Small-scale vs. Large-scale solutions

Community-managed water provision typically results from lack of provision of services from the public sector. In such a scenario, the local community take the initiative in controlling the supply and maintenance of water services.  However, Carter et al. 1999:294) state there are four essential aspects for community-managed water resources to thrive and succeed. The four components include: motivation, maintenance, cost/recovery and continuing support. Given that community management is entirely voluntary, it can be difficult to maintain, and could in turn be unreliable (Batchelor, McKemey and Scott, 2000). Financial constraints are also a big disadvantage of community-managed water provision, given that locals in such communities will not be able to afford to finance any big projects (Carter et al., 1999).

However, there are also benefits of community-managed water provision. These include a sense of ownership amongst the locals, so they will take more pride in the maintenance of the water provision. Additionally, it evades incompetency and blasé attitudes from the government who fail in the provision of water. Furthermore, such innovation takes advantage of intermediate technology, which is cheap and easy to maintain, and also easy for locals to use, whilst utilising and making the most of limited resources. However, it is necessary to state that there needs to be a ‘strong local institution’ in place to support the communities (Harvey and Reed, 2006: 372). Water is a fundamental human right (World Water Council, 2002), and governments need to accept responsibility in facilitating local communities to fulfil this basic need.

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is the large-scale alternative to alleviating water and sanitation problems in urban Africa. IWRM means meeting basic human needs, in an equitable manner, whilst respecting transboundary commitments. However, IWRM requires institutional ‘capacity to integrate’, and this capacity is not in abundance (Van der Zaag, 2005: 868). Given that it is large-scale and involves so many different actors, there are plenty of places where there there could be a lack of cooperation. The approximate cost for IWRM is $20billion in order to meet the material costs of infrastructure, and technological costs (UN 1992). However, despite these problems, IWRM constitutes a path of short-term risk that leads to long-term security (Van der Zaag, 2005: 868).

Both routes will inevitable have pros and cons, but the correct option depends on the individual context of the place in question.

Slums sort of problem...

Adequate supplies of safe drinking water are internationally and universally recognised as a basic human need (Kimani-Murage and Ngindu 2007). Water is an indispensable commodity; every living creature needs water for its survival (Shahin, 2002). Nevertheless, there are still an unacceptable amount of people who do not have access to this basic human need. 

Increased urbanisation in Africa Is associated with an increasing amount of slums, all growing in size. With increased slum prevalence, comes increased poverty and inequality (AfDB, 2012). 

Slums, as defined by the UN-Habitat (2003)are characterised by three factors:

1. Overcrowding
2. Poor housing condition i.e.
• In a dangerous area, 
• Tenure insecurity
• Overcrowding due to lack of space
• Insufficient access to: 
3. Impermanent structure
• ‘Improved water at affordable prices and without extreme effort’, (Dagdeviren and Robertson, 2011)
• Sanitation, or a public or private toilet shared amongst a few people
• Other infrastructural services

In 2001, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) calculated there to be approximately 924 million people living in slums. Estimates suggest that this figure may rise to 1.5 billion by 2020 (Payne, 2005). 

Such rapid increases in slum populations pose a serious threat to access to safe water.

North African countries have a larger proportion of urban population (almost 48%), compared to SSA (almost 33%). Slum prevalence largely differs between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), with North Africa having significantly less slums, due to factors such as greater investment in infrastructure and upgrading settlements in urban areas, combined with better urban development strategies (AfDB, 2012). In contrast, SSA countries have inadequate infrastructure to sustain large masses of population in urban areas, which is exacerbated in areas of low income. Residents of slums are generally exposed to high mortality rates (higher than even rural areas) due to poor access to health services (Kimani-Murage and Ngindu 2007). Another reason why there are higher mortality rates is because of the poor sanitary practices (for example, the disposal of human excrement), which contaminate underground water sources

In Langas slum, Kenya, water is deemed unsafe to drink according to WHO guidelines, due to lack of water quality. A study undertaken by Kimani-Murage and Ngindu (2007) shows what residents of the slum perceive to be the most pertinent sources of contamination of water sources. These were the results:

• Children dipping dirty objects into the water source (34%)
• Dipping dirty containers into the water source for water collection (27%)
• Defecation of domestic animals surrounding the water sources (19%)
• People washing their clothes in the water sources (5%)
• And more…

However, none of the residents recognised the sever contamination in the water sources of the slum caused by the proximity of pit latrines to the wells. Therefore, you could assume that a lack of knowledge and education further exacerbates the problem of sanitation in urban slums.

Kimani-Murage and Ngindu (2007) explicitly state that pit latrines are not recommended where groundwater is the primary water source, unless there is a distance of at least 15m between the two (for reason that may be obvious to us, but not to people who unfortunately are living in slums with limited options). One of the characteristics of slums is by definition, that they are overcrowded. Therefore, it poses difficulties in that there is not adequate distance in slums between wells and put latrines, therefore allowing contamination. The required distance between the two is more likely to be achieved in rural areas, where there is more space availability. Furthermore, they argue that pit latrines should be at least 2m above the water table, to further decrease the risk of contamination of water sources.

One of the most influential critics, John F. C. Turner (1978), favoured ‘slum-upgrading’, which seemingly avoided high costs and inefficiency associated with public provision of housing. Instead, it focussed on governments improve the environment and surroundings of squatter settlements. Such improvements included footpath provision, waste collection, and water and sanitation services, amongst other things. Up until 1990s, these views shaped policies in the developing world. However, they were soon scrapped by the World Bank and other major development agencies due to increasing costs, ‘political corruption and delays in infrastructure development’. To replace this slum-upgrading scheme, they invested and focused on small-scale projects in some neighbourhoods and developed a low standard of infrastructure services (Dagdeviren and Robertson, 2011: 491).

More than one third of deaths in developing countries are a result of the consumption of water from contaminated sources, leading to severe diseases. As a result of this consumption, and the subsequent diseases they endure, people experience a decrease in their productive time by one-tenth (Kimani-Murage and Ngindu, 2007).

In order to improve the conditions of water in slums, there is an urgent need for ‘multidimensional interventions, including policies to address problems of tenure, urban planning, relocations and housing finance which are beyond the remit of the private sector’ (Dagdeviren and Robertson, 2011: 485).

References Used:

AfDB (2012) http://www.afdb.org/en/blogs/afdb-championing-inclusive-growth-across-africa/post/urbanization-in-africa-10143/.

Dagdeviren, H. and S. A. Robertson (2011) ‘Access to Water in the slums of Sub-Saharan Africa’, Development Policy Review, 29, 4, 485-505.

Kimani-Murage, E. W. and A. M. Ngindu (2007) ‘Quality of water the slum dwellers use: the case of a Kenyan Slum’, Journal of Urban Health, 84, 6, 829-838.

Payne, G. (2005) ‘Getting Ahead of the Game’, Environment and Urbanization, 17, 1, 135-45.

UN-Habitat (2003) The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements, London: Earthscan.

Much neglected sanitation

So, I’ve kind of neglected the whole ‘sanitation’ part of ‘urban water and sanitation’, so let’s have that as a focal point for this next blog post.

The original Drawers of Water study (White et al. 1972), indicated four means of transmission of water-related diseased;

1.     Water-washed

2.     Water-borne

3.     Water-based

4.     By water-related insect vectors

Since this study, there has been an increased emphasis placed on the importance of water and sanitation and trying to reduce the transmission of diseases through these routes.

Looking at Showers’ (2002) findings, we can see that the majority of people in urban areas use some form of latrine for household sanitation. In Kampala, and many other regions on Africa, the use of pit latrines is extremely common. Liquids put in latrines are expected to infiltrate into—and be purified by—the surrounding soil. Solids are buried, dumped in rivers, or added to municipal water-borne waste streams. Very few households actually have access to water-borne sanitation, and sewage treatment plants are rare. The sewage treatment plants that do exist lack the basic regular maintenance they require, or are insufficient in dealing with the type and amount of materials they receive (Showers 2002).

But could the use of pit latrines be what is contaminating the water? Well in areas where there are heavy rainfall events, for example in Kampala, these have been observed to coincide with pathogenic contamination of groundwater and disease outbreak. Therefore, this makes the springs unfit to drink during heavy rainfall events. The recharge is flushing faecal matter into the spring catchment and that is deteriorating the quality of that spring water. Domestic and industrial wastes have polluted groundwater, streams and coastal regions all over the continent. Amongst other factors, pit latrines are polluting groundwater, not only in areas of significant rainfall, but in all climates and soil types. If you were in the lecture, you would have also seen Richard give an example of what ‘helicoptering’ consists of, which essentially involves hurling human waste, through the air, as far away as possible. This then contaminates other areas, especially as you can’t control where it lands (…bear with me – this isn’t my ideal topic of conversation either!). Sealed latrines are thought to be a short-term solution to stop contamination of nearby water sources, with the long-term alternative being central sewage systems (Showers 2002).

I focussed on Bulawayo, Zimbabwe in my last post. So, let’s have a look at the city again. Due to water scarcity, the residents have had to find alternative water sources. Such sources consist of borehole, well and bowsers (provided by the Bulawayo City Council). In Khumalo (the high-income suburb), more or less 88% of the households had access to an improved water source, whereas in Mpopoma (the low-income suburb), residents had to obtain water from boreholes that were more than one kilometre away, thus reducing these residents’ water consumption. Together, the low water quality and low water consumption in Mpopoma made residents more susceptible to diseases. They were more subject to contaminated water due to ‘reliance on water from burst pipes and other open sources’  , as well as plenty of chances for contamination of collected water during transportation from borehole and bowsers which were located far away from households (Nyemba et al. 2010). Diseases and further contamination of water in Mpopoma compared to Khumalo are likely because residents of Mpopoma face more severe water scarcity. They don’t have the means to store water for flushing, and so would rather use open spaces or ‘bush toilets’. All of this combined, leads to worsened conditions of sanitation.

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

With this being my second post, I think it’s time to get into the specifics of urban water and sanitation a bit more.

What are the reasons for poor access to water and lack of sanitation in areas of Africa? What exacerbates the problem? How can we help the problem? What is being done about the situation?

To answer at least the first two questions, I am going to look at Zimbabwe as a case study, which will hopefully help us to see at least the main problems associated with poor access to water and sanitation.

First of all, what is Water scarcity?

Well, water scarcity is defined as the point at which aggregate impact of all users impinges on the supply or quality of water under prevailing institutional arrangements to the extent that the demand by all sectors, including the environment, cannot be satisfied fully (UN, 2006).

Zimbabwe, with a rapidly expanding population, especially in the last 30 years, finds itself prone to increasing urbanization. Therefore, the increase in population in turn places additional strain on the provision of basic services such as safe clean water and adequate sanitation in urban cities. The rates of urbanization and population growth in general, have far exceeded the capacities of local authorities to provide essential services (Nyemba et al. (2010). Water scarcity is typically a massive problem in the southern part of Africa, Zimbabwe for example. Swatuk (2008) states that in Zimbabwe, ‘underdevelopment is characterised by financial, human and institutional constraints’.

Looking more closely at Bulawayo, the second largest city of Zimbabwe with a population of more than one million (Mutengu et al. 2007), we can see that the issue they have with regards to water is that the area receives very little rainfall. Water scarcity in the region is very severe, and somewhat extreme. Zooming in on the city of Bulawayo, Mpopoma and Pumula and two low-income suburbs of the city. In contrast, Khumalo is a high-income suburb. A study found that residents in Mpopoma had access to water only 2 days a week, whereas those in Khumalo had access to water for longer periods; as long as 5 days in some instances (Mutengu et al. 2007). Although Mpopoma is on higher ground than Khumalo, which is found on low lying land, thus decreasing the amount of water availability in Mpopoma due to physical factors, this was not the main reason for the differences in access. The discrepancies in access to water between the rich and poor of Khumalo and Mpopoma respectively, was a result of ‘skewed water distribution policies implemented by the city council’, where evidently, the rich were favoured over the poor. Therefore it follows that poorer people are usually at a disadvantage when it comes to access to water (UNDP 2006). So, as well as increasing urbanization and decreasing reliability of rainfall, access to water and sanitation can also greatly be affected and influenced by governmental and state policies, which have the power to facilitate or hinder access.

Introduction

This is the first of a series of blog posts on the issues that Africa faces in terms of water and sanitation. I’m no expert on this matter (obviously), but I’ll be giving my input as best I can, making use of the readings I’ve done

We’ve heard all about how Africa is facing problems with water and sanitation, but do we really know the extent of it? Sub-Saharan Africa currently faces a huge challenge; 358 million people in the region lack access to clean water whilst approximately 600 million lack access to proper sanitation facilities. 

The Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015, quite obviously had fallen short of its target by the review time. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which follow on from the Millennium Development Goals, make it quite evident that there is a severe problem relating to water in the developing world. One of the eight goals is to ‘ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’, with various sub-goals within this overriding target. Although during the review of the MDGs in 2015, Sub-Saharan Africa had made some headway, especially with relation to health and education, whilst the North Africa had progressed and met the targets of poverty and hunger reduction, and sanitation. However, despite this improvement, 70% of Africa’s population still suffers from lack of access to improved sanitation facilities.

It is therefore clear that water and sanitation are topical issues in Africa. Over the course of this module (and perhaps longer!), I will be looking more in depth at the problems and potential solutions of this huge challenge that Africa is facing.