|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quences of inadequate sanitation, accepting that funding had received insufficient attention (World Bank, 1993). A review of 120 water supply and sanitation projects found that, while 104 projects funded water supply, only 58 included a sanitation component. In only a few of the cities with World Bank-financed water supply projects was adequate sewerage or sanitation provided to handle the increased wastewater created by the project. The World Bank policy paper reminds the reader that improved low-cost and more appropriate technologies are available to mitigate the high costs of conventional sewerage and sewage disposal systems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The World Bank's Water and Sanitation Sector Review for the financial year 1993 (World Bank, 1994) argues that adoption of a demand-driven strategy could increase the level of lending for sanitation. Contrary to the findings of the WHO/UNICEF JMP reports, the World Bank claims that 'there is abundant evidence that urban families are willing to pay substantial amounts for the removal of excreta and wastewater from their neighbourhoods' (presumably on aesthetic grounds, even if the health benefits are insufficiently appreciated). It adds, however, that it is essential to create an enabling environment of conditions for the private sector, NGOs and consumers to play their parts in addition to that played by governments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 linked water and sustainable urban development within its concerns for the freshwater environment in chapter 18 of its agenda for the twenty-first century. It urged all states to introduce sanitary waste disposal facilities based on environmentally sound, low-cost and upgradable technologies, with a target of 75 per cent of the urban population to be provided with on-site or community sanitation facilities by the year 2000 (United Nations, 1992). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the subsequent developments to the Rio Summit has been a growth of activities by UNICEF in peri-urban areas compared |
|
|
|
|
|