Paper No. 11
Presentation Time: 4:20 PM
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE OF ARSENIC MITIGATION AND VIABILITY OF VARIOUS SAFE WATER OPTIONS IN MATLAB, SOUTHEASTERN BANGLADESH
HOSSAIN, Mohammed1, BHATTACHARYA, Prosun
2, ROFIUDDIN, M.
3, RAHMAN, Marina
4, JACKS, Gunnar
1, VON BRÖMSSEN, Mattias
5, HASAN, M. Aziz
6 and AHMED, Kazi Matin
7, (1)KTH-International Groundwater Arsenic Research Group, Dept of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 76, Stockholm, SE-10044, Sweden, (2)KTH-International Groundwater Arsenic Research Group, Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen 76, Stockholm, SE-10044, Sweden, (3)NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, 4/6, Block-E, Lalmatia, Dhaka, 1207, Bangladesh, (4)Sasmit, NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, 4/6, Block-E, Lalmatia, Dhaka, 1207, Bangladesh, (5)Ramböll Sweden AB, Box 4205, Stockholm, SE-102 65, Sweden, (6)Department of Geology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh, (7)Department of Geology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh, mohhos@kth.se
Access to safe water supply is a basic human right and one of the most essential requisites of good health. The remarkable achievement in reducing the scale of cholera and diarrheal diseases, and infant mortality in 1970s and 80s became possible from the increased use of groundwater for drinking. Occurrence of arsenic in groundwater drastically changed the safe water scenario. The present study reports the salient findings of the evaluation of the safe water options by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) supported Sustainable Arsenic Mitigation (SASMIT) project team in Matlab, a worse affected area. Based on the results of the social survey conducted in 35 villages, only 18% of tubewells were found As-safe. At present, the main problem is the huge gap between exposure and the pace of mitigation and therefore the main challenge is to develop a simple cost-effective option which would be easily acceptable by the people and possible to install and maintain by themselves. The prime objective of this study was to assess the technical viability as well as the effectiveness of different mitigation options provided by the Sida supported AsMat project during 2001-2006.
The options were arsenic removal filter (ARF), rainwater harvester (RWH), pond sand filter (PSF) and tubewells. In total, 284 households were revisited and information was collected for 23 PSF, 147 RWH and 61 tubewells distributed through the AsMat project. It was observed that none of the filters distributed by AsMat were in use. About 89% households are currently using tubewell water for drinking, which was 58% before. Within three years, tubewell users increased by 54%. At the same time, 73% PSF and 76% RWH users switched to tubewell. About 13% PSF, 40% RWH and 90% tubewell are functioning at present. The findings of this study needs to be taken into account with utmost importance in decision making, policy framing, planning and implementing of any safe water project and also for prescribing people for arsenic-safe water option.
