What is 300in6?
300in6 is an initiative to provide 300 million people with safe drinking water in 6 years.
300in6 does not implement or fund projects itself but enhances existing or new initiatives for a massive scaling-up of safe water solutions with a focus on Household Water Treatment (HWT) including safe storage.

Why was 300in6 started?
This initiative was launched at World Water Forum – 5 in Istanbul, by members of the WHO/HWTS network in reaction to the slow rate of progress in scaling up the dissemination of HWT options.  There are solutions in place and a growing political will to address the huge population in need.

Is the number of 300 million not to ambitious?
In 2009 an estimated 40 million people of the MDG7 target group were using new HWT solutions as Chlorine, SODIS and filters (excl. boiling). 300in6 aims to double that growth.
In the last 5 years promising and affordable HWT products have come into the marketplace.  What is lacking is a large scale dissemination of these solutions on a nationwide scale.  With the cooperation of donors and local governments effective awareness campaigns can be created together with the utilization of  new business models for marketing.

Where does the name 300in6 come from?
The 300 million is based on the number of people in Sub-Saharan countries in Africa without a safe water source. The number 6 is the number of years from the announcement of the initiative at World Water Forum 5 in 2009 till 2015, the target year for the UN Millennium Development Goals to reduce world poverty.

Where does the funding for this initiative come from?
Currently funding for the secretariat of 300in6 comes from the Netherlands based NGOs, Aqua 4 all and Connect International. The Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) is funding investigation activities coordinated by Dr. U.Heierli.  SWI (Safe Water International) in the US supports in kind with advocacy activities and is seeking support for 300in6 in the US.

What is specific in the approach of 300in6?
300in6 has a focus on the important role of the private sector. For instance the international private sector who produce products such as the Aguatabs (Medentech)  or “Hi-tech” water filters (UNILEVER,  TATA).  The local private sector can deliver safe water via water kiosks, or produce Chlorine or Pot filters. The local private sector has an essential role in the marketing and sales of products (supply chain)
The guiding principles of 300in6 are:
Consumer orientation: to consider people as consumers and not as recipients.
Scalability: to focus on options that can be scaled up in large numbers.
Treatment at Point-of-Use: to include water that is recontaminated in transport or in storage
No Gifts:  (except in emergencies): to use subsidies to stimulate markets, and not to distort them
Affordability: to offer multi-product choices, including those affordable for the Base of the Pyramid (BoP)
Market development: to help governments and NGOs shift from direct delivery to developing markets, through regulation and social marketing

What is the strategy to reach 300 million people?
The strategy of this initiative is:
- Advocacy. Presentations on events as the World Water Week and other fora. Information on new products and examples of  successful, business can raise support for the initiative
- Market research:  Studies on safe water as a business, barriers and recommendations.
- Large-scale social marketing: Reaching those at the BoP unaware of the social and economic benefits of safe water and hygiene, through social marketing. This is a prime task of governments and NGOs.
- Knowledge exchange and match-making: Sharing good practices through our website and newsletters and encouraging new partnerships. This to generate funding for national social marketing campaigns including information on use and maintenance of HWT solutions, establishment of micro-financing mechanisms, and utilization of monitoring and evaluation systems.  A generally accepted marketing principle is that once 10% of the target group is reached in any particular location, a consumer ripple effect is set in motion. 300in6 activities will focus on reaching this critical 10% target group in programs and  countries.

What is social marketing?
For water social marketing includes creating awareness about the social benefits of,  for instance,  having a nice water filter (status).  Social marketing includes convincing people of the economic benefits of safe water and hygiene.  For instance the investment in a chlorine product or a water filter will often pay back itself in a short time. (cost of medicines, avoiding a childs death,  loss of productive time etc). The WHO publication “Combating water borne disease at the household level” indicates that the use of HWT can have benefits up to 60 dollar for each dollar invested.

Can 300in6 provide funds for projects?
The 300in6  initiative is not intended as a funding mechanism but the 300in6 front office can assist in funding acquisition based on a “no cure, no pay” base.

Why should I participate in 300in6?
You will be part of a new market-based scaling-up initiative that sets an ambitiously goal, but critically important one.  As a supporter of 300in6 you will bring global visibility to your organization, as well as signal to organizations and governments of the urgency of the task to be undertaken.  You will receive frequent updates on the progress of the initiative and other information such as new and promising HWT solutions.

What are my obligations as a member?
There are two membership categories
1.  Individual supporter
Individuals or organizations active in the field of safe water who can subscribe to the electronic news letter.
2.  Institutional partner
Like minded organizations who want to support this initiative
The obligations of Institutional partners are
a)    subscribe to the goals and guiding principles of 300in6
b) share their experience with other members, bilaterally and through the 300in6 network media, and report to the secretariat on the location and progress of their activities
c) report the numbers of people reached – in an informal way, since 300in6 cannot, at present, undertake sophisticated statistical analysis and scientific impact studies.

How can I  participate in 300in6?
Go to the contact page of www.300in6.org and fill out the form.

Why is 300in6 against  gifts?
In genaral a risk of giving products or services for free is the lack of ownership and the  “poor mans” image.  The 300in6 initiative rests on the principle that even the poorest families have the ability to purchase safe water solutions if the service or product is attractive enough (a “must have”), affordable and conveniently available.  This ownership principle is essential both to confirm that families understand the value of safe drinking water, as well as to establish a sustainable (profitable) supply chain for spares and new products.
Cost for families will be kept at a minimum with innovative sales methods taken from other business models such as Tupperware sellers.  Also, small business models such as water kiosks will be explored.

Frequently Asked Questions about HWT

What is Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage (HWTS)?*
HWTS includes a wide array of treatment and storage techniques that are applied primarily at the point-of-use. Examples of household water treatment include boiling, filtration, chemical, solar and UV lamp disinfection, flocculation for the removal of turbidity, and other techniques. Safe storage refers to techniques that minimize the risk of recontamination, including the use of narrow-mouth, screened, and covered containers, as well as dispensing devices such as taps or spigots. Safe storage is a key component of household water management because improper storage can allow recontamination of stored water by microbial pathogens and other contaminants, nullifying the benefits of effective treatment.

Why implement HWTS measures instead of focusing exclusively on infrastructure
improvements?
Promoting HWTS and improving water infrastructure are a complementary, not alternative, means to reduce waterborne disease. Infrastructure investment to ensure the safety of improved water supply is essential. The ultimate goal is to provide every family with a safe household connection. However, the high front-end capital costs and long time frame associated with implementing centralized treatment and distribution may exclude many communities, particularly in poor rural areas, from the health benefits of a piped water source in the immediate future.Meanwhile, “improved” water sources (e.g. piped connections, protected shallow wells etc.) do not necessarily deliver safe water, and where and when they do not, additional water management may be required to ensure safety. HWTS is an additional step that can be taken immediately.

When should a household consider usingHWTS? *
All households unsure of their water safety should consider using HWTS. The main geographic areas of exposure to disease causing microbial agents in drinking water are developing countries with failing or absent water treatment infrastructure. However, HWTS is appropriate for vulnerable people in countries at all levels of socio-economic development, particularly in smaller communities. Indeed, a report issued by the US National Academy of Sciences concludes that POU systems may be appropriate in communities of under 500 inhabitants in the United States of America. How do we know if an HWTS technology “works” – that is, that it is actually producing safe drinking water?

Many low-cost HWTS technologies do not come with clear labels and reliable accreditations attesting to their ability to provide “safe” water. This has led to uncertainty and confusion among consumers and other stakeholders. One obstacle to determining whether a technology works is the absence of consensus international guidelines on HWTS performance. To address this problem, WHO is developing guidelines that will establish microbial reduction benchmarks and propose minimum criteria for protocols to verify HWT system performance. Until such technology verification answers whether a technology “works” with precision, existing studies demonstrate that a variety of HWT technologies improve water quality and result in significant health benefits. For example, a variety of studies examining the impact of porous ceramic filters, with E. coli removal rates of 99-99.9%, show significant reductions in diarrhoeal disease morbidity. Household chlorination and safe storage, solar disinfection, and commercially-produced flocculant/disinfection mixtures are examples of other HWTS approaches shown to reduce diarrhoea significantly. Researchers are currently testing other technologies for health impacts.

All HWT measures should be developed to achieve the highest removal rates across important pathogen groups. Significant reductions of diarrhoeal disease are dependent not only on an HWT measure’s ability to kill or remove microbial agents from drinking water, but also on its likelihood of adoption by target beneficiaries over the long-term.

What HWST technology is best?*
The “best” technology significantly improves water quality, is available, affordable, and accepted for sustainable use by poor households, and has proven health impact. Consumer preferences, willingness to pay, source water quality, and other factors will dictate which technologies are best suited to local circumstances. Since there is no easy formula that will answer this question, consumers should be given choices. Implementers of treatment devices such as porous ceramic and intermittently-operated household sand filters (biosand filters) have reported relatively high rates of user acceptance.

Filters are easy to operate – users simply pour water through the filters. Ceramic filtration in particular has been demonstrated to achieve significant health benefits. At the same time, low rates of virus removal, the absence of residual protection against recontamination, variable treatment capacity, and inconsistent quality control (in the case of locally-producedunits) have been cited as potential weaknesses of the technology. Both porous ceramic and mixed media filtration devices are extremely cost-effective measures over their lifetimes.Poor families can be assisted in paying the front-end capital investments through either subsidies or financing.

Solar disinfection is an example of another measure with proven health impact that requires little capital investment on the part of end-users, and is thus appropriate for the very poor. Additional advantages include water taste being largely unchanged following treatment and minimal risk of recontamination if water is consumed directly from the bottle in which it was treated. Its proper execution relies on significant community education and training whose costs must be borne by implementing organizations. Other limitations of solar disinfection include length of time required to treat water, the limited volume of water that can be treated at once, and the requirement to remove suspended solids before treatment.

Chemical treatment techniques, generally relying on chlorine as a disinfectant, have demonstrated health benefits, are extremely affordable, cost-effective, and significantly reduce microbial pathogen concentrations (with the notable exception of dilute bleach solutions and chlorine tablets against protozoa such as Cryptosporidium). Importantly, these techniques leave residual protection against contamination. However, they can leave an odor and taste that some households can find objectionable, and thus can face adoption obstacles among target beneficiaries. Chlorine solutions and tablets are also less effective at treating turbid source water.

Commercially-produced flocculation/disinfection mixtures are very effective at reducing pathogens of all classes (even in turbid waters), have demonstrated health benefits, leave residual protection, and remove muddy sediment as well. Drawbacks include the higher relative costs per litre of water treated. Safe storage vessels should be designed to reduce the risk of recontamination, limiting contact between potentially contaminated hands and water. This can be done by using a vessel that has a lid or narrow mouth, and is also fitted with a tap or spigot to withdraw water hygienically.
In short, many HWTS measures have the potential to seriously reduce diarrhoeal
disease, and choosing the best measure or suite of measures ought to be driven by a number of factors, a central one being communityarticulated preferences.

What constitutes a successful HWTS implementation?*
First of all, a successful HWTS implementation should be effective, it should reduce incidence of waterborne disease.
Second, it should be scalable: initial small-scale pilots that reach a small number of beneficiaries are important, but they are not enough. Truly successful implementations should lead to widespread adoption of HWTS, eventually reaching millions.
Third, a successful HWTS implementation should be sustainable: a pilot implementation should necessarily lead to longer term adoption rates that reach increasing numbers of beneficiaries with decreasing requirements for outside funding and programmatic support. At their most successful, HWTS implementations generate local economic benefits through, for example, the formation of smallscale industries, in addition to health benefits. Self-sustaining projects that, after some period, need no additional donor funding, are ideal.

To achieve this, some implementations will require external support in the form of product subsidy or program support in the form of marketing and distribution in their initial stages. Furthermore, usage of the treatment process is marginally more complicated than the other measures described above. In deployment of these measures, community education and marketing are essential to achieving sustained adoption. Boiling is a simple way of killing all classes of microbial pathogens, however large amounts of fuel are required, which make it costly. Furthermore, some users object to a perceived unpleasant taste, which limits acceptability. Boiling can also cause accidents due to the very hot water temperatures and boiled water can become recontamined once it becomes cooled.

What are keys to successful HWTS implementation?*
Achieving sustained and widespread adoption is the major challenge to HWTS implementation. Realizing behaviour change at scale will require solutions tailor-made for specific HWTS measures. For filtration devices, implementers need to consider either free distribution or some amount of subsidy or financing to ensure that the capital outlay required does not exclude poor consumers. Ensuring that devices are durable and that maintenance is undemanding (i.e. spare parts are available) are also keys to successful uptake.

Chemical addition measures such as dilute hypochlorite solutions and tablets and flocculant/disinfectant powders require minimal capital investment by the consumer, and are generally distributed in amounts intended to treat much smaller quantities of water than treatment devices such as filters (with regular repeated distributions or sales required). A key challenge associated with these options is the possibility of chemical odor and taste that some beneficiaries may find objectionable. Some socialization is required in these circumstances, and evidence suggests target populations can become accustomed to minimal chlorine residual in their drinking water, just as consumers have in more industrialized economies.
All HWTS measures require some user education to ensure that techniques are properly applied.   Solar disinfection, for example, requires that users be trained to array a series of bottles for sun exposure, making sure to wait the required time period before consumption. For flocculation/ disinfection powders, a short (5 minute) period of stirring, followed by a filtration through a fabric and a 20-minute waiting period, is often required. The labor associated with these procedures is sometimes perceived as onerous; as such, it has been suggested that user adoption of HWTS measures would be more successful if the labor required for their execution were communicated in contrast to other household work tasks, including other means of obtaining drinking water (such as transporting water to and from distant water supply sources).

Finally, there is evidence that many households are unaware of the health risks associated with drinking contaminated water. Emphasizing the connection between safe water and good health is critical to any HWTS intervention, but other adoption factors (such as price, labor, treatment capacity, taste, odor, and water clarity) may be just as important, depending on context. Meanwhile, there is certainly geographic and cultural variation in community understanding of waterborne disease risks. Women in remote areas of Central Java, Indonesia, for example, demonstrated prior awareness that aluminum  salts remove suspended sediment from drinking water. Many vulnerable populations do have awareness of the need for clean water, sanitation, and hygiene, but simply lack access. With that said, education remains a necessary and crucial component of HWTS interventions.

Why focus on treatment at the Household level instead of centralized treatment?*
Many water programmes of national governments and international organizations are focused at urban areas with centralized piped systems. These are important but have met continuous roadblocks because of high cost of investment cost and maintenance. Due to cost of central treatment and poor maintenance water from piped systems is not always safe to drink. Another reason is that 84% of the target group of MDG 7 lives in rural areas (UNICEF 2010) where centralized piped systems in the near future are to expensive. In all these cases Point of Use treatment can drastically improve water quality  Evaluations of the WHO, UNICEF and others indicate that treatment at the Point of Use with disinfection and especially filters is very cost effective. Cost for water disinfection can be as low as $0.1 USD person/year and household filters as low as $1.5 USD/person/year. (See publication Smart Disinfections Solutions. www.300in6.org/documents

Can HWT solutions eliminate all types of contamination?
Disinfection options such as Chlorine and Silverdyne will eliminate bacteria. Good quality filters will do the same and also remove turbidity. New filter models such as the Pureit even eliminates all viruses and produce water as safe as boiled water. Treatment options for chemical contamination such as arsenic, pesticides in general are more expensive, but low cost options are being developed. In cases where groundwater is contaminated with chemicals as arsenic or pesticides  low cost rainwater harvesting can be  combined with chlorine and / or water filters.

* From, “Combating waterborne disease at the household level” WHO 2007.