, and tools to monitor and measure performance relative to long-term service delivery throughout the solution life-cycle (including post-implementation phases).
  • Share data and lessons learned – both from failures and successes – in order to provide continuous improvement throughout the sector.
  • Adopt and use consistent financial and operational reporting frameworks.

###

ENDORSEMENT

By signing this Charter, we agree to pursue the mission and strive towards the principles incorporated herein, thereby leading the sector toward a vision of WASH as a sustainable service.

Endorse the Charter or View Endorsers

Endnotes

[i] Solutions – Refers to the system or approach used to improve the delivery of water, sanitation, and hygiene in a particular geographic area.

[ii] Stakeholders – Refers to a collective group of individuals (e.g. consumers), organizations (e.g. donors, NGOs, implementers, corporations), and other entities (e.g. local and national governments, private sector actors, ministries of health, etc.) that have an interest or stake in the delivery of WASH services for a particular geographic area.

[iii] Services – Refers to the ongoing delivery of WASH solutions in a particular geographic area. Often this term is used in contrast with projects/programs, with emphasis on the implementation of temporary WASH solutions (often interventions) for a specific community or geographic area.

[iv] Life-Cycle – Refers to all stages of a WASH service improvement, from the preliminary needs assessment through the post-implementation period.

souce    http://washcharter.org/charter/

, , , , , ,
July 28, 2011 at 8:44 am Comments (0)

drinking water treatment by UV Light, are we increasing the problem.

Filed under drinking water, House hold water Treatment systems (HWTS), Sanitation, Way forward, What's New by admin

IN Pakistan we are using UV LAMPS for drinking water

treatment, thinking exposure to uv light kills bacteria, virus .

some who know a little more think that rather than killing it

stalls the further multiplication, so for so good. today i came across this

mutation effect that scares me to think . rather than making our wter safe we may be adding several types of mutated bacteria and virus to our system . these microorganisms are of unknown nature  may be more dangerous than the ones we are trying to get rid of and much more resistant to what  we know of controlling them.

‘Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur in the DNA of individual cells at some time during a person’s life. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if a mistake is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed on to the next generation.’

hope microbiologists and molecular/ biological engineers can help me get rid of this negative thinking

, , ,
July 19, 2011 at 11:58 pm Comments (2)

water,wash -project preparation, new approach

Filed under drinking water, Drinking Water Polices, Other Polices by admin

Is the water sector sexy enough?

The Guardian the other day posted an article which claimed that water and sanitation projects are not sexy enough and that donors therefore are not willing to invest in them. According to various interviewees in the article, donors prefer to invest in schools or clinics, rather than in “unsexy” water projects. The interviewees call for an increase in donor funding for water and sanitation. Rather than sexying up the sector, I think the water sector should be a bit careful in what it is asking for, as more money is not necessarily the solution to the problem, and may even reinforce the donor dependency in the sector.

The article mentions that donor aid to water and sanitation has gone down in relative terms compared to the percentage of aid dedicated to the health and education sectors. In 1995, 7% of all aid budgets went to water and sanitation; in 2004, it was 4%. In the same period the percentage of aid for education went up from 5 to 6.5% and health really had a boom growing from 7 to 11%. However, and this is the BIG however, in absolute terms aid to water and sanitation has nearly doubled from 3.7 billion US$ in 1998 year to 7.4 billion US$ in 2008. The water and sanitation sector benefited from the overall growth in aid; it is just that the health and education sectors benefited even more. My question is whether the interviewees in the Guardian article would also like to have seen the percentage of aid going up in relative terms? In my view there is no justification for or against that. Nobody will deny that investments in health are just as much neede! d in as investments in water and sanitation, or roads or any other development sector. The question is how much should go to each sector. Should 7% of all global aid be spent on water and sanitation and only 5% on education? Or should it be the other way around? I don’t think that anyone has the correct answer to this, and we should therefore stop making these kinds of comparisons with other sectors.

More importantly, little analysis is provided why aid to water and sanitation has gone down.

Is it indeed, as the article claims, that water and sanitation is less sexy than schools? Ok I am biased, but surely the idea of providing people with a borehole or a tap is something that would appeal to tax payers in developed countries and officers at development agencies. You put some money on the table, get some contractors to drill a borehole, put a pump on top, and you will soon have a photograph of happy children getting fresh water.

Shouldn’t that be at least as appealing as putting some money on the table, get some contractors to build a school, put some tables and chairs in and take a photograph of happy children learning the alphabet? I cannot imagine that the sexiness argument is real (apart from sanitation, because who likes to see pictures of toilets on posters of a charity at the railway station, even if they are nicely built ones?).

If it is not the sexiness argument, is it then maybe something else?

Maybe recipient countries, utilities and user themselves have increased their spending on water and sanitation, reducing the need for donor contributions? The answer to this cannot be given, as, unlike donor money, these other sources of funding are very hard to track at a global level. The GLAAS report with the figures on donor financing, has little data on how much governments themselves are investing and no data on how much is invested by other parties. Last year’s study on infrastructure investments in Africa by the World Bank showed that aid is still a smaller source of financing of water and sanitation infrastructure than household’s own investments, and is more or less of the same order of magnitude as government contribu! tions. However, there is very little data on trends in these investments. So, we cannot say whether other sources of finance are taking up the place of aid in the water and sanitation sector.

Maybe the trends in what donors finance are quite random anyway, so we shouldn’t attach too much value to the percentages from one year to another? That could very well be the case. There is an unmistakable upward trend in aid for water and sanitation in absolute terms and a downward trend for the relative share, but the graphs plotting there trends have their peaks and valleys (just as the graphs for the education and health sectors by the way).

Or, could it be that the water sector is not very good of making effective use of the funds that are available? Probably this is part of the issue as well. In the Triple-S study we did we found shocking figures of the percentages of budgets for water and sanitation actually being used in a financial year, in some countries as low as 45%. Absorption capacity is a big bottleneck in aid in general, and the water sector is not an exception. Whether it is better or worse in the water sector than in health or education, I don’t know (would be interesting if someone has the figures). But it is clear that in a number of countries, there is little use in putting more money into the sector, until the absorption capacity goes up.

For these, and probably many other, reasons, I think the water sector should be a bit careful in asking for more money. As water sector professionals, we first have a responsibility to make sure that existing funds are used effectively. In addition, care should be taken not to ask this money, once again, from donors. We all know how donor dependent the water sector is in many of the countries. As one of my colleagues from Zimbabwe often repeats “the government here thinks that WASH is for donors”. The water sector, maybe unintentionally helps in maintaining that image. The GLAAS report, from which many of the figures above are taken, telling first presents the data of aid spending on water and sanitation, and then the data of government spending. The former are also analysed in much more detail in terms of how that money is used, for what purpose etc. As donors are becoming more and more serious about the aid effectiveness agenda, and! particularly government leadership in that, we should also expect more clarity on what governments could and should do themselves. Calls for more investment in the water and sanitation sector should therefore as much be made towards governments as to donors. And as a minimum, a call should be made for making it clearer who is investing how much in water and sanitation, and how that compares to the needs. We first need to get a clear picture of all the parts of the puzzle, before we can ask for more. That may not be a very sexy message to put forward in newspaper articles or advocacy events. Yet, I believe that a dull, but well-organised water sector which has its house in order, will be sexy enough to attract financing.

Stef Smits, Programme Officer, South Asia and Latin America Team, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre

This opinion piece was originally published in the Triple-S water services that last blog on 11 July 2011

Give your comments
Share this article on Twitter, Digg, Facebook, e-mail

source   https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/1312e7749a47ea19

, , , , ,
July 17, 2011 at 3:00 am Comments (0)

IMPROVING SAFE DRINKING WATER SERVICE DELIVERY BY STRENGTHENING THE AMENDED LOCAL GOVERNMENT’s ORDINANCE, 2005

Filed under drinking water, Legislation, Sanitation by admin

IMPROVING SAFE DRINKING WATER SERVICE DELIVERY BY STRENGTHENING THE AMENDED LOCAL GOVERNMENT’s ORDINANCE, 2005

The Constitution of Pakistan guarantees “right to life” to all Pakistani citizens under Section 6.  Water is fundamental for human survival which is universally recognized as a basic human right (stated in Article 25(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Ensuring universal access to safe drinking water as an essential part of right to life is one of the most important functions of Governments, who take the prime responsibility of providing safe drinking water to their citizens. The situation in Pakistan is, however, much below the accepted limits; whereas the Government of Pakistan realizes that safe drinking water is imperative for human health, and its provision is a mandate which the Government should fulfill, the actual practice is not in line with this thinking.  A case in point is lack of a comprehensive legislation for supply of safe drinking water.

The essential and scarce water resource has to be treated as a public good which implies that management of water resources and supply must be a government responsibility so that public interest can be served. Therefore Government’s involvement should concentrate on strategic planning of water resources development in line with future demand and through effective regulations. Public awareness of water rights, regulations and economic instruments are important to ensure understanding and acceptance of all stakeholders.

Unlike other public utilities like power, gas, telephonic services has lead to the revelation that whereas all these sectors are regulated and have legislation in place, the drinking water is left at the mercy of service providers.  In the process of privatization of utilities the interest of the consumer was kept in mind to some extent, no such relief for the consumers is foreseeable in case of water.

Legislations in sectors of service delivery like the Local Government’s Ordinance, are meant to regulate these sectors for efficient operation; they also serve the purpose of protecting peoples’ rights.  This makes it all the more important that this important utility is governed by uniform policies by the government and legislation is in place to protect peoples’ right to safe water. Such protection is very important for important public utilities.  Public health importance of safe water makes it even more important that legislation is in place to protect human health through ensuring provision of safe drinking water.  However, as is evident  from experience in many countries that the adoption of adequate water laws and regulations is a sensitive and time-consuming task.

The spirit of the Local Government Ordinance 2001 is to improve services for the consumers falling in the ambit of local bodies, by holding the local governments responsible for service delivery in their respective constituencies – supply of safe drinking water is one of these.  However the matter has not been dealt with at length in the Ordinance and this loosely placed responsibility has failed to gain due importance for the local bodies.  It is all the more important because supplying safe drinking water is not the only function that the local governments are performing, and further clarifications are required in the sections pertaining to supply of safe drinking water for the consumers, under the Local Government’s Ordinance.

It is suggested that the following points may be taken into account in the process of making the Local Government’s Ordinance, 2001 more effective and elaborate on the subject of safe drinking water and also ensure supply of this important public health utility in the best possible manner.

Proposed Changes in the amended Local Government Ordinance 2005

Local Government shall be responsible to provide safe drinking water to the population within their electoral boundaries.

Delineation of drinking and wholesome water

  • The existing section 94 in the VIth Schedule may be retained for supply of wholesome water to the consumers.  However it is insufficient in the sense that it does not deal with drinking water exclusively.
  • The meaning of the word “wholesome” in Schedule VI article 94, according to Oxford Dictionary is …………………………………………..This is evasive enough to relieve the relevant local government of the responsibility of providing safe ,fit for human consumption drinking water to consumers. The word be changed with safe drinking water. Hence the Schedule VI article 94 Sub clause (1) would read as the concerned local government shall provide or cause to provide to its local area a supply of safe drinking water sufficient fro public and private purposes.
  • A sub-section pertaining to drinking water can be added to delineate water for ordinary purposes from that meant for drinking purposes

Health Departments’ involvement

  • Mechanism for involvement of the health officials, like EDO health or Tehsil health committees in the subject of provision of safe drinking water to the consumers
  • Responsibility of the Local Health Department to inform the water service provider of the number of cases of water-related diseases on a fortnightly basis
  • Informing the water service provider of any emergency situation involving water related illnesses so that problem identification and rectification can be initiated to prevent further morbidity and mortality

As for the quality

  • Wherever the word water appears and it is meant for human consumption it will mean

Water in accordance with the standard No.PS-1932: 2002, (In place of wholesome)

issued from time to time by Pakistan Standards and Quality control authority (PSQCA), Ministry  of Science and Technology.

  • The drinking water provider – public or private- shall ensure complete water analysis and quality control in such a way that the water conforms toPakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority ( PSQCA )standards.
  • The provider – public or private- shall arrange to issue a consumer confidence report………………………………….. at least every six months through the media and other possible communication tools. This report will mention the precautions being taken to   ensure a safe drinking water supply, the test reports and any measures the consumer should take in case of an unmanageable quality problem.
  • The provider shall also issue a monthly report showing the quantity of water being Supplied to various localities of the area covered.
  • Drinking water will be completely tested in a Laboratory of repute like Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources (PCRWR),National Institute Health(NIH), Medical College, University, other than the provider at least once a year, as third  Party surveillance.
  • Third party (CBOs, NGOs, Consumer Groups, Researchers, Village Councils / Neighborhood Councils) surveillance for water quality to be encouraged.

As for monitoring

  • Monitoring of water supply  management through water committees, comprising of six citizens representing various classes, at UC level .

Water charges …………………………………………………………………………………………?

, ,
May 15, 2011 at 9:10 am Comment (1)

Health of students in private schools at stake

Filed under drinking water by admin

Muhammad Qasim
Friday, May 13, 2011

Rawalpindi

A number of schools particularly operating in private sector across the district have been providing unsafe drinking water to students while operating in unhygienic condition.

Many health experts believe that consumption of unsafe drinking water at the schools might cause huge damage to students’ health. It is also observed that most of the private schools do not follow standard operating procedures on the subject of hygienic condition as the washrooms there are not cleaned up to the standards.

A good number of parents of the students studying at private educational institutions in the city area also complain of the poor hygienic condition at schools adding the educational institutions seldom care for provision of clean drinking water to students.

“All private schools registered with the government need a fitness certificate on hygienic condition every year, which is given after testing quality of drinking water and examining hygienic condition,” said District Health Officer Dr. Khalid Randhawa while talking to ‘The News’ on the subject on Thursday. He, however, admitted that many private schools do not work properly throughout the year for provision of clean drinking water to students.

He said that the district health department this year has adopted an effective strategy to ensure clean drinking water in private schools. “We have been collecting samples of drinking water from schools and sending them to National Institute of Health, Islamabad, for quality checking for the last five months,” he said.

He added that in case of any complaint, the health department issues warning to the schools providing unfit for use drinking water to students. “By regular monitoring and strict follow ups, we have ensured clean drinking water in nearly 80 per cent of the total schools across the district.” To a query, he admitted that earlier the monitoring of the schools for provision of clean drinking water and hygienic condition was not as effective as it should have been. Most of the schools previously managed to get fitness certificates by using political influence or with the help of concerned staff through underhand deals, “however, we have worked a lot to check the malpractice,” he said.

He added that his office has set a target of ensuring clean drinking water to students in 100 per cent private schools by the end of May. “We have decided to make names of the private schools public through media which fail in providing clean drinking water to students or improving the hygienic condition.”

Dr Randhawa said that his office has given deadlines to many private schools to ensure good hygienic condition, and if they fail, his office would cancel their fitness certificates even if issued this year. “We have decided to monitor hygienic condition in private schools on regular basis throughout the year,” he said.

Source

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=46657&Cat=6&dt=5/13/2011

, , ,
May 13, 2011 at 6:59 pm Comments (0)

Newer Posts »