Water advocate questions why the Gates Foundation is so stuck on the toilet | 

Water 1st

Marla Smith-Nilson and friends

Marla Smith-Nilson is director of Seattle-based Water 1st International and has worked for decades trying to improve access in the developing world to clean water and safe, healthy sanitation.

Smith-Nilson said she welcomes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation decision to get more involved in water and sanitation issues. But she is concerned that their primary interest in re-inventing the toilet is focused too much on the simple fix. Here are Smith-Nilson’s thoughts:

——————————————————————————————————————————

Today, 2.5 billion people lack access to both a safe, convenient water supply and a sanitary toilet – a situation that stems from but also drives poverty, illness and inequality.

As someone who has worked for 20 years on water and sanitation needs in the developing world, I welcome the Gates Foundation’s increased interest and investment in addressing these twin problems.

But I am concerned with their emphasis on reinventing the toilet — or with any solution that is based primarily on solving the water and sanitation problems by virtue of a technological advance. I’m an engineer by training and hardly opposed to technological progress.

The fundamental challenge in water and sanitation is not so much a technological hurdle to overcome as it is a systems problem that simply cannot be resolved by trying to fix any one part in isolation.

A waterless and/or energy-recovering toilet could be of revolutionary benefit. This appears to be the primary aim of the Gates Foundation’s strategy in this arena. They have provided grants to other aspects of water and sanitation, but the descriptions of these projects are broadly stated and vague.

What I’ve learned, and what we’ve tried to put into practice at Water 1st, after two decades working on these issues is that an integrated approach to water and sanitation is required for it to be sustainable, economical and equitable. We have learned, for example, that frequently the best toilet project has to start as a water project. The poor have the right to set their own priorities, too. Improving sanitation and hygiene requires behavior change and creating that change begins with a shared set of values. Based on our experience, poor people value clean water first.

Another over-arching problem with many of the water and sanitation programs already out there is the lack of adequate evaluation. If the Gates Foundation truly wishes to leverage its already substantial influence in the field, I would encourage the organization to back efforts aimed at creating an independent rating system aimed at separating the wheat from the chaff. Today, many organizations “fill out their own report cards,” which may explain why there has been so little overall progress made in this field despite a plethora of groups working on these problems.

Many well-intended organizations have gone into poor communities to install a water pump only to find it years later inoperable and abandoned. The Gates Foundation has established an exciting technological and scientific challenge with criteria aimed at creating a new toilet that can operate inexpensively (though five cents a day per person may still be too much), without energy inputs or the need for water use.

The Gates Foundation’s vision of a new toilet could become the cornerstone of a revolutionary improvement in water and sanitation. Or it could become just another western contraption that eventually falls into disuse and disrepair, another monument to the failed notion of the simple fix.

 

  • http://improveinternational.wordpress.com/ Susan

    Great point about looking back to evaluate what has worked and what hasn’t so that we don’t create more sanitation graveyards.  

    What jumps out at me about their video about “reinventing the toilet” http://www.gatesfoundation.org/videos/Pages/default.aspx?video=/watersanitationhygiene/Pages/reinventing-the-toilet.aspx is that we could really use some non-water based sanitation solutions here in the US (and other countries that depend on water based sewage). 

  • http://www.water1st.org Marla Smith-Nilson

    That’s an interesting comment, Susan.  I think the best chance that any new kind of toilet has for catching on in the developing world is for it to first catch on in wealthier countries.  I’m wondering how the people in the slums of Dhaka that I know will feel if they are asked to use a waterless toilet, pooping in one hole and peeing in another, while they know that the wealthier residents of the city prefer the flushing with water kind?  In my experience, poor people are not much different than us in their values and preferences. So if we like and value a waterless toilet enough to adopt it in our own lives, then it probably works well and will be liked and valued universally.

  • http://www.water1st.org Marla Smith-Nilson

    Also, I think it’s important to point out that although toilets are a significant water-user in our homes (15-25% of our home water use), our home water use is somewhere around 10-20% of our total water use. Food production and manufacturing are the biggest water users. So when we think about ways to conserve water here in the US, I think we also need to look to what we are eating and buying!

  • Lynn Lennox

    I’m thrilled that the time has come to finally promote a sanitation system without requiring precious water to carry the waste away. Yes, both water and sanitation systems are necessary for health, but do we really need the elaborate and wasteful water pipes for poo? I’d love waterless options promoted here at home! I use a composting toilet at our beach cabin, but this technology could use some attention.

  • http://www.transvaginalmeshlawsuits.com/ Transvaginal mesh information

    The goal of this project is very laudable. I`m not a tech guy and don’t know how viable and doable is a toilet operating for only 5c a day, but it sure sounds good. I`m pretty sure I wont be reluctant changing my toilet with one that wont cost me more then 5c/day.
     I have seen some solutions for waterless toilets, where the waste went into a sealed tray and it was burned on site. However that solution requires lots of energy to dispose the waste.
    I`ll be following Water 1st progress regarding this issue, because i`m curious what they will come up with.

    Best regards,
    Chris.

  • Landor McMullin

    Waterless toilets already exist in the U.S. in the thousands and thousands. From composting toilets and vacuum toilets to incinerating toilets and pumpout toilets to biological flush toilets. Many of them have come to market and fizzled (including several technologies Gates just funded for testing). The situation in developing countries NGOs are trying to address is disease caused by open defecation and untreated excreta going into water and other places where it can cause disease. What this first involves is organizing people and institutions to implement solutions. As any NGO that has successfully implemented a water and sanitation system knows, this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s admirable that Gates is addressing this, even if it is reinventing a wheel that rarely makes it onto a car.