THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
111
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 17-07-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue07-12
PAGE NO.: - 111-123
SANITATION-SAFETY- PLANNING (SSP), THE
NEXUS FOR CLIMATE RESILENCE, SANITION
AND HEALTH IN BAYELSA STATE
Charles Oyibo
Department of Environmental Management, Niger Delta University,
Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State-Nigeria
Walson Paminola
Environmental Health Essentials, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State
–
Nigeria
Wakedei Ere
Department of Climate Change, Ministry of Environment, Bayesla State -
Nigeria
Mary Osoru-Jenkins
Department of Environmental Management, Niger Delta University,
Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State-Nigeria
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
112
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
INTRODUCTION
Global heating driven primarily by anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions is leading to significant
changes in climates throughout the world. It is very
likely that heat waves will occur more often and
last longer, extreme precipitation events will
become more intense and frequent in many
regions and global mean sea level will continue to
rise (IPCC, 2014a). In many regions, changing
precipitation is already affecting the quantity and
quality of water resources (IPCC, 2014b). While
there is a level uncertainty associated with how
climates, particularly at local levels will change, it
is clear that effects of these changes pose
significant health risks including through
sanitation. Changes in climate variability, extreme
weather events, and seasonality can directly and
indirectly impact sanitation systems in numerous
ways along the entire service chain. Floods that
cause containment units to overflow, corrosion of
wastewater treatment infrastructure from sea-
level rise and rising temperatures that proliferate
pathogens in waterways are only a few of many
examples of how climate can affect sanitation.
Although climate-related hazardous events have
always existed, climate change has potential to
increase their severity and the likelihood of
creating public health risks. Also, disadvantaged
groups are considered vulnerable and therefore
more likely to disproportionally bear the burden of
these increased risks [Climate, Sanitation and
Health (WHO 2019)]. Furthermore, the pressures
of urbanization, demand for food, water scarcity
and the provision of safe affordable sanitation is
becoming more complex despite the fact that
access to basic sanitation at the household level
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
113
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
remains a critical public health intervention for
preventing sanitation related disease especially for
diarrhea,
intestinal
worms,
cholera and
gastrointestinal disorders which affect most
people. Preventing exposure to human waste,
especially in dense urban settings requires safe
management of the entire sanitation service chain
involving multiple actors and exposed groups in
the collection, transport, treatment, disposal and
end use of sanitation waste. Although evidence is
limited, global burden of disease estimates for
diarrhea shows that this higher level of service is
effective and can achieve large health gains over
and above what can be achieved with basic
sanitation alone.
In Bayelsa State, a sizable proportion of the
population has been reported to be suffering from
gastrointestinal disorders particularly diarrhea;
Also, a number of children have been diagnosed of
gastroenteritis and helminthes infections. In 2021
alone, between March and April, over 200 cases
were reported from over 30 communities arising
from the outbreak of acute-gastroenteritis
suspected to be of cholera, and casualty figures
were over 26 (SSP zero draft, 2021).
The Bayelsa state SSP Zero Draft Report (2021)
also categorized sanitation systems in the Bayelsa
State capital city (Yenagoa) into the Pour Flush
Toilet system (PFTS) and the Flush Toilet System
(FTS) complete with septic tanks and effluent
infiltration and offsite fecal sludge disposal
systems, some of which are channeled into the Epie
Creek; and that there are some households which
do not have access to basic sanitary facility and
therefore resort to open defecation on open spaces
and rivers. According to the study, most sanitation
interventions in the study area are not suitable for
the flood prone State, therefore failing in the
containment and prevention of the potential
exposure to pathways of infections.
The Sanitation Safety Planning is therefore a WHO
risk-based management tool for the safe use and
disposal of grey water, wastewater and excreta
developed in 2006. It is a step-by-step risk-based
approach to implementing local level risks
assessment and management for the entire
sanitation service chain, covering containment,
conveyance, treatment and end use of disposal.
The 2006 WHO Guidelines were designed to assist
in
the
development
of
national
and
international approaches and to provide a
framework for national and local decision making
to identify and manage health risk associated with
use of waste water, excreta and grey water in
agriculture and aquaculture. In 2018, after
concluding that sanitation interventions have
shown lower than expected health outcomes, the
World Health Organization launched its first
comprehensive Guidelines on Sanitation and
Health which aim to provide evidence-based
recommendations and offer guidance to ensure
international, national and local sanitation policies
and programmes that effectively protect public
health. Besides its key recommendations and good
practice actions for enabling safe sanitation service
delivery, the guidelines offer implementation
guidance on technical, strengthening of the
enabling environment and behavior change
interventions as well as technical resources. This
engagement is therefore undertaken to publicize
the WHO Guidelines on Sanitation and Health
because it seeks to articulate and support the role
of health and other actors in sanitation policy and
programming to help ensure that health risks are
identified and managed effectively.
1.1 Sanitation Safety Planning and Justification
Sanitation Safety Planning (SSP) is a risk-based
management tool for sanitation systems. It assists
users to:
• Systema
tically identify and manage health risk
along the entire sanitation chain, which includes
toilet,
containment-
storage/treatment,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
114
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
conveyance, treatment and end use/disposal
steps;
• guide investment based on actual risks, to
promote health benefits and minimize adverse
health impacts;
• provide assurance to authorities and
the public
on the safety of sanitation-related products and
services.
SSP provides the platform that brings together
actors from different sectors to identify health
risks in the sanitation system and enables to agree
on improvements and regular monitoring. The
approach ensures that over time, control measures
target the greatest health risks and emphasizes
incremental improvement.
1.2 SSP Scope
It is applicable in high and low resource settings. It
can be used both at the planning stage for new
schemes, and to improve the performance of
existing systems. It can and should take into
consideration current and future risks, including
those posed by climate variability and climate
change.
1.3 SSP Target audience, use and nonuse
approaches
SSP emphasizes the leadership role of the health
sector to bring about safe sanitation along the
entire service chain and to help bring a human
health perspective to traditional non-health
sectors like housing, sanitation, engineering and
the agricultural sector. Once developed, SSP
provides a step-by-step guidance to assist in the
implementation of the 2006 WHO Guidelines for
Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater
and the 2018 WHO Guidelines on Sanitation and
Health. In particular, this updated SSP toolbox
offers practical advises to the implementation of
the
2018
WHO
recommendations
(see
recommendation).
The methodology and tools of SSP can be applied
to all sanitary systems to ensure the system is
managed to meet health objectives. The SSP
procedure is targeted at a variety of users who are
responsible for the safety of sanitation systems
and services at different levels. For example, it
could be used at the level of: local authorities,
sanitation service providers, farmers, Community
based organizations, farmers associations and
NGOs.
In addition to its site specific use in relation to a
particular SSP process, SSP is also useful for those
working at a national level, including: Health
authorities and regulators, those regulating the
development of policies and programmes.
SSP is not intended to be used for planning and
designing of new and large sanitation schemes.
THE CONCEPT OF BASIC SANITATION AND
SANITATION SAFETY
The concept of basic sanitation may describe the
hygienic promotion of health through the
prevention of human contact with the hazards of
wastes, treatment, and proper disposal of human
sewage wastewater; the provision of facilities and
services for the safe disposal of human urine and
excreta; and the maintenance of hygienic
conditions through services like garbage collection
and wastewater disposal. Also, sanitation safety
could be contextualized as the cleanliness or
worthiness of equipment and facility. For example,
food safety may describe how food is handled to
prevent food-borne illness. It could also mean how
excreta could equally be handled to prevent faecal-
oral exposures and diseases.
Therefore, the non-observance of proper basic
sanitation and sanitation safety could lead to very
poor sanitation standards, which potentially
compromises the human health.
4.1 Structural Frame
The structure adopted as frame for determination,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
115
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
presentation and discussion of findings consists of
the following:
4.1.1 The pre-disposing factors to poor sanitation
4.1.2 The effects of poor sanitation and
4.1.3 The management and control of sanitation
planning modules.
METHODOLOGY
Although climate-related hazardous events have
always existed, climate change has been reported
to have the potential to increase their severity and
the likelihood of creating public health risks
particularly from contact with human excreta.
Consequent upon this observation, it has become
pertinent to note that preventing exposure to
human waste, especially in dense urban settings
requires safe management of the entire sanitation
service chain involving multiple actors and
exposed groups in the collection, transport,
treatment, disposal and end use of sanitation
waste. To achieve this, a review of scientific
literature, particularly the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment
Report (IPCC, 2014), the WHO discussion Paper on
Climate, Sanitation and Health (2018) and the
Bayelsa State SSP Zero Draft Report (2021)
amongst others was undertaken to determine the
predisposing factors to poor sanitation, their
effects, management and control; and to basically
ensure that climate change outcomes are
considered within the Sanitation Safety Planning
(SSP) risk assessment, planning and management
processes.
3.1 The SSP Procedure
In line with the observations made above, once
developed, SSP provides a step-by-step guidance
to assist in the implementation of the 2006 WHO
Guidelines for Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and
Greywater and the 2018 WHO Guidelines on
Sanitation and Health. The steps are presented in
modules as follows:
Module 1: Preparing for SSP
Module 2: Describing the Sanitation System
Module3: Identify hazardous events; assess
existing control measures and exposure risks
Module 4: Develop and Implement an Incremental
Improvement Plan
Module 5: Monitor Control Measures and Verify
Performance
Module 6: Develop supporting programmes and
review plans.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The extensive review of empirical literature
revealed that the underlying aim of sanitation
planning is primarily to protect public health.
Therefore, Sanitation Safety Planning (SSP)
presents itself as a WHO risk-based management
tool designed as far back as 2006, for the safe use
and disposal of greywater, wastewater and excreta
(sanitation systems). It is indeed a step-by-step
risk-based approach to implementing local level
risk assessment and management for the
sanitation service chain, from containment,
conveyance, treatment and the end use to which
disposal is put to. Consequently, an adequate
understanding of the actual risks presented by the
sanitation systems and how those risks may best
be managed is an important guide to the
management, investments and improvements of
sanitation systems.
4.1 Pre-Disposing Factors to Poor Sanitation
Standards
The pre-disposing factors to poor sanitation
standards may not be restricted to, but are
inclusive of open defecation, unsafe drinking
water, high density living, lack of awareness or
proper education, increased health issues,
decreased schooling and standards of education,
poverty etc. These factors and more have been
observed to be symptomatic of poverty and
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
116
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
triggers of public health risks particularly from
contact with human excreta. This observation has
been corroborated by WHO (2006), which
reported that although climate-related hazardous
events have always existed, climate change has the
potential to increase their severity and the
likelihood of creating public health risks; and also,
that disadvantaged groups are more likely to
disproportionally bear the burden of the increased
risks.
4.2 The Effects of Poor Sanitation
Expectedly, the effects of poor sanitation would
be felt more in the following areas:
i.
Villages and peri-urban centers where
proper sanitation may not be available. This
observation very aptly describes the study area
(Bayelsa State) which is largely made up of villages
and peri-urban centers and therefore potentially
vulnerable to the increased risk burden from poor
sanitation.
ii.
Again, the effects would be felt in climes
disposed to water and soil pollution arising from
open defecation on rivers, river beds, rail tracks
and fields. This observation aptly describe the
situation in the study area and corroborated
already in the report of the Bayelsa State SSP Zero
Draft (2021) where it was indicated that there are
some households which do not have access to basic
sanitary facility and therefore resort to open
defecation on open spaces and rivers, and
iii.
Finally, on contaminated soils, ground and
surface waters which may result in cholera,
typhoid, polio, meningitis etc. As indicated earlier,
in Bayelsa State, a sizable portion of the population
has been reported to be suffering from
gastrointestinal disorders particularly diarrhea;
Also, a number of children have been diagnosed of
gastroenteritis and helminthes infections. In 2021
alone, between March and April, over 200 cases
were reported from over 30 communities arising
from the outbreak of acute-gastroenteritis
suspected to be of cholera, and casualty figures
were over 26 (SSP zero draft, 2021).
4.3 Management and Control of Sanitation
Systems
The effective management and control of
sanitation systems is contained in the WHO
guidelines for Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and
Greywater (2006). It provides a comprehensive
framework for managing associated health risks
arising from the handling and use of human wastes
in agriculture and aquaculture. This finds explicit
illustrations in the WHO SSP Modules and the
Typical Sanitation Service Chain.
4.3.1 The Sanitation Safety Planning Modules
The SSP process requires proponents to set out
specific public health objectives and prioritize
areas which must be clarified as major components
that may need to be included in the sanitation
service chain to meet the objectives set. The
various steps of the sanitation system are
illustrated in Fig 1.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
117
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Fig. 1: Sanitation Safety Planning Modules
Source: WHO SSP Manual (2020).
4.3.2 Module 1: Preparing for SSP
Preparations for SSP require proponents to
establish the priority sanitation challenges and
address areas or activities that pose the greatest
risks in response to the agreed public health
objectives for the system; and to also ensure that
the scope is understood by all stakeholders and is
manageable. Again, owing to the interrelated
natures of the above, an iterative process may need
to be adhered to until they are fully harmonized
upon completing the actions. It is particularly
important in sanitation systems to ensure broad
stakeholders’ commitment to the design and
implementation of the entire SSP process.
However, it’s advised that this module should be
developed to suit local circumstances and contexts.
This module is critical in the later assessment of
exposure groups at risk because it aids the
understanding of the source and path of waste(s)
through the system.
4.3.3 Module 2: Describing the Sanitation
System
The main objective of Module 2 is to generate a
complete description
of the sanitation system within the boundary
identified in Module 1.
A thorough understanding of all parts of the
sanitation system and its
performance
requirements
supports
the
subsequent risk assessment
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
118
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
process and finds expression in the typical
sanitation service chain. The second module
covers the microbiological, physical and chemical
constituents from all sources including every other
factor that may affect the performance (strength)
and vulnerability (weakness) of the system.
SANITATION SERVICE CHAIN
FIG 2: A typical Sanitation Service Chain curled from the Philippines experience where P
represents Process Stages and T, Transport Stages.
Source: WHO Guideline, (2006).
Preventing exposure to human waste, especially in
dense urban settings requires safe management of
the entire sanitation service chain involving
multiple actors and exposed groups in the
collection, transport, treatment, disposal and end
use of sanitation waste as very aptly represented
on the Typical Sanitation Service Chain above (Fig
2.). There are two stages to it consisting of the
process and transportation stages represented by
P1 to P6 and T1 to T5 respectively, necessary for
the prevention of exposure to human excreta.
4.3.4 Module 3: Identify hazardous events;
assess existing control measures and exposure
risks
The main objective of module 3 is to ensure that
subsequent efforts and investments in system
monitoring and improvements respond to the
risks that are ranked highest first, by identifying in
detail, which is likely to be at risk and how the risk
occurs during use, operation and maintenance of
the sanitation system, or through the use or
disposal of its products. Thereafter, it determines
how well the existing sanitation system protects
those at risk and thus provides a structure to
identify and prioritize the highest risks for
attention going forward. On completion of Module
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
119
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
3, the SSP team will have identified the hazardous
events with the highest risks. This module is
recorded in relation to the mapping made in
Module 1, and it ensures that an initial
classification of exposed groups are identified and
related to where and how exposure may occur
within the system.
4.3.5 Module 4: Develop and Implement an
Incremental Improvement Plan
This module allows flexibility in the selection of
new control measures or other improvements
designed to address these risks at the most
effective places in the system and helps to ensure
that funding and effort targets the highest risks
with greatest urgency. It encourages SSP teams to
consider different options to control risks
including short and long term plans, treatment,
non-treatment and behavioral change options, and
a range of locations along the typical sanitation
service chain. Also, it strengthens the options into
a more visible plan of action and implements the
improvement plan with action taken by the line
agency
responsible
for
the
respective
improvements. The 4th module includes the
collection and documentation of the context in
which the system exists; this may
include legal
and
regulatory
requirements,
historical
monitoring and compliance data and information
on climate, land use, cultural practice,
demographics, the likely concentrations of
pollutants and pathogens, and the efficiency of
system and system components to reduce the
risks. If any discrepancies are identified between
existing requirements and potential health
hazards, these should be brought to the attention
of the Steering Committee for the initiation of
associated policy dialogue.
4.3.6 Module 5: Monitor Control Measures and
Verify Performance
Sanitation systems are considered very dynamic.
Therefore, even the most well designed systems
can under-perform resulting to unacceptable
public health risk and loss of confidence in the
system. To that end, Module 5 is designed to
develop a monitoring plan that regularly ensures
that the system is functioning as intended and
defines what should be done. Furthermore,
operational and verification monitoring convey
assurances to the operators, the public and the
authorities that the system is performing
adequately. Audit and certification are key SSP
regulatory functions that are most relevant in
countries where such requirements may be
specified whereas monitoring is an important
environmental health activity designed to track
progress and shape administrative decisions.
Again Environmental Health Authorities play an
important role in this SSP module, as they are
responsible for oversight, monitoring and
enforcement of sanitation safety standards in the
private, public and business premises, in the
environment, and in the provision of sanitation
services. It is instructive to note that the
improvement plan developed and implemented in
Module 4 and the monitoring and verification
plans developed and implemented under Module 5
are the core outputs of the SSP process.
Furthermore, the module ensures that the system
description is complete and accurate. Data
requirements and potential institutional gaps (e.g.
policy gaps) are identified at this stage. The
outputs of Module 2 should provide sufficient
information to allow the SSP team to identify the
system’s vulnerability to hazards and hazardous
events, and to validate the effectiveness of any
existing control measures (identified in Module 3)
and the system’s performance. Much of the
information within this Module may have already
been gathered if the system has undergone
scientific investigations such as health or
environmental impact assessment. If so, findings
from these studies can inform all aspects of this
and subsequent Modules.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
120
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
4.3.7
Module
6:
Develop
supporting
programmes and review plans.
Adopting a systematic and inclusive approach to
sanitation in a locality creates the need for services
within the sanitation service chain that may not
currently exist or that exist only on a small scale to
be provided. Therefore, Module 6 is introduced to
support the development of people’s skills,
knowledge and the institutional capacity to meet
SSP commitments and the development of a well-
functioning sanitation market. Also, existing
programmes like training may be reconsidered
only in the light of the extent to which they support
the SSP objectives. These may include ensuring
that SSP operations are supported with
programmes of research and training for staff, and
generate feedbacks to key stakeholders especially
in larger or complex systems. It also recognizes
that SSP works within a dynamic environment,
therefore as more information become available
and new controls implemented, the SSP outputs
ought to be periodically reviewed to analyze new
or emerging hazards and hazardous events. Also,
supporting programmes and regular reviews
ensure that SSP remains always relevant and
responds to the current or anticipated operating
needs of specific localities and society in general;
supports the development of people’s skill sets,
knowledge bases, the institutional capacity to meet
SSP goals and the development of a well-
functioning
sanitation
market.
Existing
programmes like training may be reconsidered in
light of the extent to which they support the SSP
objectives.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
As already indicated preventing exposure to
human waste, especially in dense urban settings
requires safe management of the entire sanitation
service chain involving multiple actors and
exposed groups in the collection, transport,
treatment, disposal and end use of sanitation
waste. These are summarized as follows:
5.1 Collection Process Stage: this is done at the
home front realizing that sewage is primarily
generated within and transported through PVC
pipes to the on-site Septic tank wherever the Flush
and the Pour Flush Toilet Systems are practiced.
This stage of the service chain is known as the
Process Stage One (P1) which has been aptly
illustrated in Fig 1.
5.2 Transportation Stage: whereas transportation
actually commences at the in-built toilets within
the homes, it has been captured on the SSP service
chain as Transport Stage One (T1) and it involves
the conveyance by a Vacuum tanker, of sewage or
septage from the on-site septic tank to a separately
detailed treatment plant known as the Process
Stage Two (P2).
5.3 The Process Stage Two: this is indeed the
second collection process stage. It is a separately
detailed treatment plant for raw septage from the
on-site septic tank where sewage is treated into
by-products like recycled water or effluent,
trash/grit/oil and greases, and sludge cake. Again,
arising from the numerous by-products from the
Septage treatment plant, multiple transportation
stages are established; one for each waste
produced (T2, T3 and T4) respectively.
5.4 The Multiple Transportation Stage: It is
instructive to note that apart from the initial
transportation
stage
(P1),
every
other
transportation stage of the typical Sanitation
Service Chain derives from the process stage two
(P2) and conveys specific wastes to end-use points.
These stages are as indicated in 5.3 above, and are
represented by T2, T3 and T4 respectively (Fig 2.):
5.4.1 Transportation Stage Two: It has been stated
above that five potential wastes are generated
from the septage treatment plant. Therefore, at the
second transportation stage (T2), recycled water
or effluent is conveyed to end-use point in the city
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
121
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
(P3) for use in landscaping and vehicle washing
(car wash) at the P2 site.
5.4.2 Transportation Stage Three: Again it has been
reported in 5.4 above that every transportation
stage conveys a specific waste type to its end-use
point. Therefore, at the third transportation stage
(T3), effluent is also discharged into Irrigation
Drain for onward transfer to farms as irrigation
water at the fourth processing stage (P4).
5.4.3 Transportation Stage Four: Furthermore and
following from 5.3 above, at the fourth
transportation stage (T4), by-product such Sludge
Cake is transported by Sludge Cake Truck for use
as soil conditioner in farms at the fifth processing
stage (P5).
5.4.6 Transportation Stage Five: Finally, at the fifth
transportation stage, potential wastes such as
Trash, Grit, Oil and Greases are transported by
Trash Trucks (T5) to Sanitary Landfills at sixth
processing stage (P6).
5.5 The SSP procedure is targeted at a variety of
users who are responsible for the safety of
sanitation systems and services at different levels.
For example, it could be used at the level of:
•Local authorities, as a tool for planning local
investment in sanitation.
• Local environmental health departments, to
ensure that elements of sanitation are embedded
in relevant health programs.
•
Sanitation service providers, who may be formal
or informal private enterprises, publicly or
privately owned utilities, local government
departments, or (in most cases) a combination of
these.
Sanitation service providers may also range from
small businesses offering
page hardware supplies, toilet construction or
removals of feacal sludge, to operators of sewerage
or feacal sludge treatment plants and engineering
companies designing and constructing treatment
works who by complying with the WHO guidelines
and recommendations ensure that the products
and services offered do not pose any health risk.
• Farmers who use SSP modules to complement
quality assurance procedures for safe use of end
products to protect consumers, as well as
safeguarding their health and that of their families
and surrounding communities.
• Community based organizations, farmers
associations and NGOs which adopt SSP to support
community based water and sanitation programs.
In addition to its site specific use in relation to a
particular SSP process, SSP is also useful for those
working at a national level, including:
• Health authorities and regulators, as a tool to
introduce risk based approaches in the sanitation
sector, and verify their effectiveness;
• Those regulating the development of policies and
programmes as well as investment to improve the
sanitation management.
CONCLUSION
SSP provides a structure that brings together
actors from different sectors to identify health
risks in the sanitation system in order to agree on
improvements and regular monitoring. Through
these local risk assessments and management
approaches
to
sanitation
systems,
local
stakeholders
can
identify
incremental
improvements at each step of the sanitation
service chain, plan for progressive implementation
towards sanitation targets and allow investments
to be prioritized according to the highest health
risk thereby maximizing benefits. It can be both at
the planning stage for new schemes, and at the
point of improving the performance of existing
systems. It can and should take into consideration
current and future risks, including those posed by
climate variability and climate change. However,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
122
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
SSP is not intended to be used for planning and
designing of new and large sanitation schemes. In
those cases, the planning may be preceded by
specialized studies such as health impact
assessments (HIA). Once the scheme has been fully
developed, SSP becomes an ongoing management
tool for sanitation systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As far back as the year 2018, the World Health
Organization have concluded that sanitation
interventions have shown lower than expected
health outcomes and therefore launched the
comprehensive Guidelines on Sanitation and
Health which aim to provide evidence-based
recommendations and offer guidance to ensure
international, national and local sanitation policies
and programmes that effectively protect public
health as follows;
7.1 Ensure universal access and use of toilets that
safely contain excreta.
7.2 Ensure universal access to safe systems along
the entire sanitation service chain.
7.3 Sanitation should be addressed as part of
locally
delivered
services
and
broader
development programmes and policies, and
7.4 The health sector should fulfill core functions
to ensure safe sanitation to protect human health.
In line with the peculiarity of the study, the
recommendations would expectedly be drawn
from those given by the WHO in respect SSP. To
that end and based on the recommendations made,
the SSP is hereby recommended for adoption in
Bayelsa State and Niger Delta Region.
REFERENCES
1.
Amoah P et al. Low-cost options for reducing
consumer health risks from farm to fork where
crops are irrigated with polluted water in West
Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka, International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2011.
2.
Bayelsa State Zero Draft on SSP. (2021). A draft
report by the WHO Sanitation Safety Planning
Research Team in collaboration with the
Ministries of Environment and Water
Resources, BYS, NIG.
3.
Blockley DI (2005). The new Penguin
dictionary of civil engineering. Penguin books.
European Centre for Health Policy Health
impact assessment: main concepts and
suggested approach. Gothenburg consensus
paper. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office
Europe, 1999.
4.
Haas C, Rose J, Gerba C Quantitative microbial
risk assessment. New York, John Wiley, 1999.
5.
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing Team, R.K.
6.
Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2014a
7.
IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and
Vulnerability.
8.
Kato S, Fogarty E, Bowman DD. Effect of
aerobic and anaerobic digestion on the
viability of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts
and ascaris suum eggs. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research, 2003, 13(2):
169-179
9.
Kengne IM, Akoa A, Kone D. Recovery of
biosolids from constructed wetlands used for
faecal sludge dewatering in tropical regions.
Environmental Science and Technology, 2009,
43 6816-6821
10.
Kone D et al. Helminth eggs inactivation
efficiency by faecal sludge dewatering and co-
composting in tropical climates. Water
Research, 2007, 41:4397-4402
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE07
123
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
11.
Mahassen M et al. Performance evaluation of a
waste stabilization pond in a rural area in
Egypt. American Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 2008, 4: 316-325
12.
Mara D. Domestic wastewater treatment in
developing countries. London, Earthscan, 2004
Nielsen S Helsinge sludge reedbeds systems:
Reduction of pathogenic organisms. Water,
Science and Technology, 2007, 56(3):175-182.
13.
Rickert B et al. Including aspects of climate
change into water safety planning: literature
review of global experience and case studies
from Ethiopian urban supplies. International
journal of hygiene and environmental health,
2019, 222(5), 744-755.
14.
SFD Alliance (2018) Shit Flow Diagrams.
Eschborn: SFD Promotion Initiative c/o
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ)
GmbH.
URL:
https://sfd.susana.org, accessed 15 October
2015 Page 77
15.
Smeets, P, van Swol F, Postmes L. Water cycle
safety plan framework. Demonstration in
Eindhoven. Eindhoven, PREPARED, 2013.
16.
Stenström TA et al. Microbial exposure and
health assessments in sanitation technologies
and
systems.
Stockholm,
Stockholm
Environment Institute, 2011
17.
Thompson T, Fawell J, Kunikane S, Jackson D,
Appleyard S, Callan P et al. Chemical safety of
drinkingwater: assessing priorities for risk
management.
Geneva,
World
Health
Organization, 2007.
18.
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007
/9789241546768_eng.pdf)
19.
USEPA Sewage sludge use and disposal rule
(40 CFR Part 503), Publication Number
822F92002. USA, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 1992
20.
WHO Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater,
excreta and greywater. Geneva, World
Health
Organization, 2006
(http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_healt
h/wastewater/gsuww/en)
21.
WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality,
fourth edition. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2011.
22.
(http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_healt
h/dwq/en/)
23.
WHO Guidelines on Sanitation and Healtg,
Geneva, World Health Organization, 2018.
24.
WHO Sanitary inspections for sanitation
systems,
2019;
(https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_healt
h/sanitation-waste/sanitation/sanitary-
inspectionsfor-sanitation-systems/en/)
