NextBillion.net - Development Through Enterprise - A New Water Filter, An Old Debate - Comments

Water filters

Leif Nielsen — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:39:47 -0500

Well, we have had the Katadyn filters for a while and they do a better job than the above mentioned Life Straw but the price tag sure is much harder to consummate.. the technology is by no means new. only new thing in this is that it’s low priced to a degree where those in real need of filter can actually buy one. Thanks to the Vestergaard Frandsen Group.. If you should want to bribe me ...send one of your mosquito nets..I can hear one of the buggers in m room :-) Best regards Leif the Viking

about the old and new tool's comment

jake — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:44:49 -0500

wow. i am stunned. someone saying this is really cool. "this increase was made possible mainly when all stakeholders came together and agreed on coverage of life saving tools and stopped discussing one tool over the other - or one distribution strategy over the other" coool.!!!!

Informaation

Eddy — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:59:32 -0500

Where and how do I puchase an "INLINE" water straw? How much $$ etc. Thank you! Eddy

Old and new tools in increasing coverage of safe water

Allan Mortensen — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:18:29 -0500

Today Vestergaard Frandsen produces and delivers close to five million long lasting insecticide treated anti-malarial nets - we have increased our production capacity from 200,000 per month in 2004 to close to five million this month - this increase was made possible mainly when all stakeholders came together and agreed on coverage of life saving tools and stopped discussing one tool over the other - or one distribution strategy over the other (commercial, subsidy or free equity provision). New focus on coverage now meant that focus went to how the products compliment each other and how countries could transition from one strategy to another and how this could can be achieved. When all spoke the same language (coverage - not this tool or that tool - not this strategy or that strategy) - seems simple but very powerful when public sector, NGO and private sector finally got it right. We will continue to develop more tools for household and personal purification of water - market forces (public sector and private sector purchases) will decide if those products will be successful or not. It can never be in the interest of the dying children in Africa to discuss one product over the other – nor one strategy over the other. Better access to safe clean water (coverage) is surely something both Vestergaard Frandsen and Water Aid can agree on. Once we all agree we can start raising funding to achieve this coverage – with pipes and pumps or household filtration tools – or both…

Cross subsidise

Eamonn — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:51:39 -0500

Clean water within a short distance may be a dream. Two questions spring to mind, is the life-straw scalable?, ie can a bigger version filter rain cachment or other non-verifiably clean source of water? Second, the lifestraw sounds useful for recreational camping, International disaster relief, - activities which can easily afford the cost. Those who blanch at the cost, think of the recent New Orleans and Mexico disasters? How much more difficult is it to deliver bottled water and its costs of delivery? Why not a small levy on sales that go to a Water Aid or such like organisation to address the delivery of water to isolated communities?

It's important to offer the poor a choice between options

adrianmol — Mon, 15 May 2006 10:54:09 -0500

Having a safe water supply close to the home is very important: from that point of view WaterAid is correct. However, a tap at home is a dream for about a billion people. While NGOs or governments work towards providing them their water supply, a LifeStraw can save lives. Having lived a long time in Africa, I become less and less impressed with people or agencies that get stuck on a particular technology. Let's offer the poor a choice of a variety of quality products, but let those be affordable and robust. LifeStraw could be one of those options.

The important thing

Anonymous — Sat, 13 May 2006 00:01:32 -0500

Everyone like to feel important. Its not the money. Its ego.

What's wrong with that WaterAid guy?

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 18:14:43 -0500

Has he not heard of the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Polluted water is one problem, non-proximity to sources of water is another. If the LifeStraw helps eradicate the first problem, WaterAid can handle the second. As long as the people get access to clean drinking water, who cares how it happens? Or is the WaterAid sad because money that would go to purchasing and distributing LifeStraws (probably at subsidized rates) isn't going into his own pocket?

A New Water Filter, An Old Debate

John Paul — Mon, 08 May 2006 14:24:49 -0500

The BBC reported last week about a new device being marketed to purify water in developing countries. The LifeStraw looks like a large plastic flute, and contains internal filters that remove bacteria from the water as it is drunk. The device is priced at around $3.50, and is designed to purify 700 liters over the course of six months to a year.

In spite of its initial cost ($3.50 is still expensive to someone making $1 a day), the device is still a welcome addition to other water purifying devices now coming to market. Apparently, not everyone agrees. The BBC article included a critique of the device by Paul Hetherington, a spokesman for UK charity WaterAid.

“The problem is that many people live very far away from their water, often walking a total of 20km or more carrying a weight of 25 kilos. The LifeStraw isn't going to prevent that long journey, even if it does improve the water they drink. ” He continued, ”It only costs a charity like WaterAid £15 per person to provide them with water, sanitation and hygiene education, which, provided there is decent water resource management in the country, will last them a lifetime. At that rate, $3.50 is expensive.”

Comments like this increasingly frustrate me, and I’ve seen them made repeatedly by sector-specific non-profits who believe that it’s pointless to try and solve one problem if efforts are not simultaneously made to solve another. It’s unfortunate that some organizations think that their solutions are the best and others should be disregarded, but that is precisely where development through enterprise adds value: it’s not an either/or proposition.