Water Pakistan

Water Hygenie and Sanitation Issues Of Pakistan

WASA Chief Says Rawalpindi Water to be tested for Quality

RAWALPINDI:  

The water being provided to Rawalpindi will be tested for its quality, Water and Sanitation Agency (Wasa) said on Tuesday.

Wasa Managing Director (MD) Raja Shaukat Mehmood said the fresh survey is needed to check if clean water is being supplied to the city.

The MD directed the water quality manager to collect samples from head tanks around the city for laboratory testing. Following the lab tests, Wasa teams will start plugging any leaks in the pipelines.

The recently appointed MD said Rawalpindi has three major sources of water: Rawal Dam, Khanpur Dam, and 290 tube wells spread across the city.

The water is supplied after treatment at Rawal Dam and Sangjani treatment plants in accordance with WHO standards, he added.

In a recent meeting, Wasa authorities said that that most tube wells, especially those installed on Nullah Lai’s banks, were equipped with hypo-chlorinators to purify water.

The MD said that a well-equipped water testing laboratory was installed at the Rawal Lake Filtration Plant under the supervision of a qualified manager. Mehmood was briefed on complaints of muddy water being supplied in Aria Mohallah, which was later rectified.

The Wasa chief also appealed to consumers to clean underground and overhead tanks in their houses, for which Wasa will provide free manpower to consumers upon request, the press release said.

Credits:  The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2012.

 

, ,
February 1, 2012 at 6:37 am Comment (1)

The WASH Sustainability Charter

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-CycleRefers 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)

water,wash -project preparation, new approach

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 TwitterDiggFacebooke-mail

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

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

Water, Sanitation Hygiene Research Titles at CiiT , Abbotabad

S. No Name of Student Thesis Title
1 Kehkishan Rani Impact of poor sanitation on children health and education in the rural areas of district Abbottabad
2 Maria Riaz Assessment of water filtration plants in district Abbottabad, Haripur and Mansehra.
3 Ihsan Ullah Khan The Role of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) in the Improvement of

Health, Hygiene and Environment in the Rural Area of Mardan, Pakistan

4 Romana Jamshed Water quality assessment and mapping for water supply system of Abbottabad’s urban settlements
5 Munazzam Jawad Shahid Effect of improved water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions on incidences of diarrhea in district    Mansehra
6 Syed Fayyaz Ali Shah Evaluating the perceptions and insufficiencies related with water and sanitation in the Afghan Refugee Camp, Mansehra
7 Adeel Jalal Malik Analysis of the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) process in district Mardan, N.W.F.P, Pakistan
8 Awais Arifeen Assessing the sustainability of School Led Total Sanitation (SLTS) and School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) in selected areas of Azad Jamu and Kashmir
9 Ayesha Anwaar Qazi “Exploration of Culturally acceptable Ecological Sanitation and low-cost wastewater treatment system in selected area of Abbottabad”
10 Abda Khalid Assessing the socio-cultural barriers acceptability and reuse of human excreta as a resource
11 Mahwish Durrani Pre and post disaster water supply and sanitation approaches used in earthquake affected rural and urban areas of Muzaffarabad
12 Shams Ali Baig Improvement of drinking water quality by using  plant biomass through household biosand filter-A decentralized approach
13 Nadia Bibi Analysis of gender related needs, expectations and responsibilities in sanitation and water supply projects in tehsil Balakot, district Mansehra
14 Mukhtiar Ahmad Assessment of collaboration between government and NGOs for the provision of water supply and sanitation services in district Mansehra
15 Nazia Noureen Evaluation of hygiene promotion processes regarding women health in   rural areas of district  Abbottabad
16 Shazia Khan The knowledge and perceptions of rural women about hygiene practices, sanitation facilities and drinking water in relation to diarrhea among children in selected village of Haripur
17 Hasnain Ali Raza Exploration of ecological sanitation in selected earthquake affected areas of NWFP and AJK, Pakistan
18 Akmal Jilani Economic Impacts of Conventional and ecological sanitation in Siran Valley in district Mansehra
19 Iftikhar Zeb Assessing the Socio-cultural Compatibility of Water and Sanitation Services Delivered By Donors in District Mansehra
20 Nadia Zaman Anaerobic biosorption of Chromium from synthetic wastewater
21 Basmina.Atta Evaluation of sanitation facilities in primary schools of district Abbottabad
, ,
January 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm Comments (6)

Water Sanitation Hygiene- way forward Pakistan

[showtime]
Introduction:

Like other south Asian places, supply of less and poor quality drinking water available within the house is one of the major contributors to agony, disease and death in Pakistan. This has an adverse effect on the quality of life, like disease and death burden due to cholera, diarrhea , Typhoid, Hepatitis , Cancer and bone deformation to name a few.

Microbiological contamination related disorders have an early effect where as chemical contamination takes longer periods for the manifestation, if present in trace amounts.

This has an adverse effect on the quality of life, like

  1. Agony due to disease
  2. Agony of death of a dear one
  3. Loss of  working  hours of  the sick and  those attending to him/ her and hence family income
  4. Already malnutrition poor develop a strong competitor for food in their bellies, in the form of worms.
  5. Loss of school hours and education, drop out due to poor sanitation in schools.
  6. Loss of family time by mother spent on collecting water from long distances and exposure to hazards for her and the family.

This is how the need for supply of good quality drinking water becomes a strong priority issue to be resolved for our national development.

the latest development in this direction is 28 July 2010 –Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights, the General Assembly declared today, voicing deep concern that almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean .water.   <http://groups.google.com/group/wash–Pakistan/browse_thread/thread/4627f74d35108cab.

The travel from Local Government ordinance 2001, schedule VI section 94’s , which mentions drinking water as “wholesome water “. Only .Wholesome is a nonspecific term and could have different meanings for different people.

We recommend defining safe drinking water as water having quality conforming to Pakistan standards and quality Control authority (PSQCA), Standard No. PS 1932, ICS No.13.06020 (second revision.)

Document in hand provides an action oriented out line for less than a decade to achieve Millennium development goal of, halving the population not having access to improved drinking water by 2015.in Pakistan.

The problem-Solution analysis presented in this document is like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. When we look at them in isolation we tend to doubt its strong relationship with the issue and solutions but we assure you when every piece falls into proper slot it will be the best available picture of the problem and solutions

Assumptions

1.    In Pakistan we may not have a supply of intentional safe drinking water , anywhere.

2.    No laboratory has the capability to completely analyze drinking water for safety in accordance with PSQCA – Standards at an affordable cost and reasonable time.

  1. Only about half of the population has access to piped drinking water, which has been rarely completely tested for safety.
  2. Two third of the population is drinking water of unknown quality; the only testing comes through human consumption and getting sick.
  3. Getting supply of safe drinking water in accordance with PSQCA standards in one go  will  not be possible , so we  need  to settle for Improved water source* which means a source likely to provide safe water, such as house hold connection a bore hole etc.(Joint monitoring program WHO/ UNICEF)*
  4. The harvest the object of this initiative is improving the quality of life of our people, we must work on safe drinking water, better sanitation and hygiene at the same time.
  5. Microbiological testing of water for safety before supply is not possible (Takes 24-48 hours), so quality assurance is of importance at the water supply points, distribution system and home storage tanks.

Strategy for improving drinking water quality

For the sake of simplicity the process of achieving the goal of access to safe and enough drinking water has been divided in three phases namely

1.    Long term actions where intensive cost and will to do is involved.

2.    Short term and medium cost intensive

3.    Immediate and doable where mostly, a strong determination will be a major contributor and costs will not be heavy. It will make efficient use of existing resources vis-à-vis manpower infrastructure etc.

1.  Long Term

National water, drinking water, sanitation, and health policies are a collection of wish list. Efforts should be made to sort out some doable plan from these documents. Perhaps this is what we are trying to do now.

1.1    Local government ordinance 2001 Schedule VI section 94 defines this responsibility as “wholesome water “.  The ordinance needs amendment to clearly define drinking water quality in accordance with the government’s ministry of science and technology standards PSQCA, standard No. PS 1932, ICS No.13.06020 second revision.

1.2    Water being used for making ice should also be of similar quality.

1.3    The provider of water and ice has to make a testing arrangement.

1.4    There has to be a third party quality testing by PCRWR, PCSIR, NIH or university/ medical college Lab.

1.5    No untreated sewage water/ industrial waste water to be discharged to water bodies both fresh and ground. This needs regulations by EPA, which is there in the form of NEQS and implementation through Local government.

1.6    Hospital waste has to be properly disposed off.

1.7    Plastic shopping bags should be phased out and technology for converting used shopping bags into water, sun and sound proof sheets be developed, to get rid of this heavy non degradable material.

1.8.   Energy Savor Mercury lamps should be controlled for proper disposal; else they will be a great contamination source in water and environment.

Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)

1.6    Ministry of science and technology‘s PSQCA, standard No. PS 1932, ICS No.13.06020 second revision. To be upgraded to mandatory status from the present voluntary, like bottled water standards

1.7    MOST / PSQCA to issue standards for piping and plumbing material

1.8    Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for lying of water supply and sewerage pipes need to be documented and issued.

1.9    SOPs for making septic tanks and drainage lines to be developed and implemented

2.0  Develop local technology for Sewerage and wastewater treatment. MOST can do it in collaboration with university (HEC) and EPA.

2.1  Ministry of Environment, to phase out the use of plastic shopping bags and plastic Bottles of soft drinks / Water.

Ministry of health

3.1      Planning to start a national deworming program

3.2      Mass education to drink optimum (2.0-2.5 L for adults), of good quantity water

3.3      Washing hands with soap after the use of bath room

3.4      The hospitals to collect health data on water related diseases

3.5      Medical Officer at Tehsil Headquarter hospital to visit filtration plants, and send his report

4.0    Short term and medium cost intensive

4.1  Water billing to consumer should be related to quality and   quantity of water being supplied.

In case the water being supplied is not fit for human consumption, ministry of Local Government

4.2 The water service provider should immediately share this information with the consumer and in case of nonconformance the provider will be fined Re.1 /day / person.

4.3   Provider should regularly share quantity and quality of water being supplied to consumer.

4.4  Appointing the most capable available staff member in the department as resident in charge of the treatment plant.

4.6  Clearly writing the job description of the water supply and distribution staff

4.7  Civic bodies supplying drinking water should   arrange to take quality assurance measure at the treatment and supply sites

4.8  Documenting procedures for activities at the treatment and testing and Maintain complete records of conformance to these procedures

Note: In writing job descriptions procedures and records, author will give technical support, if needed.

5. Immediate actions

5.1          Appointing the most capable available staff member in the department as resident in charge of the treatment plant.

5.2          On job training of water supply in charge and the staff, about the Procedures of   water treatment

5.3          Training of water testing lab staff about basic analytical Procedures

5.4        Providers to share with the consumer, actions being taken in case of an uncontrollable poor quality supply.

5.5          Ensuring drinking water safety at source and encouraging consumers to hand carry this water in clean containers for drinking purpose.

Legal Cover

  1. Mandatory for the provider to share the results of water sample analyzed consumers immediately and issue warning in media to the public, in case of unsafe quality tests.
  2. Power connection to Drinking water supply cannot be disconnected
  3. Doable actions to improve water quality should not wait for the formulation and approval of the policy.
  4. Status of Pakistan drinking water standard PSQCA  No. PS 1932, ICS No.13.06020 second revision, be changed from voluntary to mandatory.
  5. Water provider to be fined Re 1/ person, in case of water supply not fit for human consumption or of unknown quality.

Ministry of Special initiatives seems to be the focal point of all the activities by default.

1. Inquiry be conducted to see why filtration plants in all union councils were not installed and operative till Dec 2007. Efforts be made to overhaul this set up to function as envisaged by the project writers.

Action Plan for consumers

  1. Consciously ensuring that each adult drinks 2.-2.5 L of water (about 10-12 Glass) and children adjust accordingly. Quantity of water needs adjustment according to temperature and profession .Players need more water
  2. Saving water, not wasting.
  3. Visiting and checking with the water provider the actions being taken to ensure providing safe water.
  4. Check with the provider, date of cleaning of overhead and/or underground water storage tanks.
  5. consumer to insist on seeing the latest water test report with the provider
  6. Ensure that domestic water storage tanks are regularly cleaned
  7. In case of more than one family member suffering from water related disease, get his water checked and start collecting water from a safe source.
  8. Intermittent supply of water causes back suction of dirty water from leaking surroundings. Report leaking pipes and valve chambers.
  9. Ensure that all family members wash their hands with soap after the use of bath room.
  10. Ensure toilets in schools, hospitals and place of WUZOO in mosques have soap for washing hands
, , , , , ,
August 22, 2010 at 1:49 pm Comments (13)