160 likes | 179 Views
Experiences from Romania Water Safety Plans in schools. Margriet Samwel www.wecf.eu. Geneva 13/14 September 2010 - Good Practices in Water, Sanitation and Human Rights. Who takes care for the rights on access to safe W&S of the rural citizens?.
E N D
Experiences from Romania Water Safety Plans in schools Margriet Samwel www.wecf.eu Geneva 13/14 September 2010 - Good Practices in Water, Sanitation and Human Rights
Who takes care for the rights on access to safe W&S of the rural citizens? • Drinking water quality often does not meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive: nitrate, bacteria • In rural settings only 20% of villages have access to improved sanitation For example Romania: 7 million villagers obtain drinking water from mostly unprotected wells
Practice in rural areas of CE and EECCA • Problem identification does not lead to action from local citizens or governments, neither form national authorities • Although 30 - 50% of the citizens live in rural areas, focus of the most politicians is on urban areas • Most rural villagers lack: - participation in decision-making processes - access to information - financial resources - ownership
Monitoring The approach of a Water Safety Plan Identification of measures which minimise and manage the risks System Assessment Management and Communication Planning and Implementation Source WHO
Developing WSP in rural settings-involving schools Capacity building - understanding of water supply system 2. Investigation -water tests - interviews - sanitary inspections mobilisation of the community -Providing information 4. Identifying and formulating -water and sanitation related problems -plans and actions for improving the situation -accountability -Who is responsible for what?
What we did:Adaptation of the WSP approach for small scale water supplies to schools WSP - Toolbox for schools • Materials for water tests, like nitrate, colour • Manual in local language including - Introduction of WSP - Background information for teachers - Suggestions for activities - Questionnaires for different stakeholders - Checklists for sanitary inspection of wells, taps - Forms and examples for reporting results 5
What we did:Introduction of WSP in villages • Providing information about WSPs • Public - school meetings • Testing nitrates in drinking water • Training of teachers and workshops • How to involve pupils and stakeholders • Identification and selection of the activities
Experiences In General • Teachers and pupils were motivated and enthusiastic about activities- Nitrate test were very appreciated • Activities were educative and relevant for the local environment • Results depended considerable on motivation and available time of the teachers, and on support of the local NGO
Results: Interviews by schools in 6 Romanian villages • Authorities responsible for water supply - No budget for monitoring and operation of public wells - Public taps are partly monitored - Public has access to analyses results • Local health authorities - Respondents said water is not protected and not tested - One out of 6 respondents received analyses results - In 4 out of 6 villages Nitrates and Giardia Lamblia are a problem
Summery of results of analyses • More than 70% of the wells exceed the nitrate limit of 50 mg/l • Depending on the geo-hydrological conditions no or extremely high seasonal fluctuations of the nitrate concentration in water was observed • Most villagers are aware about bad water quality • Low awareness on causes of water pollution
Results: Example Identified sources of pollution • Unsealed latrines • Husbandry raised within the households • Agricultural chemical substances (in particular nitrogen) • Detergents and cosmetic products used and discharged • Randomly throwing garbage and household refuse • Flooding and overflows affecting groundwater • Dust accumulating in uncovered wells 10
Results:Example Water Safety Action Plan • Realisation of a safe sanitation system • Animal farming system in remote places • Using ecological landfill • Adequate coverage of the wells • Collaboration of citizens with the local authorities • Training of citizens for proper hygiene • Construction of central water supply system 11
Normative Availability Accessibility quality/safety affordability acceptability Cross-cutting non-discrimination Participation Accountability Impact sustainability “Developing WSP involving schools/communities”A good practice in relation with access to safe W&S? Criteria of good practices
A well-managed WSP is a participative - informative -transparent process accountability, impact, sustainability, non-discrimination Planning + implementation Availability, accessibility, Quality/safety, affordability, acceptability
Conclusion WSP can be used as an instrument for mobilising communities and authorities on all levels, covering in particular the cross cutting criteria - which should lead to a fulfilment of the main criteria Only a well-informed and self-confident public is able to request her rights and to fulfil her duties
Thank you for your attention! v www.wecf.eu vvvv