The recent flood which claimed lives and properties was blamed on poor sanitation

Jesus and public policy; A moral discourse on poor sanitation

Nkunimdini Asante-Antwi Opinion Jun - 16 - 2015 , 04:29

When questioned about why John’s disciples fast but His do not, the parable teller regales his religious critics with a metaphor that captures the paradox of new and old. “No man pours new wine into old wineskin”, He said. “If he does, the wine will burst the wineskin and both the wine and the wineskin would be ruined” he added.

Jesus teaches a profound truth that underlies behaviour change. Let’s not forget the fact that He is the same teacher of the principle that says, “Make a tree good and the fruit will be good, make it bad and the fruits will be bad”.

So, clearly, the transformation agenda the Master alludes to is deep-seated, it’s mental and it’s values-based. How then do we translate such profound biblical principles into practical public policy that is able to drive behaviour modification in our health and sanitation sector? Obviously, there is broad-based consensus that identifies poor sanitation practices by individuals and households as some of the main drivers of Ghana’s perennial sanitation debacle.

Up till now, the prevalent paradigm is akin to old wine in old wineskin; outdated and unsustainable approaches to managing sanitation in high population urban spaces. We create, they pick up, and they dump.

Notwithstanding manifold sanitation bye-laws, weak enforcements by municipal, metropolitan and district authorities have contributed to institutionalising moral hazard, thereby rendering a social contract between the government and the governed ineffective. Moral hazard, because the civilian party to the social contract lack sufficient motivation to avoid anti-social sanitation practices that has untoward health and safety consequences. And institutionalised because weak enforcement of sanitation bye-laws encourages the entrenchment of this very behaviour.

Without gainsaying, there is contributory negligence and operational inefficiencies at the local government level, not to mention policy failure expressed in the form of bad infrastructural design (open drain systems).

Mitigation strategies

This notwithstanding, I am persuaded by the proposition that mitigation strategies could be used to address risk at the generation stage (household level). A policy mix that includes the following may help achieve this purpose:
Incentive schemes – mandating waste collecting companies to create a tax-deductible fund in order to buy-back non-biodegradable refuse (e.g. sachet polythene) from households. This would create economic incentive for waste separation at source, which is a key challenge in sanitation management.

Periodic and zonal inspections

Assign sanitation inspectors to work directly with waste collectors in order to create predictable and consistent monitoring schedules that are simultaneous with waste collection cycles. The sanitation inspectors would embark on periodic compliance reviews or spot checks within assigned zones during weekly or monthly waste pickups by the waste collector. Inspectors would have the power to enforce bye-laws, particularly spot fines.
360 degree control - 360 degree control loop can then be created to prevent possible collusion and bribery just to avoid consequence for compliance breaches.

Payroll responsibility

Payroll responsibility for sanitation inspector’s compensation can be shared between local government authorities and waste collectors on tax-deductible basis.

But see, all of this is just new wine. Policy proposals that do not address core behaviour change is all new wine in old wineskin. The other type of new wine lies within the remit of government action; infrastructural redesign (closed drainage systems), smart way of monitoring civic compliance, ridding the sanitation court of non-sanitation cases, etc.

The pivotal issue here however is the wineskin; you, the litterer. For the fruits to be good, we have to make the tree good. So then, how do we renew the wineskin? How do we achieve broad-based behavioural change? Is a campaign driven by moral suasion enough? Are periodic gutter-cleaning exercises enough? Can punitive measures produce behavioural change? If so, do how we structure change management programmes in a way that lends itself to impact measurement? These are a few of the key policy issues that must preoccupy every concerned Ghanaian, particularly those who claim to follow Jesus, Son of God and incomparable rabbi, who provides a solution in the form of first order principles as recorded in the gospel of Luke. Fleshing out these principles in the form of implementable policy now lies within the domain of right-thinking and morally-centred mortals. Poor sanitation in an economy with major infrastructure deficit (c. $1.5b annually for 10yrs to close gap, according to Ministry of Finance) places tremendous stress on public health facilities. Losing precious human lives under such conditions is not just criminal. It’s the clearest indicator of a society’s moral decadence. So while you think through Jesus’ teaching in Luke 5:33-39, think about a practical translation and appropriate it to your own circumstance. GB
#Thismuststop