Greg – it is not too late to spare your blushes. Work with us and let’s fix this case study in how not to amend policy The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy , climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. “It was them, guv’nor!” he says , pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers. The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by “put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash”. Yet he hasn’t only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn’t just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions. There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called “greenest government ever” which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy: • First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn’t Machiavellian politics … it’s Captain Mainwaring. • Secondly, in discussions with industry during the autumn, signal to them that the adjustments would be carefully considered to deal with the identified problem: suggest that the megawatt capacity may be reduced, maybe to as low as 2MW, or even 1 MW; that greenfield sites may be completely ruled out. But stress that you’re going to be careful not to cut the legs off the scheme. • Lastly, cut the legs off the scheme. Shock everyone by going way beyond what you’ve indicated to them in private meetings, destroying their belief in anything you say, and in so doing destroying your credibility with renewables investors and green organisations. And yes minister, the ripples from this fiasco go beyond the solar sector, as the renewables sector and the related investment community are a small and intimately connected bunch. To top it all, then tell everyone how they can trust this government with future reviews of the feed-in-tariffs (as the laughter begins) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (laughter rises); that the Green Investment Bank is safe in their hands (now deafening laughter); and that investors can trust this government to provide a stable platform for renewables investment in the UK (stop there, you’re killing me!). So we now have until May to persuade ministers to start listening to people like Ray Noble of the Renewable Energy Association who have said: “It’s an absolute disaster … no new projects will start after this [the review changes] comes into effect,” adding “this industry has been strangled at birth”. Or Barbara Hammon, chair of West Oxford Community Renewables – the very sort of social enterprise the government says it wants to support – who complains: “This government came in saying they are all about the ‘big society’, but this is big government writ large.” Or Andrew Lee of Sharp Solar, who employs 1,100 in manufacturing in Wrexham, who describes this as: “Terrible news for the renewable energy sector – the steep rise in job creation will stop and morale within the industry will drop as a result of this remarkable U-turn.” Or Friends of the Earth, or the Solar Trade Association, or the Micropower Council … I could go on. The voices are legion, and very angry because of this shameful betrayal. So, minister, a helpful word from the opposition benches. From someone who recently wrote to you offering help in extricating yourself from this mess. Work with us and green groups and the solar sector to get this right by May. Your temporary embarrassment can be eased by swallowing some humble pie, and listening to wise counsel. More importantly, we can rescue the situation and put confidence back in the renewables sector overall, grow our green jobs again, and hit our carbon reduction targets. PS. Minister, by the way, talking about uncertainty: already I’m hearing murmurings of discontent over your decision to delay the domestic tariff on the Renewable Heat Incentive . This looks like a worrying pattern … another coalition day, another coalition delay? • Huw Irranca-Davies is the shadow energy minister Feed-in tariffs Energy Renewable energy Solar power Energy bills Green politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Spring festival programme including six feature films and nine shorts will be available to online subscribers Tribeca, the film festival launched by Robert De Niro in 2001 to support growth and culture in Manhattan following the September 11 terrorist attacks, is to open up its programme to online viewers for the first time. Six feature films and nine short movies from the 2011 festival will be streamed over the internet live to subscribers at the same time as they are shown at the event, which runs from 20 April to 1 May. A further nine short-film “favourites” from past events will be available to view, and organisers are also promising coverage from the event’s star-studded red carpet, its opening press conference and its awards show, all in real-time. A spokesperson said: “In addition, the online festival will host the Tribeca Q&A, which will offer online audiences the opportunity to engage with not only each other, but industry experts including Brian Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, film-makers David Gordon Green and Zach Braff, in addition to Tribeca’s Jane Rosenthal, Geoff Gilmore, and Nancy Schafer; and many more. This interactive experience will bring never-before content directly to a participating public.” “Seats” for online Tribeca screenings can be reserved at tribecaonline.com from 18 April (or 12 April for those with American Express cards). Other content is already available on the site from today. Movies that will be available to view include Donor Unknown, the documentary tale of a woman conceived via artificial insemination who goes in search of her real father, and Flowers of Evil, described as a rootless story of young love between Gecko, an Algerian-French hotel bellman and parkourer, and Anahita, an Iranian student forced to leave her country for her own safety after the controversial elections in 2009. Highlights of the main festival programme include a directorial debut from Vera Farmiga , which was greeted warmly at its premiere in Sundance, documentaries on the lives of Elton John and Ozzy Osbourne, and a comic western which counts as the highest-grossing Chinese movie of all time. Festivals Robert De Niro Internet New York Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media John Bolton’s little game of “If I were the President” is a dangerous one, especially since he’s signaling that he might just have a gander at the 2012 GOP nomination for President. He took time out of his busy bloviating schedule to visit with Bill Hemmer and talk about how he would have handled things. He thinks the US should have moved on Libya a month ago, unilaterally. If we had, according to Bolton, we’d be done and out of there. Oh really? This is the same John Bolton who said this in 2003 : JOHN BOLTON: I think we already see evidence, substantial evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs and I think we’re going to see more. I think the question of imminent threat is a matter when you have a regime like Saddam Hussein’s that has a proven record of using chemical weapons against Iran, against its own people, that’s plenty imminent enough for me. That’s why our policy in the United States on a bipartisan basis for several years had been we have to change the regime in Baghdad because the possession of weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs was integral to the regime itself and, as long as that regime stayed in power, the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction was more imminent than I would be willing to risk. March 20, 2011 was the eighth anniversary of the Iraq war. We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, of course. Iraq was unilateral. If that’s Bolton’s idea of being “done and out of there”, I think we know how the Libya course of action would have turned out. Not content to only meddle in Iraq, Bolton also powered and ginned up the arguments that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, despite reports to the contrary. He saber-rattled at will with regard to Iran , and would have gladly sent US troops in there too if he could have without bringing Congress and the rest of the world down on his head. Of course, none of this matters to Fox News. The only thing that matters to them is that John Bolton is a snarky guy with a resume who can warmonger while calling the President weak. Oh, by the way, that’s the Fox News theme o’ the week. Hillary Clinton is strong because she wanted the US in Libya, the President is weak because he held back until a full international coalition had formed. All guests on all shows are required to make reference to, or otherwise tout this theme, whether directly or via snide remarks.
Continue reading …
Christopher Grady drove car into freezing river Avon, killing five-year-old daughter Gabrielle A father who murdered his five-year-old daughter and attempted to kill his six-year-old son by driving them into a freezing river has been jailed for life. Christopher Grady, 43, plunged his car into the river Avon at Evesham, Worcestershire, on 11 February last year. Gabrielle Grady spent two hours trapped in the submerged vehicle and was pronounced dead three days later. Grady and his son Ryan survived after police and firefighters pulled them from the water. Grady was convicted last Friday after a three-week trial at Birmingham crown court. Today Mr Justice Lindblom handed Grady a life sentence for the murder of Gabrielle and told him he would serve a minimum term of 15 years. He was sentenced to 10 years for the attempted murder of Ryan, to run concurrently. The judge said: “What you did on 11 February 2010 would horrify anyone who is, or has been, the parent of a young child. It would horrify any right-thinking person. You took the life of your daughter, Gabby, who was five years old. You tried to take the life of your son, Ryan, who was six. Those crimes were born of anger and self-pity.” The judge added that Grady had put his “defenceless” children, who were screaming and crying, “in terror” and had betrayed their trust in him. He said: “In all of this, Ryan and Gabby were innocent. They were your children. They loved you. They looked to you for protection and support.” During the trial, jurors heard that Grady had warned the children’s mother, Kim Smith, she had 10 seconds to say goodbye to them before he drove into the water at Hampton Ferry. Smith, 37, said he arrived at her house in Evesham at around 9.15am, telling her to say goodbye, before driving away shouting the word “river”. She said his face was “contorted” and “vile” with anger. The jury of seven women and five men took five hours to find Grady guilty of both counts. He had denied the charges, telling the court the incident had been “an accident”. After Grady was led away from the court, the judge offered his condolences to Smith. He said: “I turn to the family, and in particular Miss Smith and Ryan (who was not in court). I offer them my own sympathy in their loss, and I hope that the pain of that loss may now be easier to bear.” Crime Children Child protection Social care guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Programming Barrie, Coward or Du Maurier is understandable when times are tough. But if regional theatre wants to safeguard its future, it must look beyond plays of the past A couple of years back, in a passionate post on this blog about regional theatre, the Royal and Derngate’s artistic director Laurie Sansom observed that “Regional artistic directors used to behave as if they were on Countdown: ‘I’ll have a Coward, please, a Shakespeare, a new play in the studio, and another Coward, please, Carol.’ These days, I can only imagine producing Noël Coward if an artist has a personal connection to the material and a burning desire to give it fresh theatrical life.” Two years is a long time in theatre. Since Sansom’s post on the vibrancy of programming in regional theatres, we’ve had an election, the formation of a coalition government that has no understanding of the crucial role theatre can play in its community both economically and socially, and the prospect of funding cuts. But it is clear that, long before the axes have fallen, many theatre programmes have taken on the look of a nervy Countdown selection. Perhaps it’s hardly surprising: just as hemlines go down in a recession, maybe artistic directors are inclined to look backwards rather than forwards. Perhaps even more importantly, it is a reminder how much confidence and psychology plays a part in creating the conditions necessary for a theatre to take risks, then reap the rewards. Back in 2001, the fact that there was money on the way (in the form of the £25 million that was injected into theatre after the Boyden report ) created a sea-change in British regional theatre that was apparent long before theatres saw a penny of the cash. In the circumstances, then, perhaps it is no surprise that the seasons currently gracing our stages – in many cases programmed more than a year ago – reflect a certain nervousness about audience attendance, and suggest a headlong retreat into pre-Look Back in Anger drama. That impression may be somewhat skewed by the Rattigan centenary, not that I begrudge him his moment in the sun: Thea Sharrock’s timely (and award-winning) After the Dance at the National made as good a case for Rattigan’s rehabilitation as the Almeida’s revival of The Deep Blue Sea in 1993. But, even if you take Rattigan out of the equation, we’re still seeing a rash of Cowards and Priestleys , even the odd Du Maurier and W Somerset Maugham. Or how about Barrie’s The Admirable Crichton? Restoration comedy seems to be making a come-back too. I can’t recall so much interest in The Rivals since the 1980s. Of course there’s wrong with directors rummaging around in the theatrical attic and finding plays that glimmer in the dark. There are also horses for courses: Salisbury Playhouse, which recently saw a fine revival of The Constant Wife , may actually be the only theatre in the country where you could still do Somerset Maugham, and there is no one more qualified to do it well than Philip Wilson – who knows how to mine beneath a brittle surface and who, incidentally, has previously has proved himself a superb director of Coward . Sansom was right two years ago and he is still right now, in suggesting that it is a burning desire to give a play new theatrical life that makes it worth doing. The results can be transforming, as we saw in the 1990s with Stephen Daldry with An Inspector Calls, or have seen recently at the Finborough with a rare revival of Emlyn Williams’s Accolade . And David Grindley’s touring revival of Journey’s End demonstrates that even an old war horse can have real vigour and relevance. So I certainly don’t want to write off the plays of the past, but do want to point out that if regional theatre wants to safeguard its future it can’t play things too safe. It’s risk-taking that keeps theatre alive. Theatre Noel Coward Lyn Gardner guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Havana says Yoani Sánchez’s Generaton Y blog demonises government and is the tool of neocolonial propaganda The dissident Cuban blogger who was hailed last year as a hero of press freedom has again been attacked by the island’s government for waging a “cyberwar” against the communist regime. Yoani Sánchez — whose Generacion Y blog has won numerous prizes and attracted an international readership for its blunt reflections on Cuban life — was the subject of a TV programme on Monday. The programme, the latest in a series called Cuba’s Reasons, claimed Sánchez was part of a “media campaign” intent on “demonising” socialism. It included grainy videos in which the blogger enters European embassies and the US interests section in Havana, and said she has collected $500,00 [£306,000] in international prizes for her work. “Cyberwar is not a war of bombs and bullets, but of information, communication, algorithms and bytes. It is the new form of invasion that has originated in the developed world,” said the narrator. The Cuba’s Reasons series has tried to show that the US is using new technologies to try to subvert the Havana government. It has coincided with the trial and conviction of the US aid contractor Alan Gross, who has been jailed since December 2009 for allegedly trying to bring the internet to government opponents. Earlier this month, Gross was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a panel of judges in a case that has strained US-Cuba relations. Sánchez herself has shrugged off the latest attack, taking to Twitter to announce: “I am so happy. Finally the alternative blogosphere on official television, although it’s to insult us.” She added: “They don’t know what they’ve done! Pandora’s Box has been smashed open!” Sánchez also thanked all those who had texted her. “I can’t keep tweeting all the texts of support,” she wrote. “There are too many of them and I have only 10 fingers!” It is not the first time that Sánchez has drawn the ire of the ruling regime. In November 2009, the blogger said she had been beaten up by a group of thugs hired to silence her as she travelled to a peaceful protest. And three years ago — shortly after Cuba denied her permission to travel to Spain to collect the prestigious Ortega y Gasset journalism award for her blog — Fidel Castro himself appeared to express his disapproval. In a book about his relationship with Bolivia, Castro alluded to the fact that Sánchez had told an international news agency that she had been barred from travelling to Europe. “What is grave isn’t so much affirmations of this type that are divulged immediately by imperialism’s mass media,” the former president wrote, but that there are young Cubans who “assume the job of those who undermine, and of the neocolonial press of the ancient Spanish metropolis that awards them”. In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País in April 2008 , Sánchez explained why she blogged: “The official discourse in Cuba is stagnant and that’s why blogs offer a fresh perspective. They’re like drops of water: each one of them, as it hits the wall, can end up doing a lot of damage — knocking it down. It’s the young people who control technology and they often feel moved to express their opinions.” Cuba Sam Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
I’m interviewing Hammond on Thursday. What would you like me to ask him? Everyone’s got a gripe about transport. Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, is the man in charge of dealing with them. I’ve got an interview with him on Thursday and I’d like to know what you want me to ask. At the moment the biggest project on his plate is high-speed rail, which, depending on your view, is either a far-sighted investment that will transform Britain’s economy or a wasteful, multibillion vanity project. There’s a speech from Hammond setting out the case for high-speed rail here, the consultation document is here (pdf), and the Department for Transport’s high-speed rail site is here. For a summary of the case against, this polemic from Andrew Gilligan is a good starting point. But I don’t want to focus exclusively on HS2 (high speed two – HS1 is the line from London to the Channel Tunnel). On Monday this week Hammond announced a series of measures relating to drink-driving, including his decision not to lower the drink-drive limit. Other recent announcements have been on subjects like repairing winter potholes, changing the rail franchise system, modernising rail carriages and promoting electric cars . I’d be interested to hear suggested questions on these topics, or anything else in the transport portfolio. I might also try some questions about the general political situation. Hammond was shadow chief secretary to the Treasury before the election and we’ll be speaking on the day after the budget. His thoughts on the coalition may be worth hearing too. A fairly conventional Conservative (here’s his Wikipedia entry), Hammond is now teamed up with the leftish, free-thinking Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who is based in the department as a junior minister. I’m curious about how they’re getting on. Transport policy Transport Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
SNP minister Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland will avoid private sector involvement in its health service if it regains power The former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson once observed that the NHS was the closest thing the British had to a “national religion”. If that’s true, then for the past four years its high priestess in Scotland has been Scottish National party MSP Nicola Sturgeon. And with elections to the Scottish Parliament just weeks away, she now has her eyes on a second term in office. “I think it would be a very complacent politician who says yes, I’ve achieved everything I wanted to,” she told Guardian Healthcare. “I’ll always look back and think there’s more I could have done. But there has been a reduction in waiting times for cancer patients, and a massive reduction of 17% in hospital infections.” Indeed, such is Sturgeon’s record as health secretary, even her political opponents are privately full of qualified praise. “Safe pair of hands”, says one, “a politicians’ politician” another. Sturgeon’s stature has also risen after four years at the helm of the Scottish health service, no mean feat given the tricky nature of her brief. So does she think the SNP – rather than Labour – can now claim to be the party of the NHS? “I don’t think any political party should claim the NHS as its own, but yes, I think we have significantly increased our credibility – I don’t think anybody could reasonably say we can’t be trusted with the NHS after the past four years.” The SNP is acutely aware of the political potency of healthcare. Alex Salmond, the party’s leader and first minister, has already pledged to protect the NHS from cuts if he wins a second term. But while the ring fencing of health spending in England makes it possible to protect funding in Scotland for the foreseeable future, Sturgeon’s approach to healthcare delivery is orthodox compared with the modernising approach of Andrew Lansley south of the border. There, says Sturgeon, “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that it will end the NHS in England as we know it”. “It’s interesting that they’re majoring on GP commissioning,” she adds, “and although I wouldn’t favour that model, that’s not actually the most objectionable part of what they’re trying to do. Rather it’s the ‘any willing provider’ part – that will open up the health service to private companies cherry-picking the most profitable bits, while the NHS is left with the less profitable stuff.” Sturgeon’s hostility to private involvement in the NHS is well known, and she has no ideological hang ups in admitting as much. Critics say it proves she’s not a creative thinker, with no desire for radical reform. Instead Sturgeon prefers more cautious change, pursuing efficiency savings and consolidation of existing services, while she expects the Christie Commission, a review of the Scottish public sector due to report after the election, to result in more structural reform. “Now I’m not a big fan of structural reform,” says Sturgeon, “not least because it doesn’t save that much money and distracts you from more important considerations. But I think in the next Parliament we will want to drive forward integration of health and social care. We also want to see special health boards working more closely together, with back-room services increasingly being shared and moves towards central procurement – these are the directions we’re already going in.” Another direction the SNP has committed to going in is a 25% reduction in senior NHS managers in the next parliamentary term. Sturgeon’s keynote speech to her party’s pre-election conference also included an ambitious initiative to improve the early detection of cancer, backed by £30m from the extra £1bn already committed to the health budget over the next four years. “We’ve got a really good record on cancer,” explains Sturgeon, “but we’ve not made the impact on cancer survival I’d have liked. We’re behind the rest of Europe because too many people in Scotland – by the time they actually see a doctor – are already too far advanced.” But if there’s any unfinished business from the SNP’s first term in government, it’s minimum pricing for alcohol. This clearly still rankles with Sturgeon, who calls Labour’s decision to vote against the provision “shameful”. But will it stand any more chancing of winning parliamentary support after the election? “Yes, I think it will,” says Sturgeon. “Labour being belligerent in year three/four of a Parliament when there’s an election coming up is very different from the early years of a new Parliament in which the SNP have a renewed mandate. We will fight for this.” So how does Sturgeon think her congregation perceives its high priestess? “In the community of health professionals some will support the SNP, some won’t; some will think I’m doing a good job, and some won’t,” she says diplomatically. “I hope, generally speaking, the SNP is seen to be doing a good job for the NHS. I think – I hope – that for the past four years the SNP and the health service have been pretty much on the same wavelength.” This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Guardian Healthcare Network to receive regular emails on NHS innovation. Scotland Strategy England Suppliers GP commissioning Efficiency Health and social care Finance Policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Inspectors criticise EDF Energy for electricity failures and ‘unplanned shutdowns’ at its reactors in East Lothian last year EDF Energy, the company that runs Britain’s nuclear power stations, has been reprimanded by government inspectors after a series of safety blunders at reactors in Scotland. Two reactors at Torness in East Lothian have suffered failures in electricity supplies, several “unplanned shutdowns”, and a seaweed blockage. It was the loss of power caused by the earthquake and tsunami that triggered the still unfolding nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan . The revelations have reignited concerns about the safety of Britain’s nuclear stations. French-owned EDF Energy admitted that it had not followed the correct procedures, but insisted that there had been no danger to the public. A report posted online by the UK government’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) discloses that there were two significant safety “events” at Torness in the last three months of 2010. “Correct operational procedures appear not have been observed,” says the report. In one incident, an equipment malfunction cut off the electricity supplied to a gas circulator. Gas circulators are critical components because they ensure that air is kept moving to cool reactor fuel and prevent it from overheating. The second incident also involved problems with electricity supply, though this time to a radioactive fuel dismantling facility at Torness. According to EDF Energy, the two events, which both occurred last September, were “entirely unconnected”. The NII report says: “The events included contributions from operators not complying in full with the instructions provided to ensure safe limits and conditions are observed during plant operations.” Nuclear inspectors have written to EDF Energy requiring more information about the incidents, and have received a response. The NII is satisfied there is “no immediate safety issue” but has left open the possibility of taking enforcement action in the future. The report, which covers the final three months of 2010, also reveals that one Torness reactor had “several unplanned shutdowns, requiring action to correct adverse conditions which affected operation of the reactor”. This happened after the reactor had restarted after a planned maintenance shutdown. In addition, the second reactor at Torness had to be manually shut down because the screens that take in seawater for cooling were blocked by a large mass of seaweed. Inspectors identified “a number of areas where further enhancement may be possible” in the safety arrangements for dealing with seaweed. “These are all events that should ring very loud alarm bells,” said Pete Roche, an Edinburgh-based nuclear consultant and editor of the no2nuclearpower.org.uk website . “As we’ve seen with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima, a combination of unexpected events all happening at once can quickly lead to a serious accident because of the highly dangerous nature of the fuel used to power these reactors.” The Scottish Nationalist MSP, Shirley-Anne Somerville , said: “EDF Energy must confirm that these issues have been resolved and that they have every measure in place to make sure there are no further problems at the plant.” She added: “The SNP’s opposition to nuclear power has been long held and while there are nuclear power stations operating in Scotland we must take every possible step to ensure their safety.” EDF Energy, which owns British Energy, operates eight nuclear power stations across Britain. It is also the lead company bidding to build a new programme of nuclear power stations in England . The director of Torness, Paul Winkle, argued that the company had a good safety record and welcomed input by the NII. The problems with electricity supplies to the gas circulators occurred because “one piece of a group of equipment failed”, he said. “While power to one gas circulator was removed, others operated as normal, as they are designed to do, and there was, therefore, no possibility of losing cooling.” The issue with power supplies to the radioactive fuel dismantling facility was reported to the NII because “we hadn’t followed procedure exactly as we should”, he added. According to Winkle, the seaweed blockage had been predicted by “sophisticated monitoring systems”. None of the incidents had caused any danger to staff, plant or the public, he insisted. Nuclear power Energy EDF Energy Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
One billion people lack basic water supplies and 2.6 billion lack access to sanitation. But we must invest wisely and locally Tuesday is World Water Day, an occasion to celebrate water and its crucial contribution to human life in all its forms. To mark the occasion, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released a report that gathers available evidence on the benefits of investing in water and sanitation services. The emphasis of the report is on presenting the facts and figures in a way that can grab the attention of policy-makers and investors. So let’s start with the facts: almost 1 billion people lack access to safe water supplies, and 2.6 billion are without access to basic sanitation. Approximately 10% of the global burden of disease worldwide could be prevented with improvements to water, sanitation and hygiene and better water resource management. Wastewater often reaches the environment untreated or insufficiently treated, resulting in major impacts on surface waters and associated ecosystems as well as economic activity that uses these resources. Providing access to clean drinking water and sanitation can reduce health risks and can free up time for education and other productive activities, as well as increasing the productivity of the labour force. In times of budget austerity, sanitation and hygiene promotion can be an extremely efficient allocation of public resources. An earlier study, produced by the Disease Control Priorities Project , a World Bank-funded NGO examining health priorities in the developing countries, found that hygiene and sanitation promotion cost respectively $3 and $11 per DALY averted (disability adjusted life year – a measure of overall disease burden ), compared to $922 per DALY for the provision of antiretroviral therapy against Aids for example). The cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits of investing in sanitation are now being investigated in further detail by SHARE , a DFID -funded research consortium with a £10m budget over five years, which aims to accelerate progress on sanitation and hygiene in developing countries by generating research, and ensuring new and existing solutions are adopted at scale. Depending on when and how such investments are carried out, some “disbenefits” may emerge along the way, however. Lessons can be learned from history there. The Great Stink of London in 1858, which prompted MPs to support the construction of what became the first major sewerage system in the western world, was partly the result of the introduction of the advanced pour-flush toilet, seen at the time as more modern and technologically advanced. This resulted in a massive influx of water, causing cesspits to overflow into the Thames and its affluents. Investment must be holistic and intelligent. Today’s developing world is laden with examples of projects that created more harm than good when not combined with sanitation investments and hygiene education, as more water going through taps and toilets can cause more dirty water pools on the streets, attracting flies and spreading diseases. Despite the fact that investing in water and sanitation generates clear benefits (with benefit-to-cost ratios as high as 7-to-1 for basic services in developing countries), the sector remains woefully underfunded. Sanitation, in particular, is the poor parent and one of the most off-track UN millennium development goals. Governments are commonly unaware of the costs of inaction. The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe and sustainable access to water and sanitation services, estimated that Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam lose an aggregated $9bn a year due to poor sanitation, equivalent to 2% of their combined GDP. This is comparable to the impact from climate change in the region estimated by the Stern Review – however, economic losses from sanitation are acutely felt in the present, as opposed to far away in the future. In Indonesia, WSP found that the results of this study contributed to raising awareness and facilitated a major realignment of government priorities onto improving sanitation as a way to underpin economic growth. So, does the water and sanitation sector need its own Stern review, to highlight the urgency and the magnitude of the needs at global level? The OECD report shows that this would be extremely challenging and of comparatively more limited use than for climate change. The magnitude of the benefits from water and sanitation can vary significantly depending on local factors, such as the prevalence of diarrheal diseases, population density or the quality of receiving waters. The full magnitude of the benefits often cannot be measured, as they would include non-economic benefits that are difficult to quantify , such as improvements in dignity, social status, cleanliness and overall well-being. Most importantly, remedial actions are to be taken at the local level. A global, coordinated policy response (assuming it were feasible) would be of less use for water and sanitation than for climate change. Instead, the report calls for developing a coherent methodology to estimate the impact of inadequate water and sanitation and conveying these critical messages to local decision-makers. Reliable benefit information could be used to encourage users to invest in their own services (particularly when demand is weak, as for sanitation), to support critical public investment decisions, to optimise investment strategies and to allocate costs to those who are most willing to bear them. • Sophie Trémolet is an independent consultant in the water and sanitation sector, who blogs on her company’s website here . She was the lead author of the OECD report on benefits of investing in water and sanitation and is a core member of the SHARE research consortium, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Water Millennium development goals Sanitation Hygiene guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …