Harnessing employment-based social assistance programmes to scale up nature-based climate action.

As the severity of the triple challenges of global inequality, climate change and biodiversity loss becomes clearer, governments and international development institutions must find effective policy instruments to respond. We examine the potential of social assistance policies in this context. Social assistance refers to transfers to poor, vulnerable and marginalized groups to reduce their vulnerability and livelihood risks, and to enhance their rights and status. Substantial public funds support social assistance programmes globally. Collectively, lower- and middle-income countries spend approximately 1.5% of their GDP on social assistance annually. We focus on the potential of paid employment schemes to promote effective ecosystem stewardship. Available evidence suggests such programmes can offer multiple benefits in terms of improvements in local ecosystems and natural capital, carbon sequestration and local biodiversity conservation. We review evidence from three key case studies: in India (the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), Ethiopia (the Productive Safety Nets Programme) and Mexico (the Temporary Employment Programme). We conclude that, to realize the potential of employment-based social assistance for ecosystem benefits it will be necessary to address two challenges: first, the weak design and maintenance of local public works outputs in many schemes, and second, the concern that social protection schemes may become less effective if they are overburdened with additional objectives. Overcoming these challenges requires an evolution of institutional systems for delivering social assistance to enable a more effective combination of social and environmental objectives. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.

Sanitation and hygiene in urban and rural households in East Africa.

Latrine possession, disposal of children's faeces and waste-water in 1015 households in 33 sites in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda were studied in 1997. Assistants conducted interviews and observed the state and use of latrines, disposal of children's faeces, wastewater, and household socio-demographic characteristics. Latrine possession was 92.4% in Uganda, 95% in Kenya and 99.5% in Tanzania. In unpiped sites, 73.5% of Ugandan, 90.5% of Tanzanian and 95% of Kenyan households had latrines. Over 30% of latrines in rural Uganda were contaminated with faeces, compared with 10% in Tanzania. More latrines in urban Kenya and Uganda had contaminated surroundings than in the rural areas. The mean number of people using a toilet in the urban areas (10) was significantly higher than in rural areas (7), (F = 45.5; P < 0.001). Toilets in Kenya and Uganda were more likely to be fouled than in Tanzania. Households where the head was an educated professional or business person, or the toilet had a door, lid or concrete wall or floor or waste water was disposed of in the latrine, were less likely to have fouled toilets. Most households disposed of the faeces safely with a few placing them in the garden or elsewhere. The study emphasises the need to promote appropriate sanitation and hygiene.

Diarrhoea and effects of different water sources, sanitation and hygiene behaviour in East Africa.

Apart from "Drawers of Water (DOW I)" published in 1972, there have been only a handful of published studies on domestic water use and environmental health in East Africa, based on direct observations or other reliable research methods. The objective of this study was to carry out a repeat analysis of domestic water use and environmental health in East Africa based on DOW I. The study was conducted in the same sites as DOW I. Field assistants spent at least 1 day in each household observing and conducting semi-structured interviews. They measured the amount of water collected, recorded the amount of water used in the home, and noted household socio-demographic characteristics, prevalence of diarrhoea, state and use of latrines, sources of water and conditions of use. We surveyed 1015 households in 33 sites in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya in 1997. From 1967 to 1997, the prevalence of diarrhoea, in the week preceding the survey, increased from 6% to 18% in Kenya and from 16% to 21% in Uganda; it declined slightly in Tanzania (11-8%). Determinants of diarrhoea morbidity included poor hygiene (unsafe disposal of faeces and wastewater), education level of household head, obtaining water from surface sources or wells and per capita water used for cleaning. Hygiene practices are an important complement to improved water and sanitation in reducing diarrhoea morbidity.