CHAPTER 2.2 DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION
require local faecal sludge management (that is, excreta removal and treatment). Excreta management is gender-segregated and often racially differentiated. A 2014 Human Rights Watch report on the caste and gender profile of manual excreta cleaners in India revealed that 95% of private and village latrines were cleaned by women; both women and men cleaned open defecation from roads, open areas and open gutters, while men typically cleaned septic tanks, closed gutters and sewers (Human Rights Watch 2014).
There are recent trends towards the development of environmentally sustainable sanitation systems, which are increasingly under consideration as feasible and affordable alternatives for rural municipalities, low- income small communities or groups of households (Wendland and Albold 2010). These systems range from natural approaches such as the use of ponds and constructed wetlands (which are low-tech and low- maintenance) as filters and for cleaning wastewater, to high-tech vacuum biogas installations. Bacterial contamination from faeces can be broken down quickly in natural systems such as wetlands and planted soil filters.
Modern on-site sanitation systems that allow the reuse of nutrients and organic matter present in human excreta, as recommended by WHO (2006), are also being developed as alternatives to septic tanks and individual
household systems. Retrieving nutrients
from human and animal waste, at source, for reuse has received increasing attention in recent years (Schröder et al. 2010). “Productive sanitation” is the overall term for sanitation systems that focus on increased crop yields by using treated excreta and grey water in agriculture. The gendered dimensions of productive sanitation projects have not yet been fully explored, although some aspects are already apparent (Wendland et al. 2012).
In terms of impact, women would benefit directly from the increased availability of nutrients that can be used for rural and urban agriculture (Hannan and Andersson 2002). For example, the urine diversion dehydration toilet requires no water for flushing, reducing the workload of women if they have to fetch water for sanitation (Wendland et al. 2011). In Zimbabwe women in some rural areas have indicated they prefer an ecological sanitation alternative that can be built closer to their homes (the “Arborloo”) than conventional pit latrines. When Arborloo pits are full,
women plant fruit trees in them; men also prefer an Arborloo since the pits are shallower and require less work to dig (Wendland et al. 2012).
The disposal of ready-made sanitary pads – which contain significant amounts of plastic – could be another threat to human health, rural and urban environments, and social relations. It requires not only a proper sanitary disposal system, but also awareness- raising programmes (particularly in rural areas) on safe disposal methods and available alternative technologies. Waste management strategies need to give adequate consideration to MHM (SSWM 2016; House et al. 2012; Ten 2007).
The “missing half”: the need for gender-disaggregated data on water and sanitation
One of the worst stumbling blocks in regard to achieving
a more robust gender-integrated
international policy regime is lack of comparable international data on gender-sensitive water and sanitation indicators. International policy mechanisms are driven by data. Without gender-disaggregated data it is impossible to fully measure progress towards sustainable development goals, or to make effective analytical assessments of the comparative situations of women and men in different communities or parts of the world (UN DESA and UNW-DPC 2009). The Gender and Water Alliance has identified gender- disaggregated data collection as a key component of a “minimum agenda” for making a difference in water management (GWA 2006). The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has also identified the “unavailability of gender-disaggregated data” as one of the main reasons for the gap between policy commitments on water and gender and actual practice (IFAD 2007).
In 2013 the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) reported on the state of gender statistics across the UN system and across national platforms. Gender-disaggregated water and sanitation statistics were among those that were least available (Table 2.2.3).
A study prepared for the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) shows the gender focus in major international data compilations is actually declining
69
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242
