Institutional Sanitation: problems and prospect

BY

ZAKARIYA’U ALIYU; M.Sc. fseh

Being a Paper Presented on the Occasion of 2012 World Environment Day Celebration at the International Conference Center,

Federal UNIVERSITY of technology, Owerri

31^st July, 2012

BACKGROUND

The rise of the city brought mankind’s first awareness of sanitation. The Romans built splendid public baths and toilets linked to fairly sophisticated water and waste delivery system. The ruins of the pre-Roman phonecian city of kerkouane in today’s Tunisia boast a bathtub in every home. Thereafter, the level of attention to urban sanitation then went into decline.

In the nearly two millennia between the remarkable water and sewage systems of the ancient world and the work of germ theorists and sanitary engineers in modern in times, there were few advances in urban sanitation. By the mid 19^th century large areas of the great cities of the west that currently fly the flag of modern civilization and advancement had become filthy, smelly slums. Until London got its first modern sewer in 1853, inhabitants’ would simply dump their chamber pots in the streets. For obvious reasons, the idea of using water to bear away filth caught on quickly. Over the years, wooden troughs were replaced with terra-cotta piping which in turn gave way to large, more efficient brick and concrete sewers.

Pre-independence Nigeria, especially during the early colonial period the urban centers were countable by the fingers (Lagos, Kano, Ibadan, Sokoto, Benin, Zaria, etc.), mostly relic capitals of the ancient caliphates and empires of old. Even then the traditional pit toilets and dumping of refuse at nearby paths were common sanitation practices these methods were not different but rather most prominent in the rural settings of the time. Worst still defecation in open spaces and streams.

Independence, eliticism and boost in commerce and agriculture and later oil economy gave rise to wealth and proliferation of urban settlements and services in Nigeria and later the specific need for institutional sanitation due to increasing number of institutions. Institutional sanitation became more expedient given the peculiarities of most institutions and the need for efficiency and effectiveness insanitation services and diseases prevention. Institutional Sanitation has today assumed an indispensable aspect of our national sanitation system in Nigeria.

MEANING OF SANITATION: 

Traditionally Sanitation refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces. It is also explained as the hygiene means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with hazard of wastes (physical, microbiological and chemical). It involves the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and waste disposal. 

However, the modern application of sanitation includes such other preventive interventions food, drinking water, building construction etc (thus, food sanitation, water sanitation, building sanitation etc).

INSTITUTIONAL SANITATION:

An institution is a complete property and its building, facilities, and services, having a social, education, or religious purpose. This  include schools, colleges or universities, hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, jails and prison, reformations, and various types of welfare, mental and detention homes or facilities most institutions are communities unto themselves. They have certain characteristics in common that require careful planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance. In considering institutional sanitation certain important factors need to given prominence:

1.  Site Selection

-      Sub soil investigation (valley, wetland, land fill)

-       Location (proximity to sources of noise, air pollution e.t.c)

2.  Water supply

-      Safe and potable water

-      Water for fire protection

-      Water for other uses e.g. sanitation, gardening

3.  Sewage disposal

-      Sewers/waste water disposal

-      Excrete Disposal system

-      Drainages/storm water disposal system

4.  Solid waste disposal system

5.  Food preparation and service facilities etc.

For the purpose of the presentation we are going to consider the sanitation needs of university only.

UNIVERSITIES:

The national policy guidelines on school sanitation of 2005 do not have universities and other tertiary institutions in focus. However, the essential element of school hygiene and sanitation is captured. For university sanitation programme the requirements and approach is more complex since it may incorporate a full spectrum of facilities and services not unlike a community. In addition to basic facilities such as water supply, swage and other waste water disposal, plumbing, solid waste management, and air quality, are control of food preparation and services, housing, clinic or dispensary, swimming pool, radiation installations and radioisotopes, insect and rodent infestation, and safety and occupational health in structures, laboratories and works areas including fire safety, electrical hazards, noise, and hazardous materials. in view of their complexity and their affect on life and health, universities and by extension other tertiary institutions should have a professionally trained environmental health and safety officer and staff responsible for the enforcement of standards and routine monitoring and inspections of the areas of concern. In the context of Nigeria universities, an ideal inspection checklist form shall take cognizance of the following areas of critical sanitation concern:

1.  Water supply

a.   Quality meets local drinking water standards

b.  Supply adequate for population (8 gallons per capital per day)

c.   Water system (pipe borne, boreholes e.t.c) potable and approved

d.  Adequate protection for drinking water

e.   Clean/ storage and distribution system

f.    Routine quality monitoring

2.  Sewage and Toilet facilities

a.   Adequate number of toilets (1.33ration)

b.  Wash hand basins

c.   Bathroom/shower adequate

d.  Treatment meet stream standard

e.   Qualified plumber

f.     Clean, convenient, free from odors, ventilated and well drained facilities.

3.  Solid waters

a.   Garbage storages and collection

b.  Refuge, collection (sorting)

c.   Disposal method satisfactory

4.  Swimming pool and bathing beach

a.   Life-Saving equipment and life guards

b.  Adequate clarity

c.   Adequate treatment

5.  Dietary

a.   Food source approved

b.  Dry storage clean

c.   Food preparation, handling, cooking proper

d.  Food service temperature and protection satisfactory

e.   Utensil and equipment condition clean and satisfactory

f.    Hand washing facilities adequate and convenient

6.  Structure and grounds

a.   Locations suitable

b.  Buildings and grounds well drained

c.   Accessible by emergency vehicles

d.   Service entrance convenient

e.   Elevators serve all floors

7.  Housing and safety

a.   Rooms clean, lighted and ventilated

b.   Fire escape from rooms

c.   Adequate space for occupancy

d.  Insect and rodent control effective

e.   Cleans bedding

f.    Fire protection adequate

g.   Radiation safety measure where applicable

8.  Aesthetics and general safety

a.   Clean lawns and structures

b.  Weed control and flower beds

c.   Lighting of corridors and ventilation

d.   Control of any danger item or situation.

PROBLEMS

In discussing the problems of institutional sanitation, it is safer that some critical aspects that govern the efficacy of sanitation are appraised, especially in the context of institutional policies, funding and the attitude of the university community.

University policies:

Some universities may not have efficient policy guidelines of facilities actions for effective institutional sanitation. How is sanitation to be managed? What facilities are to be made available? What scheme should be entrenched etc are issues that border on policy. The university ought to have clear cut policy and guidelines on very component of the university sanitation program. For the purpose of clarity, the following components are most important:

Excreta Disposal: The practice of open-air defection is ritualized and bound in some traditions. However, the university community is unique considering the diverse culture and traditions that make it up. It is therefore important to have a guideline on excreta disposal. The guideline will spell out the viable methods, the management/maintenance of the facilities and most cost effective disposal options.

Food Sanitation: The important of food hygiene cannot be over emphasized. Many diseases can be spread through poor food hygiene practices. Most catering services in our universities have been contracted for management by the private sector. Often times there is no certainty of the source of the food, method of handling, preparation and even the utensils used in preparation and service of food. A guideline on university food sanitation program is very important. The caterers need to be guided on the standards of personal hygiene, cleaning of utensils, and quality of water for cooking and washing and periodic medical examination of  food handlers. Clandestine sources of food to the university must be checked and avoided.

Cleaning Services and refuse collection:

Most universities as a matter of policy contract cleaning services to companies. However, most companies are not properly guide with required standards of operation. Example, the need sorting at the collection point the use of standard refuses receptacles and standard equipment for operation etc. All these border on sound policy and guidelines for operation.

Attitude:

All too often latrines built can be broom cupboards or goat sheds most probably due to non-use poor maintenance culture. Latrine users for example, that liter the surrounding or refuse to flush that water carriage (W. C) facility make it difficult for other to use. The chronic scarcity of water supply in most institutions make it difficult for availability of water for sanitation services such as flush water for water carriage (W.C) systems. That should information the authorities on the need for most viable alternatives to affect sanitation.

Education and awareness are very important strategies to making institution sanitation effective. Members of the university community across stake must be made aware of their role in sanitation, the vision and mission of the university sanitation program and the actions expected of each one of them. This very critical to positive attitude to sanitation. Groups societies in the institutions.

Funding:

Funding is very critical to effective sanitation program in institutions. For every policy and program of sanitation in the institutions must as a matter of priority be adequately funded to achieve the desire result. Perhaps, a budget line to sustain sanitations is most desirable. Where funding is too limited, assistance can be sort from donors or partners especially in the provision of infrastructure.

PROSPECTS

With the advent of a regulatory institution for environment health practice in Nigeria (EHORECON), matters of sanitation including institutional sanitation have hope of being streamlined and made more effective.

So far, cleaning services in most universities is being contracted and the council has a regulatory framework and enforcement mechanism in place for cleaning services providers in Nigeria.

Professional sanitations across the country are also increasingly being motivated take on private practice in areas of sanitation which include institutional sanitation for better and more effective sanitation regimes in the country. The future looks brighter for institutional sanitation than ever.

               

     

Basics of Community-Led Total Sanitation

¹ Sanitarian A.N. Amadi Ph.D, Fseh, Frsph(Uk) and² Olabisi Agberemi

1.  Head, Public Health Technology & Wash Consultant

Federal University of Technology, Owerri

Email: amadian2003@yahoo.com

2.  WASH Specialist, UNICEF Abuja

RESUME

ASSAINISSEMENT TOTAL PORTE PAR LACOMMUNAUTE          

L’assainissement total porte par lacommunaute est une method innovatrice qui mobilize des communauties a eliminer completement la defecation en plein air. Petra Banqautz et Robert Chambers I’ ont defini comme etent “une nouvelle approche pour la promotion de l’assainissement qui encourage une analyse personelle communautaire des methodes de et des dangers poses par la defecation en plein air”.

toutetois, cette methode fait face a des defis dont quelques-uns incluent: un suivi inadequat par les unites d’hygiene et d’assainissement d’eau du gouvernement local l’existence d’un grand ecert entre les communautes integrees et celles accomplissant la reduction ou l’eradication de la defecation en plein air.

par consequent, il faut qu’il y ait une formation continue de facilitatuers au niveau du gouvernement local et que les communautes forment des comites de suivi et d’evaluation des programmes de l’assainissement total pote par le communaute.

PREAMBLE

Since the down of civilization, man has been involved in various activities within his environment. Those activities have the propensity of generating waste which is susceptible to making the environment inhabitable, i.e., filthy and unhealthy (Kamal and Roberts, 2004).

This view of waste generation is not only limited to man’s activities. As a matter of fact, it is also extended to man himself. It is hardly credible for man to think of himself as an author of nuisance. However, what he produces, after consuming foods of different sorts, is waste, which is also capable of making the environment inhabitable.

It follows, then, that, whenever humans gather their waste, whether as a result their activities or as by-products of what they consume, also accumulates. This accumulation poses a serious health hazard to man, especially, within his habitat, so it has to be kept in check and, if possible, eradicated for the environment to be neat and healthy. 

Generally, excreta management/sanitation can be divided into on-site and off-site technologies. On-site systems (e.g. latrines) store and/or treat excreta at the point of generation. In off-site systems (e.g. sewerage) excreta are transported to another location for treatment, disposal or use. Some on-site systems, particularly in densely populated areas or with permanent structures, will have off-site treatment components, as well.

On-site disposal: In many places, particular in areas with low population densities, it is common to store and treat waste where they are produced – on-site. There are a number of technical options for on-site waste management which, if designed, constructed, operated and maintained correctly, will provide adequate service and health benefits when combined with good hygiene. On-site systems include ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, double vault composting latrines, pour-flush toilets, and septic tanks. Dry sanitation or ecological-sanitation (Eco-San) is an on-site disposal method that requires the separation of urine and faeces. Building and operating these systems is often much less expensive than off-site alternatives. Some on-site systems (e.g., septic tanks or latrines in densely packed urban areas) require sludge to be pumped out and treated off-site. Composting latrines allow waste to be used as a fertilizer after it has been stored under suitable conditions to kill worm eggs and other pathogens.

Off-site disposal: In more densely packed areas, sewerage systems are frequently used to transport waste off-site where it can be treated and disposed of. Conventional centralized sewerage systems require an elaborate infrastructure and large amount of water carry the water away. This type of approach may work well in some circumstances, but is impractical for many other locations- -e.g., Nigeria.

To ensure a neat and healthy environment, consequently, individuals and communities have to embrace the habit of proper disposal of solid and liquid waste through various means and methods. One of such means and methods is Community – Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) (Bwure, 2010).

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is one of the latest innovations of encouraging individuals and communities to adapt in order to keep free from any activities injurious to good health, especial for instance, human defecation. This method is based upon the premise that subsidies can slow and inhibit the spread of sanitation.

CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY – LED TOTAL SANITATION

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is an innovative methodology for mobilizing communities with a view to eradicating Open Defecation (OD). Also, it can be said to be a new approach to sanitation promotion which encourages community self-analysis of existing defecation patterns and threats, and promotes local solutions to reduce and ultimately eliminate the practice of Open Defecation’ (Petra Banqaitz and Robert Chambers, 2009). This definition entails that (CLTS) processes can precede and lead on to, or occur simultaneously with,

-      Improvement of latrine designs

-      adoption and improvement of hygienic practices

-      Solid waste management

-      Waste water disposal

-      Care

-      Protection and maintenance of drinking water sources, and

-      Other environmental health and sanitation strategies.

In many cases, CLTS initiates a series of new collective local development actions by OD communities. (Kamal Kar 2004 & moore Community-Led Total Sanitation is total and involves or affects everyone in the communities. Collective decision-taking and collective local actions are the keys of CLTS, which enhance social solidarity and cooperation in abundance. At the heart of CLTS lies the recognition that merely providing toilets does not guarantee their use, nor result in improved sanitation and hygiene. Rather, people decide together how they will create a clean and hygienic environment that benefits everyone.

PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF CLTS

With a view to achieve total sanitation, that is, Open Defecation free communities led by a sustainable use of safe, affordable and user-friendly solutions and/or technologies,

1.  Total sanitation must include provision of sanitation facilities such as dustbins latrines, urines, adequate bathrooms, hand washing equipment, water, soap, etc. in schools, health centers, markets, dormitories and other public places.

2.  In CLTS, communities must be in charge of the change process and use their capacity to attain their envisioned objectives. Community members themselves must be allowed to play a control role in planning, with special attention to the need of women, children and other vulnerable groups;

3.  Subsidies (in the form of funds, hard wares, etc) are not to be given straight to households. Community rewards and incentives should be acceptable only where they encourage collective action, total sanitation, and are used to attain sustainable use of sanitation facilities (as opposed to the construction of infrastructures without educating people on how to use and maintain them)’

4.  For sustainable CLTS, local communities must be empowered towards more participatory activities;

5.  The visibility of community activities must be strengthened;

6.  Local and international linkages with donor agencies and other stakeholders on sanitation should be strengthened;

7.  There must be improvement upon initiation of community – driven health and sanitation activities such as the one organized by Center for Women, Gender and Development Studies (CWGDS).

8.  There must be capacity building in rural and urban areas through training;

9.  Local and international policies should be made available to communities so that these may contribute to policy debates;

10.              There should be routine tests of self-mobilization of communities;

11.              CLTS must contribute to research in order to enhance community knowledge on the operations of land use Decrees and Acts, etc. (Kamal 2004, Moore & Mckee 2012).

STRATEGIES OF CLTS

In order to attain its objectives, CLTS employs several strategies, which include the following:

1.  Given priority to sanitation and hygiene.

2.  Mobilizing political will.

3.  Requiring good approaches to sanitation and hygiene development.

4.  Building on existing practices.

5.  Paying attentions to gender,

6.  Harmonizing institutional frameworks for service delivery.

7.  Enforcing existing sanitation laws.

8.  Involving NGOs, community-base organizations (CNOs) and private sectors.

9.   Sourcing for more funds, specially for sanitation and hygiene     

ATTRIBUTES OF CLTS

CLTS possesses attributes that depict its actions. it is….

1.  focused: It focuses on stopping open defecation;

2.  Encompassing: It employs and relies on the collective action of the members of a community to stop defecation within the community;

3.  Insightful: It recognize that sanitation is both a public and a private good, and that individual hygiene behavior can affect a whole community;

4.  Unprovisioning: I t does not take the responsibility of building toilet for a community; rather, it mandates households to finance their own toilets;

5.  Promotional: It promotes low cost home – made toilets constructed with local materials (rather than standard toilet designs imposed by outsiders) with provision to climb up the sanitation ladder; 

6.  Improving: It seeks general improvement in personal, household and environmental hygiene (including hand washing);

7.  Additional: It increases ownership and sustainability of hygiene of sanitation activities.

DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH POOR SANITATION

It is a well known fact that human excreta have been implicated in the transmission of many infectious diseases including cholera, typhoid, infectious hepatitis, polio, cryptosporidiosis and ascariasis. WHO (2004) estimates that about 1.8 million people annually where 90% are children under five, mostly in developing countries.

Poor sanitation gives many infections the ideal opportunity to spread. Common sanitation and hygiene related diseases are Lice, Lymphatic filariasis, Ringworm, Scabies, Soil transmitted helminthiasis and Trachoma.

Others are amebiasis, Buruli Ulcer, Campylobacter, Cholera, Cryptoporidiosis, Cyclosporiasis, Dracunculiasis (guinea-worm disease), Escherichia coli) Fascioliasis, Giardiasis, Hepatitis, Leptospirosis Norovirus, Rotavirus Salmonella, Schistosomiasis, Shigellosis, Typhoid Fever.

Sanitation and hygiene are very important to health, survival and development. A great amount of disease can be prevented and averted through better access to convenient sanitation equipment and better hygiene practices. Improved sanitation facilities (for example, toilets and latrines) allow people to dispose of their waste appropriately, which helps break the infection cycles of many diseases. (Amadi, 2009).

CLTS IN NIGERIA AND CHALLENGES

Community-Led Total Sanitation and its adaptations were piloted in Nigeria from 2004-2007 in a number of communities. The pilot interventions were carried out by such organizations as UNICEF, Water Aid, State and Local Governments. Based upon the outcome of such interventions, CLTS was adopted as a major approach for moral sanitation development.

In 2010, UNICEF engaged DR. Kamal Kar to make a fast evaluation of CLTS implementation in Nigeria and facilitate a national training of master trainers on the effective scaling up of CLTS. The main finding of the evaluation was that the CLTS approach in the project areas had been generally very successful in promoting significant reduction in t he practice of open defecation free status. 

However, many problems are still recorded in the project areas. They are as follows:

1.  The government is not pro-active in following up and monitoring CLTS activities in designated areas.

2.  There is lack of baseline data on community sanitation owing to poor record keeping and documentation.

3.   There are delay in implementing open defecation free guidelines and discrepancies in recording open defecation free status.

4.  The upward movement on the sanitation ladder is very slow.

5.  NGOs scarcely get involved in promoting community-Let Total Sanitation.

6.  Facilities for scaling up CLTS are inadequately skilled.

7.  There is still a big gap between the number of triggered communities and the numbers achieving open defecation free (ODF) (Rukuni, 2010).

There is need for on-going research in the area of CLTS.

REFERENCE

Amadi, A.N (2009) Modern Environmental Sanitation; Owerri, Nationwide Printers & publishing Co. Ltd. Bwure, Buluwa (2010) Breaking Shit Taboos: CLTS in Kenya; participatory learning & Action, 61(1) Pg 91-96.

Da silva Wells, Carmen and Sijbesma Christine (2012) Development in Practice’ 22 (3)P 417-426 Kamal Kar &Robert Chambers (2004) Handbook on Community-led Total Sanitation Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. 

Moore Tom & Mckee Kiai (2012) Empowering Local Government? An international review of Community Land Trust Housing 27 (20 pg 280-290).

Rukuni Samuel (2010): Challenging Mindsets: CLTS and Government Policies in Zimbabwe’ Participatory Learning and action (10 pg 1141-14).      

The place of women in community sanitation

BY

MR. AUGUSTINE EBISIKE MEM, Fseh, MRSPH

THE REGISTRAR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS

REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF NIGERIA;

AT THE WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY CELEBRATION

AT FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OWERRI

THIS 31^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012.

Protocol

I am very much delighted on the honour given to me not only to participate in the celebration of this year’s world environment day with you but also to lead the discuss on the interesting topic “ the of women in community sanitation”. Two things fuel my excitement as we go on to discuss this topic. First the question posed by the theme of this year’s world environment celebration –“green economy, does it include you” and your focus on the role of women as drivers of sanitation in our communities and society at large. The answer is very obvious, green economy does not only include, but is driven by women.

Permit me to get into the discussion through conceptual clarifications of the sub-themes of the subject matter.

 Community: This is defined as a group of people living together, sharing common ecological and cultural characteristics and driven by a cohesive social relationship. Of importance here is the ecological, cultural and social relationship. It is a group of people who live and derive their daily sustenance sharing a giving environmental setting and controlled by defined socio-cultural norms.

The definition of a community at Dictionary.com is “a social group of any size whose members reside in specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage” The Wikipedia encyclopedia describes it is “a group of interacting people, living in some proximity (i.e., in space, time, or relationship)”. Community usually refers to a social unit larger than a household that shares common values and has social cohesion. The dictionary went further to describe community in biological terms as a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risk, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. These descriptions of community suit our intent and this discussion.

Sanitation:  This is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of wastes. The World Health Organization states that: “Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and faces”. Inadequate sanitation is a major cause of disease world-wide and improving sanitation is known to have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across communities. The world ‘sanitation’ also refers to the maintenance of hygiene conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal, food sanitation.

The term “sanitation” can be applied to a specific aspect, concept, location or strategy, such as: Improved sanitation, on site sanitation, food sanitation, ecological sanitation, environmental sanitation etc. Ecological sanitation is an approach that tries to emulate nature through the recycling of nutrients and water from human and animal wastes in a hygienically safe manner.

Environmental sanitation when used refers to man’s activities in the environment aimed at restoring the environment to a level it will engender health and support life. I t is the control of environmental factors that form links in disease transmission. We shall dwell a little bit on this.

CONCEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

Environmental Sanitation is an often misconstrued subject matter. The average man on the street and even those in government circles in the country understands it as no more than the routine evacuation of collected municipal solid waste. So long as there is less observed heaps of refuse, i.e. refuse is removed from the streets, the average individual feels satisfied with the state of the environment and those in governance may give themselves kudos without recourse to other critical factors in the environment that might be infringing on the well-being of the individual in the neighborhoods or the society at large.

The World Health Organization defined Environmental Sanitation as the control of all factors in man’s physical environment which exercise or may exercise a deleterious effect on his physical development, health and survival. Ojewale (2009) sees it as “a way of life, a quality of living that is expressed in the clean home, the clean farm, the clean business, the clean neighborhood and the clean community. Being a way of life, it must come from within the people. It is nourished by knowledge and growing as an obligation and as an ideal in human relation”.

It has also been defined in the Business Dictionary (2010) as “activities aimed at improving or maintaining the standard of basic environmental conditions affecting the well-being of people”. These definitions suggest that environmental sanitation involves both behaviours and facilities which work together to form a hygienic environment. That is, there must be essential facilities available for use, the correct understanding and positive attitude and indeed the application of the facilities correctly to attain the desired sanitary state. Ojewale (2008) describes Environmental Sanitation as a system with nature, society, proves and device as its components.

The Federal Ministry of Environment (2005) defined Environmental Sanitation as “The principles and practice of effecting healthful and hygienic conditions in the environment to promote public health and welfare, improve quality of life, reduce poverty and ensure a sustainable environment”.  This definition indeed that of Ojewale are quite appropriate within the parlance of this discuss, as it sees environmental sanitation as improvement in hygienic conditions directed not only to the improvement of health and welfare but also the reduction in poverty and ensuring sustainable development. Ojewale vividly pointed at sanitation as a way of life, coming from within the people (society) and assisted by nature, process and devices.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION:

Over the centuries, am had realized the need for the protection of his environment through safe management of waste, which is Environment Sanitation.

The Holy Bible, written about three thousand years ago contains many rules for Environmental Sanitation and describes basic Public Health measures, which are still relevant for sustainable community sanitation today. These include quarantining the sick to prevent the spread of disease and avoiding contact with objects used by sick people (Leviticus chapter 13). The book of Deuteronomy 23, vs 12-13 states, “You are to have a peace outside the camp where you can go when you need to relieve yourselves. Carry a stick as part of your equipment, so that when you have a bowel movement you can dig a hole and cover it up”. This practice is what in Public Health parlance we called “Cat Sanitation”.

The situation in ancient Greek societies further illustrates this position more succinctly. The Greek physician Hippocrates was one of first to make the connection between disease and natural environmental factors in the 4^th century BC. His treatise Airs, Waters, and Places described how diseases could result from way of life, climate, impure water, and other environmental factors. For the next 2000 years, it was the most widely used text on public health and epidemiology.

“Ancient Romans adopted Greek ideas about Public Health after colonizing Greece in the 1^st century BC. Roman’s greatest contributions of public health involved sanitary engineering. The build aqueducts to supply Rome with our water and a public sewer system to carry away waster as well as public baths and hospitals. The Roman government also hired physicians and assigned them to villages to care for the poor”.

The movement to a clean environment and what has become known as environmental Sanitation started in Britain in the 17^th century. Sir EDWIN Chadwick first established the relationship between environment, disease and ill health, in the 1840s. He began to enquire why people become poor and after a far reaching enquiry, he concluded that people often become poor because of ill health due to a bad environment. Chadwick wrote his report “The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Class” in 1842. This work culminated into the 1848 Public Health Act in Britain.

When Nigeria became a British colony, the British Public Health Act was enacted take care of Environmental Sanitation issues in Nigeria. Those of us who belong to the older generation will remember the exploits of the Sanitary Inspector during the Colonial period up till the 1970s. During this period, Environmental Sanitation was effectively carried out and those diseases, which have a relationship with Environmental Sanitation, were kept to at bay. This reduced the cost of health care services for both the government and the people as preventive health care was emphasized rather than the situation today where purely preventive diseased have been made to look like and treat with curative approaches with attendant cost overruns as is the case with Mosquito control and malaria treatment.

COMPONENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION

Nwankwo (2004) and Reeve (2002) described Environmental Sanitation as comprising the provision of safe and adequate water supply, proper and efficient disposal of wastes, safeguarding of food, provision of insect vector and other pest control measures, control of animal reservoirs of infection, air hygiene and prevention of atmospheric pollution and the elimination of environmental hazards, pollution like noise, radiation. 

Also, environmental sanitation components is listed in Business Dictionary (2010) to include (i) clean and safe water supply, (ii) clean and safe ambient air, (iii) efficient and safe animal, human and industrial waste disposal, (iv) protection of food from biological and chemical contaminates and, (v) adequate housing in clean and safe surroundings.

However, the essential components of environmental sanitation were listed more elaborately by Badejo (2008) and the Federal Ministry of Environment (2005) and include:

Housing sanitation including House –to– House Sanitary Inspection of Premises. Solid waste management; Medical waste management; Excreta and sewage management; food sanitation; cleaning of streets and drainages; Market and Abattoir sanitation; Adequate potable water supply; School sanitation; Pest and vector control’ management of urban        drainage; Control of reared and stray of animals; Disposal of the dead (man and animals); Weed Vegetation control; Hygiene education and promotion.

From the ongoing discussions it is clear that environmental sanitation has expanded much on the original concept of sanitation which we referred to as merely provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces to include other important concepts as care of foods, streets, markets, houses, schools, dead man and above all education of others on hygiene issues.

When these sanitation activities are carried out through an organized common effort of the community we refer to such as community sanitation. The community ordinarily from its definition and concept share in common – environment, government, culture, common risks, defense, norms, social cohesion etc. and has definite social pattern of sharing with on another the burden and joys of the environment. Community sanitation therefore refers to the intrinsic organization, processes and actions a community takes to bring under control the deviations from the natural environment which is or may likely affect the health and life of the inhabitants or property.

From the definitions of sanitation we can summarize that sanitation is a way of life (intrinsic), a process which is enhanced y diverse (infrastructure) and driven by knowledge. It must come from within the people. It is nourished by knowledge and growing as an obligation and as an ideal in human relation”. For sanitation to thrive, people must have basic knowledge, imbibe the culture and possesses basic materials and equipment/infrastructure to support their sanitation action.

How then do women come in here? Women in our culture connote family, generational change development and industry. In our traditional Nigerian Society, women are responsible for keeping the home safe and hygienic. They are the people responsible for the provision of drinking water by fetching water from the stream or well or wherever it is found.

In our traditional society women wake up early in the morning daily to sweep the compound. On the village market day they sweep from their various compounds to the main roads of the village where they meet other women who have equally swept from their own compounds to the main road. From the main road they sweep to the market square where all the women in the village would converge having swept the road from their various compounds through the network of roads in the village to the village market square. This is a way that the women in the traditional community keep the community clean. In the area of food sanitation, the Nigeria women has learnt to thoroughly cook food thereby ensuring that enteric diseases are destroyed and ensure The Nigeria woman also bequeaths these sanitation precepts to her children and the culture had continued.

Unfortunately, this part of our culture is weaning as we continue to urbanize. These days, it is becoming common to see women not caring for their family’s basic sanitation but rather depend on city authorities to ensure that their immediate environment is kept clean.

Conclusion

Women are central to the achievement and sustenance of environmental sanitation in our various communities. They played a central role in the past and should be made to continue to play that motherly caring role not for their families alone but for the environment where they live and work.

REFERENCES

1.  Ojewale S.A. (2008) Water Sanitation as a key Achieving the Goals of International Year of Sanitation Public lecture presented at the 41^st Annual National Conference/Scientific Workshop of Environmental Health officers Association of Nigeria at Glory Land Cultural Center Auditorium Yenago Bayelsa Sate 24^th -30^th March 2008.

2.  Ojewale S.A. (2009) Environmental Sanitation: Making Every Day Counts Public lecture presented at the 42^nd National Conference/Scientific Workshop of Environmental health officers Association of Nigeria at IBB Secretariat Complex, Damaturu Yobe State, 19^th – 22^nd November 2009.

3.  Federal Ministry of Environment 2005, National Environment Sanitation Policy.

4.  Nwankwo, Benjamin O. (2004) Environmental Sanitation and Health 1^st ed. Cherry Bren and Co. Owerri, pp:3-6.

5.  Reeve R. (2002) Introduction to Environmental Analysis USA, John Willey and Sons Ltd, pp:1-2

6.  CIEH (2003) Chartered Institute of Environmental Health London @www.cieh.org.

7.  ELI (2000) Community Environmental Health Assessment Workbook. By Environmental Law Institute, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Page 1.