Intimidating Faeces, Effective Fertilizers

Home , Scatology

Intimidating faeces, effective fertilizers

Acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers in and around Accra, Ghana

Gerlinde Buit

May 2013

Source of front page image: http://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/files/file28399.jpg

Intimidating faeces, effective fertilizers

Acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers in and around Accra, Ghana

MSc Thesis

Wageningen University

Safi Sana Ghana Ltd / Aqua for All

Final version

May 2013

Gerlinde Buit

Registration number: 880223-144060

Study program: MSc International Development Studies

Specialization: Communication, Technology and Policy

Course code: TAD-80433

Supervisor/first examiner: Kees Jansen

Second examiner: Todd Crane

Chair group: Knowledge, Technology and Innovation

External commissioner: Safi Sana Ghana Ltd / Aqua for All

Abstract

Ghana’s characterization as a ‘faecophobic’ country suggests that the use of products based on human faeces is not easily accepted by its inhabitants. Despite extensive research on the potential of human faeces as a basis for organic fertilizers, however, attention to the acceptance of such fertilizers by potential customers has been very limited. This study presents the findings from a literature review as well as in-depth interviews (n=21) and focus group discussions (n=3) with potential fertilizer users in Accra and its peripheries, exploring their perceptions of human faeces and faeces-based fertilizers. These findings show that although negative perceptions surround fresh human faeces, dried or treated faeces and their use as fertilizers are generally considered acceptable. Based on conceptual literature and empirical data, the study creates a framework for understanding human faeces in this geographical context as a symbol of personal moral badness. Seeing faeces is intimidating; the more perceived faeces resemble the beholder’s own faeces, the more it reminds him of his own badness. Dried or treated faeces no longer visually intimidate the beholder and are therefore more neutral. These findings challenge Mary Douglas’s understanding of dirt as ‘matter out of place’, arguing that in this case not place, but form is a meaningful variable that has implications for the social environment. Equally, the relevant social environment is not static social structures, but variable social dimensions such as a person’s status and compliance to social standards. Hence, in the context of faeces and faeces-based fertilizers in Ghana, dirt is not a static concept; its status can change with its physical appearance.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. State of the art: Ghanaians may not accept faeces-based fertilizers ...... 7 2.1 Ghana: a country covered in the shit it fears? ...... 7 2.2 Faeces-based fertilizers – opportunity or impossibility? ...... 10 2.3 Faecophoby as a health issue? ...... 17 2.4 Implications of adopting a Douglasian perspective ...... 20 3. Findings: the difference between raw faeces and faeces-based fertilizers ...... 21 3.1 Findings: acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers ...... 21 3.2 Faeces and faeces are two ...... 25 3.3 Disgusting badness ...... 25 3.4 Faeces conceptualized in literature: intimacy, porosity, and control ...... 29 3.5 ‘What the eye doesn’t see...’ ...... 31 3.6 Scales of intimacy ...... 36 3.7 Faeces-based fertilizers and the importance of good looks ...... 38 3.8 Matter out of place or out of form? ...... 39 4. Conclusions ...... 43 References ...... 51 Appendix: Other important issues for marketing faeces-based fertilizers ...... i

List of text boxes

Box 1: Background of the study ...... 3 Box 2: Research questions...... 4 Box 3: Methods ...... 5 Box 4: Fertilizers and their users in and around Accra ...... 13 Box 5: Technical details of human faeces-based fertilizers ...... 15 Box 6: Reflection ...... 45

1. Introduction

Ghana has been characterized as a ‘faecophobic’ country, in which human faeces evoke strong negative cultural connotations (Freeman 2010, Van der Geest 1998). Although this may suggest that products based on human faeces will not easily be accepted by Ghanaians, various parties have recently shown interest in the development of organic fertilizers based on the matter (Cofie and Koné 2009). Indeed, human faeces contain valuable nutrients that can be used as a (basis for) organic fertilizers. In recent years, diverse treatment processes have been developed to enable the production of fertilizers that are effective for use in agriculture and other sectors (Cofie et al. 2009a; Van Buuren 2010) as well as safe from a medical viewpoint (Cofie et al. 2006; Van Rooijen et al. 2010). Especially in developing countries, human faeces-based fertilizers can play a role in closing the supply-demand gap of the fertilizer market (Erni et al. 2010; Lydecker and Drechsel 2010). In Ghana, for example, virtually all fertilizers are imported and highly subsidized for use in agriculture (Honfoga 2011), representing a large burden for the national budget: the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2012) indicates that it spends GH¢ 120.3 million1 annually on the import of chemical fertilizers. Honfoga (2011) states that fertilizer application needs to increase to 13 times the current average rate in order to meet soil nutrient demands; meanwhile, he found that farmers complain about insufficient availability of fertilizers. Increased use of faeces-based fertilizers can also support the country in solving its sanitation problem. Currently, disposal of sanitary wastes is poor – especially in and around cities such as the capital, Accra (Lydecker and Drechsel 2010; Murray et al. 2011b). Ghana’s government currently spends large amounts of money on both disposal of urban waste (50-75% of municipal budgets, according to Cofie et al. 2005, quoted in Mariwah and Drangert 2011). This problematic abundance of human faeces indicates a stable supply of the material and opportunities for its reuse. Despite vast attention to technical and medical aspects of the production of such fertilizers, however, limited attention has been paid to the acceptance of the product by potential consumers. Danso et al. (2006), Lydecker and Drechsel

1 GH¢ or Ghana Cedi is the Ghanaian currency. GH¢ 1 is equal to approximately $ 0.50.

(2010), Mariwah and Drangert (2011) and Cofie and Koné (2009) studied acceptance in Ghana, but for many different regions and with highly diverse results (see Chapter 2). Yet investigating such acceptance is crucial – especially because of the above-mentioned negative perceptions of Ghanaians towards human faeces. Simultaneously, we cannot assume that all Ghanaians have similar perceptions; attitudes towards faeces around the world show high spatial variability (Jewitt 2011). The fact that much of the scientific literature on perceptions towards faeces is anthropological, suggests that such perceptions are at least to some extent culturally inspired – and that they may differ between cultural entities such as tribes and regions. Moreover, individual characteristics such as gender, age and education may influence perceptions towards human faeces (Danso et al. 2006; Mariwah and Drangert 2011). The current study presents an analysis of potential customers’ acceptance of the use of human faeces-based fertilizers in Accra and its peripheries. The subject is studied through the lens of cultural and social perceptions of human faeces. Two questions are addressed: Why are faeces in general, and their use as/in fertilizers in particular, considered culturally unacceptable in urban and peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana? And what measures can be used to influence the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers? Sub-questions are presented in Box 2. Through answering these questions, the study adds a new and important (socio-cultural) dimension to the development of human faeces-based fertilizers, thereby contributing to solutions for problems of both sanitary disposal and fertilizer availability. In addition to this development objective, the study has a scientific objective of contributing to the theoretical debate on the meaning of culture and its influence in real-life choices. This is achieved by reflective use of Mary Douglas’s work on social and cultural meanings of dirt (Douglas, 2002). Application of her concept of dirt as ‘matter out of place’ to a real-life situation generates valuable empirical data that will prove to enrich and adjust aspects of this framework. The third objective of this study is to encourage an open academic debate on a topic which seems underexposed due to its unappetizing nature. Black and Fawcett (2008) argue that faeces are almost a taboo topic for scholars – which obviously hampers the understanding of problems and opportunities associated with it. This study makes a modest contribution to keeping debates around this topic alive.

The study area for this research covers Accra and its peripheries, up to 30 kilometres from the city borders (see Map 1). This area is relevant for fertilizer production and distribution based in Accra. Within the study area five communities were selected, based on logistic convenience and potentially relevant characteristics (urban/peri-urban/rural, tribal background). Within each community I selected a number of respondents (n=3-10, with a total of n=36) with specific characteristics (to include variations in business type, gender, age, tribal background, education, income2). A number of these served as respondents for individual, in-depth interviews (n=21). The other part of the sample took part in focus group discussions (n=3, each with 5 participants). In addition, semi- structured interviews were conducted with traders and consumers of fertilized crops and various experts. A literature review and analysis provides additional data and forms a background for the interpretation of interviews and discussions. Primary data were analysed through the use of inductive and directed codes. See Box 3 for more information on methodology.

Box 1: Background of the study

This study serves primarily as partial fulfilment for my MSc degree in International Development Studies at Wageningen University. In addition, it was commissioned by Safi Sana Ghana Limited (SSGL), a company that is currently piloting the production of a fertilizer based on human faeces for the local market in and around Accra. This guarantees practical relevance of the study.

2 Some of these selection criteria are derived from the literature review as potentially meaningful characteristics for acceptance of human faeces or faeces-based fertilizers. Mariwah and Drangert (2011) found gender and education to influence acceptance of such fertilizers, while they found age and income to be insignificant. According to Danso et al. (2006), to the contrary, age and income are significant but and gender and education insignificant. Although I do not draw quantitative conclusions, the analysis of my data does not indicate considerable influence of any of these variables within this research sample. Other variables, such as influence of authorities, the social network and region of origin, do appear to be influential (see Appendix sections 6, 7 and 14 respectively).

Map 1: Field work locations in Accra and peripheries Source: adapted from http://maps.google.com

Box 2: Research questions

The main research questions for this study and their sub-questions are as follows. 1. Why are faeces in general, and their use as/in fertilizers in particular, considered culturally unacceptable in urban and peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana? 1.1 Why are human faeces considered culturally unacceptable in urban and peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana? 1.1.1 Which formal or informal rules guide behaviour regarding human faeces? 1.1.2 How can Douglas’s theory on dirt explain this cultural non- acceptance of human faeces? 1.1.3 How do respondents and informants explain this non-acceptance of human faeces? 1.2. Why is the use of human faeces-based fertilizers considered culturally unacceptable in urban and peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana? 1.2.1 Which formal or informal rules guide the use of human faeces-based

fertilizers? 1.2.2 How can Douglas’s theory on dirt explain this cultural non- acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers? 1.2.3 How do respondents and informants explain this non-acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers? 2. What measures can be used to influence the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers? 2.1 What influential measures for the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers are suggested by literature? 2.2 What influential measures for the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers are suggested by respondents and informants? 2.3 What influential measures for the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers can be derived from the answers on questions 1 and 2?

Box 3: Methods

Triangulation of research methods enables the researcher to balance the strengths and weaknesses of different methods (Berg and Lune 2011). For this study I combined literature review with in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The literature review serves as background information as well as a framework for interpretation and discussion of my findings. I selected literature via various scientific databases including Scopus and Web of Science. Relevant information was labelled and stored in MS Word. Fieldwork for the study started with designing, piloting and conducting interviews with potential consumers. I used in-depth interviews with the help of a Ghanaian translator, in order to obtain rich data and to facilitate thorough understanding of this culturally sensitive topic. The fact that these interviews were not standardized but semi-structured allowed each interview to take its own course, depending on which topics seemed relevant for each individual respondent with regard to his or her perception of faeces and fertilizers. These individual interviews allowed me to give respondents a sense of privacy, in order to let them talk freely. Focus group discussions, on the other hand, were conducted in order to observe respondents’ social behaviour when dealing with this topic. Moreover they

5 allowed me to test hypotheses obtained from the interviews. During these discussions I brought two translators; one served as a moderator, the other translated the discussions for me simultaneously. In order to further enrich the data set, I also interviewed traders and consumers of fertilized goods (n=26) as well as government officials and experts (n=8). Interview and focus group discussion data were recorded with a voice recorder (all respondents gave their informed consent) and transcribed to MS Word documents. Considering the sensitivity of the research topic, I took some precautions: I always brought a native Ghanaian translator who could help me with sensitizing and interpreting; in interviews I put the most sensitive issues more towards the end; I used focus group discussions to discuss hypotheses and thereby allow for a culturally informed interpretation of data; interview/discussion settings were as private as possible. Keeping a field note book allowed me to record all relevant interactions and events throughout the fieldwork period. After the fieldwork I conducted qualitative data analysis on interview and discussion data through coding (using both inductive and directed codes) in MS Excel and subsequent identification of patterns and themes within and between categories of codes (in accordance with Berg and Lune 2011). Coding enabled me to categorize my strongly diversified data, and to move beyond my own intuitive interpretation by identifying patterns, linkages, differences and similarities that exist not (only) in my head but rather in my data. These methodological choices focus on in-depth investigation of both individual and group perceptions. The choice for qualitative research was based on the quantitative bias in current research on the topic and a resulting superficial understanding of cultural and social meanings of faeces (see Chapter 2.2). I am strongly convinced that qualitative research can create a deeper, richer and hence better understanding of the nature of this topic. This is the sole solid basis for further (quantitative) research because it enables the researcher to look beyond her or his own predefined categories.

2. State of the art: Ghanaians may not accept faeces- based fertilizers

This chapter presents an overview of the current literature on perceptions of human faeces and faeces-based fertilizers in Ghana, compared to some findings from this study. It also introduces Mary Douglas’s theory on the meaning of dirt, which will be used and reflected on in the remainder of this report. Finally, this chapter provides some background information on fertilizer use in and around Accra (Box 4) and technical details of the production of human faeces-based fertilizers (Box 5).

2.1 Ghana: a country covered in the shit it fears?

Cultures differ in their perceptions of faeces. While some are characterized as faeces-friendly or faecophilic, assumedly due to ancient practices of using faeces in agriculture (Black and Fawcett 2008), Sub-Sahara African cultures are generally characterized as faeces-fearing or faecophobic (Avvannavar and Mani 2007; Dellström Rosenquist 2005; Jewitt 2011; Warner 2003). They typically perceive faeces as something to stay away from (Avvannavar and Mani 2007) or associated with ritual pollution (Jewitt 2011). Ghana can be seen as a special case because despite its relatively well-off economic position it falls behind in terms of sanitation (Freeman 2010). In 2011 the national coverage of improved sanitation was 12.4%, while the MDG target for the year 2015 is 53% (Tagoe 2011). This is significantly worse than the sub- Saharan average coverage of 32% in 2004 (UNDP quoted in Bensah et al. 2010). For cities such as Accra, producing ca. 350 tonnes of faeces daily (calculation based on Black and Fawcett 2008) of which 30% is not collected in any way (Lydecker and Drechsel 2010), the situation is urgent. Consequently, Ghana has consistently been ranked very low in terms of sanitation: during the previous decade it was ranked 48th out of 51 African countries with the least progress in sanitation (Awuah-Nyamekye 2009) and WHO and UNICEF ranked it as Africa’s fourth ‘least sanitary’ nation (Freeman 2010). Ghana’s sanitation problems are hence not purely economic, but should be attributed at least partly to other factors. One of these other factors is the strong cultural aversion against faeces that some authors have found in Ghanaian cultures (Van der Geest 1998; Freeman 7

2010). Van der Geest (1998, 2002, 2003, 2007) describes the paradoxical situation of faecophobic Ghanaians (more specifically: Akans, the major population group in Ghana) not putting much effort in getting rid of faeces. Apparently, he tells his Akan research colleague,

[Y]ou [Akans] are so afraid of shit that you do not only want to remove it from your bowels but also from your heads. You don’t want to think about it and you don’t even tolerate it near your house. The fact that you have to pass through dirty places and faeces is a consequence which you simply put out of your mind. You don’t greet anybody on your way to the place [the toilet], you pretend nobody sees you and you see nobody. You go silently, as a thief in the night, and forget about it: a mental solution for a very physical problem. After all, the shit paradox is indeed only a paradox, it appears to be a contradiction. On closer look, it is perfectly logical. (Van der Geest 1998, p. 12)

Van der Geest’s viewpoint has inspired many other authors’ writings on faeces and sanitation in Ghana (Jenkins and Scott 2007; Sumter 2008) and in other locations (Avvannavar and Mani 2007; Dellström Rosenquist 2005; Jewitt 2011), but also on the use of human faeces for fertilizer (Pickering 2010). More importantly, Van der Geest’s own inspiration Mary Douglas (see Van der Geest 2007) has left its traces in the debate on faeces and their use for fertilizers. The aim of her famous book ‘Purity and Danger’ (2002) is to explain the purpose of the cultural categories of dirt or pollution versus cleanliness. She positions herself between scholars who claim that such cultural categories always have a material (often health-related) basis, and those who distinguish a ‘primitive’ and assumedly unfounded concept of dirt from a Western, rational approach. Ultimately, she claims, the cultural construction of dirt expresses first and foremost a symbolic system – in all cultures around the world. More specifically, her theory asserts that ideas of dirt support a social system. Central is her belief that ‘some pollutions are used as analogies for expressing a general view of social order’ and as such are ‘symbols of the relation between parts of society’ (p. 4). Order is maintained, then, because beliefs of what is clean and what is dirty exaggerate existing social relations. The type of social relations or social structure that she refers to remains rather vague and seems not very specific, as she

8 discusses among others redistributive policies, ideas of good citizenship, and distinctions between humans and animals. Her idea of social structure does not refer to the whole of society with all its complex relations, but to ‘particular situations in which individual actors are aware of a greater or smaller range of inclusiveness’ (p. 125). Dirt, then, is considered dangerous because it crosses boundaries of established categories: it is ‘matter out of place’ (p. 50) in a material sense, that symbolizes the crossing of social boundaries. The human body is an important locus for such ideas of dirt, because it naturally resembles society as a living, organic body, composed of various parts. Especially all that crosses bodily boundaries (sputum, sweat, and of course faeces) is considered dirty, because it symbolizes porosity – not only of the body, but also of society. Douglas maintains that ‘anxiety about bodily margins expresses danger to group survival’ (p. 154). In general, she states, each culture’s beliefs regarding dirt and body margins mirror a specific situation in which society finds itself. Human faeces, then, have at least two possible social meanings – both of which are touched upon by Douglas in different parts of her book. Firstly, body margins associated with the fundamental bodily process of digestion could mirror internal social processes. Secondly, bodily orifices can symbolize entry or exit points to the social system, which implies that faeces are associated with the boundary between one society or social system and another. Douglas’s theory inspired Van der Geest to suggest a strong connection between physical and moral (hence social) purity in Ghana, reflected in a perception of bowel elimination as a necessary ‘first thing in the morning’ before starting social interactions (Van der Geest 1998, 2002). In another publication (2007), he describes how different social entities are related or separated through faeces, arguing that our behaviour towards different types of faeces symbolize the social relations behind them. A mother does not feel disgusted about the faeces of her baby, only slightly disgusted about the faeces of her partner, and a lot more about the neighbour’s faeces. Faeces, he concludes, ‘reveal the substance of social relationships such as closeness and distance, inclusion and exclusion, affection and dislike, trust and fear’ (Van der Geest 2007, p. 393). This conclusion is indeed clearly inspired by Douglas, in how it draws lines between the concept of dirt and the social environment. Similarly, Douglas’s theory has been mentioned by many

9 other authors on human faeces as a phenomenon that maintains or disturbs social order by being respectively in or out of place – although it is often introduced without having further influence on the study (Lathers 2006; Bradshaw and Canniford 2010; Pickering 2010; Jewitt 2011; Mariwah and Drangert 2011; Drangert and Nawab 2011). The question, then, remains: is the notion of dirt as matter out of place useful for explaining the meaning of faeces in Ghana, and does it has any implications for an understanding of the acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers?

2.2 Faeces-based fertilizers – opportunity or impossibility?

Notions of Ghana as a faecophobic country where fear of faeces has a social meaning seem a valid starting point for studying acceptance of human faeces- based fertilizers. Surely, the reasoning goes, if there are strong negative connotations to faeces, people will not easily accept a product based on that substance. Various authors have indeed hypothesized along such lines of thought. Some explicitly choose negative perceptions of human faeces as a starting point for investigating acceptance of such fertilizers (Mariwah and Drangert 2011), others afterwards report it as a possible reason for findings that demonstrate low acceptance of human faeces-based products (Bensah and Brew-Hammond 2010). The result of these efforts is a very diverse and at times contradictory body of information. Table 1 shows an overview of quantitative findings from studies in different Ghanaian regions. Findings on ‘willingness to handle’ human faeces-based fertilizers vary greatly between these studies. Moreover, the high ‘indifference’ in the study by Danso et al. (2006) provides more questions than answers. If a respondent is really indifferent, he/she would be willing to handle the product – so does indifference refer to something else here, for example that the respondent’s opinion is not yet firmly established? Unfortunately, the authors do not discuss the meaning of these findings.

Table 1: Farmers’ willingness to handle fertilizers based on human faeces Danso et al. 2006 Mariwah and Cofie and Koné Drangert 2011 2009 N=221 N=200 N=200 N=154 N=unknown Accra Kumasi Tamale Cape Coast Kumasi Not willing to 9% 6% 8% 54% 17% handle Indifferent 61% 52% 80% Willing to 29% 42% 12% 36% 83% handle

Non-quantified statements regarding acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers are generally vague and hardly supported by evidence. Bensah et al. (2010) report on the effects of the Appolonia Household Programme in 1992, some 30 kilometres east of Accra, that farmers often refused to use the digested faeces because of a ‘cultural stigma associated with the use of toilet as fertilizer’ (p. 128). McGregor et al. (2011) found that even well-treated human faeces are unacceptable as fertilizer in Tamale, which leads them to the conclusion that ‘barriers [regarding the use of fertilizer based on human faeces] are currently significant throughout Ghana’ (p. 390). On the other hand, Cofie et al. (2008) found that many farmers in Northern Ghana apply untreated faecal sludge directly on their fields. There is serious competition for this scarce resource; in some areas farmers even hijack trucks that transport the sludge, asking the driver to dump the material in their fields (Cofie et al. 2009a). Some authors have explored respondents’ reasons for non-acceptance. Apart from health reasons (which I discuss below), authors report anecdotal evidence on unacceptability due to diminished taste of the product, a reddish colour on maize and millet (Cofie et al. 2004), high costs, application difficulties, and ineffective control of soil-borne diseases (Danso et al. 2006). Cofie et al. (2008) report perceived problems regarding smell, transportation and general mockery of the public in Northern Ghana – yet these do not prevent farmers from perceiving and using it as an effective fertilizer. Various authors indicate (farmers’ fear of) consumer avoidance of crops cultivated with human faeces as a problem (Asare and Kranjac-Berisavlievic 2006; Cofie et al. 2004; Cofie and Koné 2009; Danso et al. 2006). None of the authors however elaborate these statements either

11 quantitatively or qualitatively, except from Danso et al. (2004) who report that expectations of consumer avoidance are considered by 4% of their respondents. The fact that various authors mention this as a reason, however, suggests that unacceptability is partly a social issue: farmers do not use faeces-based fertilizers because they fear negative reactions from their social environment. Reasons for potential users’ acceptance of such fertilizers, on the other hand, are reported by Danso et al. (2006): the product’s resemblance of blacksoil (in the case of compost), its positive long-term effects on soil quality, and indirect benefits such as a diminished amount of farming wastes. Yet again the authors do not elaborate these figures. The only clear conclusion that we can draw from a comparison of these publications is that degree of acceptance as well as reasons for acceptance vary highly within and between studied populations. Given the variability between regions, respondents’ location or region of origin may influence their degree of acceptance. Additional information on the use of a wider range of fertilizers is given in Box 4. The fact that virtually all of these studies used a quantitative approach and worked with predefined variables that are assumed to encourage acceptance or non-acceptance, leaves some important issues underexposed. Quantitative research, although very valuable in drawing statistically relevant conclusions, risks being limited to categories that exist in the researcher’s understanding of the topic. A thorough study of meanings, on the other hand, can reveal categories that go beyond the scholar’s imagination. Especially when dealing with cultural dynamics, qualitative research has the potential to identify culturally and locally relevant themes and issues – thereby complementing existing quantitative studies and building a foundation for new ones.

Box 4: Fertilizers and their users in and around Accra

Among the users of fertilizers in and around Accra are various types of farmers, as well as flower growers, gardeners, and golf course/real estate managers (Cofie et al. 2009a; Van Rooijen et al. 2009). My background research showed that only the former three categories actually choose and use fertilizers (golf courses and real estate are often fertilized by a hired gardener); therefore these three categories have been taken into account in this study. Farmers are the major group of fertilizer users in the context of Accra and its surroundings. Urban farming is performed on ca. 800-1000 small farms of 1-3 hectares (Van Rooijen et al. 2009), where farmers cultivate year-round to produce for own consumption and for commercial purposes (Asomani-Boateng 2002). Cultivation in the land-scarce urban areas focuses on traditional and exotic vegetables (Addo 2010; Asomani-Boateng 2002), and to a lesser extent on staple crops and fruit crops (ibid; Ministry of Food and Agriculture 2012). My data show a geographical pattern of crop types, with vegetables mainly in urban areas (Korle Bu and Dzorwulu, see Map 1), flowers and garden plants in Spintex, and tree/fruit/staple crops in peri-urban and rural areas (Ashaiman and Maame Dede). Commercial farmers in and around Accra supply 60-90% of the fresh vegetables that are annually consumed in the city (Obuobie et al. 2006, quoted in Van Rooijen et al. 2009). Land scarcity in the area stimulates the use of fertilizers to boost production, especially for commercial ends but increasingly also for home consumption (FAO 2005). Chemical fertilizers are generally not preferred due to their high price and the perceived risk of soil depletion (Asomani-Boateng 2002; Danso et al. 2006). Yet many farmers use them: Asomani-Boateng (2002) found that 34% of Accra’s farmers use chemical fertilizers, while Danso et al. (2006) report figures of 27%. My data, although not statistically representative, show even higher figures: 65% of respondents reported to use chemical fertilizer. Most non-users are flower growers. These high figures could suggest that fertilizer use has increased rapidly over the past decade – which is indeed confirmed by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2012). Main chemical fertilizers used are NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium), ammonia sulphate and urea (Asomani-Boateng 2002).

Organic fertilizers are also popular: Asomani-Boateng (2002) found that 70% of farmers in and around Accra use these, while 55% of my respondents report the use of such fertilizers. This might indicate that fertilizer use has shifted slightly over the past decade, with an increased use of chemical fertilizers and decreased use of organic fertilizers – possibly due to high subsidies on chemical fertilizers (Ministry of Food and Agriculture 2012). However, my interviews also show that respondents generally value organic fertilizers more than chemical fertilizers; it is due to low and irregular availability that many farmers do not (primarily) use organic fertilizers. Among those who use organic fertilizers, poultry manure is popular (used by 65% of my respondents). Danso et al. (2006) attribute this popularity to its low price and long-term effectiveness; Erni et al. (2010) state that poultry manure is especially effective for leafy vegetables. Cow dung is more popular among flower growers and gardeners, but it is not as widely available as poultry manure (Danso et al. 2006). Indeed, among the 45% of my respondents who reported to use cow dung, many were flower growers and gardeners. Compost is scarce in and around Accra and seldom used. The city has two compost stations, but their production is limited and irregular and they are unknown to most farmers (Etuah Jackson et al. 2001, quoted in Danso et al. 2006). None of my respondents reported the use of compost; in fact, many were not familiar with this type of fertilizer. Blacksoil (fertile topsoil from fallow lands and forests) is used by many flower growers (Danso et al. 2006). Human faeces, known as nightsoil, are used in Northern Ghana where farmers buy it illegally from septic truck drivers (ibid). There is no evidence of its use in and around Accra. None of my respondents reported to use blacksoil or human faeces-based fertilizers.

Box 5: Technical details of human faeces-based fertilizers

Technical details for the production of human faeces-based fertilizers have become well established in recent years. Two issues are important: guaranteeing health safety for those who produce, use and consume the (end product of) the fertilizer, and guaranteeing its nutrient content.

Health safety

Diarrhoea and parasitic diseases are important contributors to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD). They are transmitted through direct or indirect contact with contaminated faeces, often via oral routes but sometimes even via the skin (Schönning and Stenström 2004). Among the pathogens in human faeces are various bacteria, viruses, parasitic protozoa and helminthes (for a complete overview see Schönning and Stenström 2004, p. 6-7). Contamination can occur at various stages: before or during treatment of faecal matter, during application to the soil, or via consumption of infected food. Even irrigation water can pick up pathogens from fertilized soils and transmit these to humans when the drained water is used in households (WHO 2006). Although part of these pathogens dies off naturally, for example through exposure to sunlight, some can survive for several years in the soil (Schönning and Stenström 2004; WHO 2006). Barriers in various stages of the contamination process can be used to prevent illness (Schönning and Stenström 2004). For this study the treatment of faeces before further handling as agricultural fertilizer is most relevant. Schönning and Stenström (2004) describe five different treatment options for pathogen removal: storage, heating, composting, addition of alkaline or urea, and incineration. Standards concerning health safety of fertilizers can be based on various variables, such as risk assessment predictions, guideline values of certain pathogens, or targets of actual health performance (WHO 2006). Guideline values are popular because they can be measured in the product and do not require health surveys. Acceptable levels are often provided for one or few index pathogens that are known as 'hard to kill' (resistant, non-sensitive) – assuming that more sensitive ones will also be killed when these are. This is not always

15 reliable however: E.coli, for example, is often used as index organism while in composting e.coli is inactivated much sooner than many other pathogens (Schönning and Stenström 2004). WHO has set safe level standards for pathogens in fertilizers, based on the concept of ‘tolerable burden of disease’ which is limited to DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) 10-6 per person per year. Acceptable levels for agriculture and raw crop consumption are:

– helminth eggs: <1 per 1 gram total solids (faecal matter);

– e.coli: <1000 per 1 gram total solids (faecal matter) (WHO 2006, p. xvi). The commissioner of this study, SSGL, uses a combination of diverse treatment methods to meet these levels. Organic waste and feacal sludge are mixed and anaerobically digested. The liquid digested effluent is mixed with sawdust and dried on drying beds. Then fresh organic waste is added, and finally the mixture is co-composted. Pathogen levels of the finalized product are acceptable according to WHO standards (personal communication with SSGL staff, December 2012).

Nutrient content

An average annual amount of faeces from one person contains enough nutrients to produce about 250 kg of grain (Drangert 1998, quoted by Cofie et al. 2009b). Part of this could be reused as a fertilizer. Co-composting with other organic wastes such as market wastes creates the most marketable product with the largest incremental value (Murray et al. 2011a) because the different nutrient values in these substances complement each other (Cofie and Koné 2009). According to Cofie et al. (2006, p. 76), co-compost based on human faeces and municipal solid wastes from Kumasi (Ghana’s second city) can ‘fully replenish soils in the urban perimeter and considerable portions of peri-urban farms within the 40-km perimeter of Kumasi’. A list of co-composting options and the nutrient content of their products is provided by Cofie et al. (2009b). The nutrient content of the final product (constituted by N, P and K values) varies highly according to the exact inputs. SSGL is currently testing various options. Nutrient contents of the last tested product were around 1.8-2.2 for N, 1.4- 2.0 for P, and 1.8-2.5 for K (pers. comm. SSGL).

2.3 Faecophoby as a health issue?

I stated before that the quantitative focus of most research on acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers may have caused a bias towards researchers’ own predefined categories. In this section I illustrate this claim by examining what is often suggested to be an obvious reason for faecophoby: perceived health dangers of handling faeces. Academic literature shows widespread attention to health risks of human faeces-based fertilizers (among others Cofie and Koné 2009, Cofie et al. 2006; Lydecker and Drechsel 2010). Such health dangers do indeed exist, as I explained in Box 5; attention to them is therefore by all means legitimate. In some cases, however, it may lead to the unarticulated or even unconscious assumption that health considerations play a role in acceptance of the product by potential users – resulting in a research focus on health issues and consequently profound attention to health issues in research conclusions. I do not mean to say that such conclusions are necessarily incorrect; only that they may be overemphasized and potentially misunderstood. To illustrate this statement, I use Mariwah and Drangert’s (2011) study as an example. They found that ‘97% [of respondents] agree that handling human excreta is a great health risk’ (p. 818). While acknowledging the great value of their study regarding acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers in Ghana (indeed, it is the only study that investigates this topic in considerable detail), I identify three flaws or weaknesses in which their study is illustrative of a common and potentially incorrect attention to health issues concerning this topic. Firstly, methodology in many quantitative studies easily creates a bias. Mariwah and Drangert (2011) asked respondents to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with certain statements, one of which is ‘Handling excreta is great health risk’ (p. 819). Such simple but suggestive statements might cause a bias towards agreement. Respondents may consider it impolite to disagree, or if they have never heard of any health risk associated with faeces they may want to disguise what they suddenly consider their own ignorance. The presence of researchers, nolens volens often seen as teaching experts, may aggravate this bias.

Secondly, agree-or-disagree statements do not clarify the meaning that respondents attribute to health risks. My data show that what respondents call ‘health issues’ do not always refer to what I expected. Further interactions often revealed that respondents referred to issues of social or moral health rather than physical health – to health and hygiene (often used interchangeably) as indicators of social status. Diseases associated with faeces often referred to the feeling of nausea and loss of appetite when perceiving faeces, rather than diseases transmitted through pathogens from faeces. Anumah, a vegetable and staple crop farmer from Ashaiman, states:

You can get a disease from it. Maybe when you smell it, it can cause... it can give you a stomach pain.

He does not refer to diseases caused by bacteria, viruses or parasites – these are not transmittable through smell. He rather reports a general feeling of disgust that occurs when perceiving faeces. Later on, he elaborates the social dimension of such feelings of disgust:

Somebody can come from his [high-class environment]... somebody can come in this area, to visit this area... when he comes and there is faeces over the place, he will feel very bad, and he will go.

Anumah perceives faeces as a cause of disease (bodily feelings of disgust) because it is associated with lower social classes. Somewhat different sentiments are expressed in my discussions with Jahab, a vegetable farmer in Dzorwulu:

Q: And who says this, who says that it is like a disease? A: Ah, it's the rich men. Q: And what do you think? Is it... the faeces, associated with disease? A: No, no, no, no, no. Q: No? So why do rich people think so? A: Eh, they think that it's a waste.

Jahab does not consider faeces to pose a health risk; he rather laughs at the rich people who believe it does. Although his perception of health issues associated with faeces is clearly different from Anumah’s, there is one important similarity:

18 that health is related to social class or status. Such perceptions of faeces and associated health risks clearly agree with Douglas’s theory on classifications of dirt and cleanliness as a support for social structures. They also confirm Van der Geest’s (1998) statement that the important Ghanaian concept of mental cleanliness or purity is maintained through notions of physical cleanliness. Clearly, health issues discovered in research may have a different meaning than the researcher expects or assumes. Any researcher dealing with these issues (and, in fact, any other issue) should therefore carefully consider the meaning of his or her findings – unfortunately not all studies do so to a satisfying extent. Thirdly, even if respondents consider the use of human faeces to create a physical health risk, the assumption that this decreases their acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers is not necessarily correct. In Mariwah and Drangert’s (2011) data we find that 54% of respondents report to be unwilling to handle such fertilizers – which seems remarkably low, considering the fact that the authors report that 97% of these respondents consider handling excreta to be a major health risk. Among their respondents who report to be unwilling to use faeces- based fertilizers, 39% mention health considerations as the main reason. The authors acknowledge that respondents’ belief in health risks, although high, is not a main determinant of their degree of acceptance. Still, however, one of their conclusions is that ‘the majority of the respondents contend that human excreta should not be handled in any way since it carries a greater health risk’ (p. 821). This conclusion is not supported by evidence because it assumes a relation between perceived health risks and degree of acceptance that does not appear from the data. It is illustrative of the common assumption that perceived health risks negatively influence perceptions regarding human faeces and fertilizers based thereon. Studying perceptions regarding human faeces and acceptance of fertilizers based thereon is difficult, especially because many relevant issues – not exclusively health issues – have strong cultural connotations that are not always recognized. This underlines the importance of qualitative research that addresses hidden meanings and aims to gain a culturally informed understanding of the topic.

2.4 Implications of adopting a Douglasian perspective

Douglas’s theory (see section 2.1) appears to be a natural match for research on perceptions of human faeces. Not only does she repeatedly refer to faeces in her work in a way that produces an interesting and relatively convincing framework; other publications on human faeces and their use as fertilizers have also continued to build on her theory. More important however is the fact that Douglas’s theory is an effective framework for interpreting my data, as I indicate in the previous section as well as following sections. This is not to say that her theory is the only possible interpretation of perceptions of dirt – and it is certainly not a perfect theory, as I will also discuss in following sections. It is important to realize that every theory, including Douglas’s, has its limitations. Approaching faeces as dirt is a certain interpretation of the meaning of faeces, and not necessarily the only possible one. Even in a society that has been characterized as faecophobic, the ‘fear’ of faeces does not necessarily mean that faeces are considered dirt. Interpreting it as dirt as Douglas defines it makes it a source of pollution – and hence something that is contagious. This idea of contagion is a necessary background for the common assumption that perceptions of faeces-based fertilizers are related to general perceptions of human faeces (see section 2.1). Such a relation is only possible if the faecal aspect of such fertilizers has somehow polluted the fertilizer itself. This pollution or contagion is not necessarily physical: Avvannavar and Mani (2007) as well as Dellström Rosenquist (2005) argue – indeed in Douglas’s line of thought – that it is rather the idea of contagion that makes even an association with faeces so repulsive. It is therefore important to realize that the easy and seemingly logical linkage between acceptance of faeces and acceptance of faeces-based fertilizer follows from a conceptual choice, and is not necessarily based on reality. As we will see in following sections, my data analysis gives reason to question and refine exactly this aspect of Douglas’s theory.

3. Findings: the difference between raw faeces and faeces-based fertilizers

This chapter presents my data and an analysis of these data based on theories and literature that I presented in the previous chapter. I will argue that there is a difference between (raw) faeces that are associated with defecation and seen as a symbol of human badness, and (dried or treated) faeces intended for use as fertilizers, that no longer have such connotations. This leads to a critical reflection upon the theories and literature that I presented in the previous chapter.

3.1 Findings: acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers

My interviews and focus group discussions show a very diverse pattern of acceptance and non-acceptance, based on various reasons, of human faeces-based fertilizers. On one extreme are respondents who are very enthusiastic about the positive characteristics of faeces-based fertilizers and who report to be willing to use it as soon as it is available. The other extreme consists of respondents who find the idea of using human faeces so disgusting that they say they will never consider it. In both cases, respondents are convinced that all Ghanaians share their opinion. Respondents between these extremes show a variety of more moderate viewpoints. Respondents who readily accept the use of human faeces-based fertilizers often reported some experience or familiarity with their use. All respondents with some experience or knowledge about the use of faeces-based fertilizers discussed it in a positive tone: human faeces are known to brighten the green colour of leaves (compared to other organic fertilizers) and to increase long-term soil fertility. Many know neighbours or relatives who have used human faeces. Some even reported to have used human faeces in the past but they told me were forced to stop this practice because of stricter regulations. These regulations appear to be one of various reasons for non-acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers by some respondents. At the same time, however, regulations regarding the handling of human faeces and their use for fertilizers seem largely absent. On a national level no sound fertilizer regulation currently exists, according to officials from the Pesticide Fertilizer Regulatory Service

Directorate and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture3. In Appendix section 11 I discuss the lack of national regulation of (faeces-based and other) fertilizers. When asked about regulations concerning the handling of human faeces, many respondents referred to regulations that oblige each house to have a toilet. Some also responded positively on my question whether the use of faeces for fertilizers is regulated, but most respondents could not indicate the nature of such regulations. Respondents who indicated that they are not allowed to use faeces as fertilizers due to regulations probably referred to local rules, including community rules and statements from persons without official authority (see also Appendix section 7). Another reason for non-acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers is some respondents’ fear for customer avoidance of crops that are fertilized with the product, such as in the case of Ahmid, a vegetable farmer from Dzorwulu:

As you know, here, we don't even appreciate seeing faeces. And when people realize that you are associated with human faeces, they have very bad perceptions. Saying that all they will know you are doing is no good. . . . Before you realize, your whole farm has been tagged. And when it is been tagged, your business is destroyed.

For Ahmid, this is a serious reason for potentially not accepting faeces-based fertilizers: he explained later that he considers education of the public very important for farmers’ acceptance of the product. On the other hand, many respondents realize that consumers generally do not know what type of fertilizer has been used for their food. My interviews with market women and consumers confirmed that they are not aware – and moreover, that most of them do not really care about the type of fertilizers that are used, even if they contain human faeces4.

3 See Appendix section 10 for more information on regulation of faeces-based fertilizers in Ghana. 4 See Appendix section 9 for more information on the influence of perceived consumer avoidance on acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers.

Some respondents (20%5) consider faeces-based fertilizers to be not very appropriate for the production of food crops; they would more easily accept the use of such fertilizers for non-food crops (including flowers and garden plants). Not all respondents however find the use of faeces for food crops problematic; in fact, 25% consider the product to be more acceptable for food production, because that sector requires more fertilizer. Indeed, their argument is rather pragmatic and does not suggest major cultural problems of using faeces-based fertilizers for food6. Another important issue regarding non-acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers is related to their physical appearance. Fresh faeces are generally considered disgusting and unfit for use as fertilizers, while dried or chemically treated faeces are much more acceptable. Yet again not all respondents make this distinction: some find both fresh and treated faeces unacceptable, others find both acceptable as fertilizers. In various cases, however, respondents did not indicate a reason for not accepting faeces-based fertilizers. My repeated questions often only yielded repeated statements such as ‘I can’t!’ or ‘It’s not good!’ Apart from aspects that were mentioned by respondents as relevant factors for their degree of acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers, my analysis revealed three additional aspects that play a role. Region of origin appears to be important for respondents’ acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers. Respondents from northern Ghana generally found the use of faeces as fertilizers less problematic than their southern neighbours. Some respondents told me that northerners have traditionally been associated with occupations that include the handling of faeces. This corresponds to the fact that some literature sources mention trucks with sanitary sludge being hijacked for agricultural purposes (Asare and Kranjac-Berisavljevic 2003; Cofie et al. 2004;

5 I do not draw any conclusions based on these figures, because my research is not designed for statistical generalization. Any percentages that I give in this chapter as referral to a part of my research population serve merely as illustrations. 6 See Appendix section 13 for more information on the acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers for non-food crops.

Cofie et al. 2008): in all cases, they report on northern Ghana. There are no reports of such use of faecal sludge in the south7. Another important issue is the influence of authorities. Respondents report to attach great value to opinions of authorities – most notably agricultural extension officers – concerning their appreciation of agricultural inputs, including fertilizers. Not only extension officers influence their opinions, however; my data show that also the government, companies or experts, and religious commands influence respondents’ opinions. Various respondents indicated that the authority of official documents that confirm the effectiveness of a faeces-based fertilizer can also increase their acceptance of the product8. Finally, social contacts are of great importance for respondents’ fertilizer choice – and hence are also likely to affect their perception of faeces-based fertilizers. Some respondents indicated that they simply copied their neighbours’ behaviour when choosing fertilizers. Others indicated that they do not want to use faeces-based fertilizers because they fear that it may be considered unacceptable by their social contacts9. Based on these data, I cannot draw straightforward conclusions on general acceptance or non-acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers by potential users. My data rather show a pattern of very divergent perceptions, to various degrees influenced by a range of issues. A conclusion that can certainly be drawn, however, is that the use of faeces-based fertilizers is at least not entirely unacceptable. To the contrary: a vast majority (90%) of my respondents indicated to be willing to buy the product if certain conditions are met. Even though these conditions may not always be realistic (some respondents, for example, are willing to buy only at prices that are far below feasible for producers), these findings suggests that most respondents do not have any fundamental objections against the use of faeces- based fertilizers.

7 See Appendix section 12 for an elaboration of the importance of respondents’ region of origin for their acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers. 8 See Appendix section 6 for an elaboration of the influence of various authorities on respondents’ acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers. 9 See Appendix section 8 for an elaboration of the influence of social contacts on respondents’ acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers.

3.2 Faeces and faeces are two

The conclusion that there seem to be no fundamental objections against the use of faeces-based fertilizers may be surprising if we consider it in the light of Ghana’s often described faecophoby. Even more meaningful is the fact that many of my respondents who reported to be willing to use faeces-based fertilizers, also indicated that faeces are repulsive to them – often to the extent that they cannot bear to see them. Apparently there is no direct link between respondents’ general perception towards human faeces and their acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers. Richard, a staple crop farmer from Maame Dede, easily separates the two:

Q: But the fact that it is coming from human faeces – do you think that people will be less willing to buy it . . . ? A: Well, why? You wouldn't see it as toilet [faeces]; it's fertilizer!

Richard, like many others, indicates that faeces as a human waste and faeces as a fertilizer are two different concepts, with different cultural connotations. This is contrary to what one would expect based on Douglas’s notion of pollution, that suggests that the dirt in human faeces is contagious and makes faeces-based fertilizers equally dirty. Let us now turn to a closer examination of the meaning of faeces in the context of my study area – human faeces in general, without considering them as a resource for fertilizers. Only after that we will be able to characterize the relationship between faeces and faeces-based fertilizers.

3.3 Disgusting badness

My findings to some extent confirm Van der Geest’s (1998, 2002, 2003) conclusions concerning a widespread faecophoby in Ghana. When I showed respondents a sample of ‘faeces’ (in fact a mixture of peanut butter and garden soil), their first reactions were mostly full of disgust. Angelina from Dzorwulu, Isaac and Anumah from Ashaiman, and Esther from Maame Dede respectively articulate their feelings as follows:

I feel disgusted! . . . [Laughing] If someone sees [these] things around you – it's not hygienic, it's not appetizing.

I don't feel fine... it makes me feel... bad. . . . [Laughing] It's a human faeces!

When I see it? I feel bad... when I see it, I don't feel OK. I don't feel the air that I'm breathing. The atmosphere is very bad.

I see it as dirt. . . . Looking at it, it's... it's... [negative gesture] it's dirt. It looks like dirt. And as humans we don't have to come close to it.

It is difficult to discover the origin or reason of such feelings of disgust, since people may not be aware of it. My follow-up questions never yielded any insights, indicating that respondents are unable or unwilling to express reasons for disgust. To some extent, feelings of disgust towards faeces seem universal: a person who does not mind being near faeces is easily seen as mad, or at least a bit strange. Yet there seems to be something special about Ghanaians’ perception of faeces – as I indicated in section 2.1. In this section I argue, based on Van der Geest’s (1998) findings as well as my own data, that this is due to a conceptualization of faeces as a symbol of not only physical, but also social badness. During interviews and focus group discussions, multiple respondents indicated that their disgust of faeces originates from a notion of its ‘badness’, which they derive from the body’s natural repulsion of faeces. Opoku, a flower grower from Spintex, remarks:

You know, it's not good... [That is] exactly why it came out.

Similarly, fruit/vegetable farmer Kwesi from Maame Dede explains:

[We] see it as something bad, because it comes... we take it out of our body. So once it comes out, we... it's not good, it's a bad thing.

Interestingly, the fact that the body separates faeces is seen as an indication of its badness. Some respondents have religious reasons for this opinion – in one of the focus group discussions, for example, staple crop farmer Emanuel from Maame Dede clarifies:

The bible even says that, whatever enters the body is good, but whatever comes out of the body is bad. So for you to touch human faeces, it's bad.

A market woman from Cantonments, Accra, similarly argues:

Because it [faeces] is from our stomach, and God knows it’s not good… That’s why he separated it… and how come you use it for another thing again?!

These statements once more underline the importance of authorities, in this case a religious authority. Again the natural or divinely created situation in which faeces are separated from the body is considered an indication for badness of the matter. If the body naturally secretes faeces, the implicit argument goes, a logical reaction for humans would be to extend this secretion – to distance themselves even further from their badness. Opoku from Spintex further expresses the meaning of faeces and defecation:

When it [faeces] came [out of my body], I'm free. . . . All the bad things in you have been flushed away.

His statement indicates that faeces are or symbolize ‘bad things in you’. It is important to realize that badness is a moral concept – it is part of a certain classification of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ that needs to be socially constructed. But the social dimensions of faeces, I suggest, go further than just faeces being socially constructed. It also has social implications, in the sense that a person’s relation to faeces influences his social life. More specifically: faeces as a physical badness symbolize social badness – that is, incompliance with social standards or a low social status. I find the terminology that respondents apply when discussing people’s behaviour regarding faeces and defecation illustrative of my argument. They either use terms of being sensible, civilized, enlightened, appropriate, serious, or ‘from a good home’ – or, to the contrary: abnormal, stubborn, with bad intentions, bestial, uneducated, or simply mad. Similarly, Van der Geest (1998) shows how in Twi, the main language of southern Ghana, linguistic expressions concerning dirt (including faeces) are related to notions of badness, being uncivilized, shamefulness, and lack of respect. Hence ‘[faecal] dirt symbolizes moral decay’ (p. 9). One example of such moral decay is given by Sekyi from Maame Dede:

The older time, you don't normally see faeces around like presently, because they don't allow that. But now, anybody defecates everywhere. . . . The difference is that, children of this day, when you tell them not to do it, they do it. Children are stubborn. And as there is lot of... when you ask them not to do something, they do the opposite.

Similarly, as a response to my question what he thinks about people who defecate just anywhere, he says:

I see you as a bad person, you don't have good intentions for the community.

Unfortunately Sekyi could not or did not want to explain this notion of ‘bad intentions’, but it is clear that he considers people’s behaviour regarding faeces an indicator of their degree of compliance to social standards as well as something that directly influences the person’s social environment. When I asked respondents whether they thought people from different social or economic classes had different perceptions regarding faeces, almost all of them responded positively: people from high classes are more disgusted by seeing faeces than people from low classes. The reverse, then, is also true: being disgusted by faeces, which results in certain behaviour, signifies a high social status. Flower grower George from Spintex explains:

A: You take a rich man . . . for example, a rich woman – if she sees toilet [faeces] publicly, she won't sweep. Either she will call the house girl to come and sweep it or put it elsewhere. Q: Hm-hm, so why... why would she not do it herself? A: Oh, for she is a rich woman, you can't sweep.

George’ s reference to this status issue which is apparently generally known (and confirmed by statements from many other respondents) indicates an institutionalized social meaning of a physical phenomenon. A slightly different but equally interesting illustration of the social influence of people’s behaviour regarding faeces is Van der Geest’s (1998) observation of defecation as a daily morning ritual for many Akans. He describes that people find it very important to defecate every morning in order to start the day in a clean

28 state – to the extent that they start using laxatives when they ‘missed’ one day. Faeces staying inside the body are considered a dangerous dirt that ferments and causes diseases (ibid.). As a result, someone who has not yet defecated shuns the exchange of greetings until he has done so: carrying faeces makes one unfit for social interactions. This is a very clear example of how faeces as a symbol of badness have social implications. They are more than something that naturally evokes a reaction of disgust – they symbolize an individual’s compliance to social standards, and his or her status and position in society.

3.4 Faeces conceptualized in literature: intimacy, porosity, and control

This case-specific evidence forms an interesting starting point for the examination of some conceptualizations of the cultural and social meaning of faeces in a broader range of literature. Examining literature from various disciplines – with Douglas’s theory of faeces symbolizing social structures in mind – yields some more specific social meanings of faeces, most notably its power as a symbol of intimate badness and a resulting urge for control over porosity. Firstly, faeces symbolize an intimate badness. Çakirlar (2011), who studied the meaning of faeces in Western and non-Western art, argues that the simple fact that partial nakedness is a prerequisite for defecation makes faeces a symbol of ‘nakedness’. As a result, faeces are ‘a piece of myself’ and ‘expose and externalize our innermost intimacy’ (Zizek 2001, quoted in Bradshaw and Canniford 2010, p. 106). This is not necessarily a good piece of yourself – in fact, exposing an intimate part of yourself that you consider negative is much more shameful than exposing a part that you perceive to be positive. During my interviews, I noticed that discussing faeces was rather uncomfortable or even shameful for some of my respondents. The words that they used to describe their feelings regarding faeces reflect this idea of faeces as a symbol of intimacy, of exposing your personal badness. Flower grower Opoku from Spintex did not appear to be at ease as he struggled to find words to express his feelings:

It [human faeces] is disgusting. . . . Because it comes from me, and I know it's not... It doesn't......

The notion that ‘it comes from me’ and simultaneously ‘it’s disgusting’ makes Opoku feel ashamed: it indicates that his body, his person, contains something bad. Secondly, a notion of ‘porosity’ is associated with faeces and defecation. A human body is not a closed circuit: it requires external inputs and it generates waste. This notion of porosity can range from ‘controlled porosity’ to ‘leakiness’ (Longhurst, quoted by Pickering 2010). Human beings have learnt to deal with this porosity in a specific way. They are generally not simply dropping their faeces like animals, but have developed habits of relieving themselves at intervals, and in designated places (Salisbury 2011). The Ghanaian practice of defecating first thing in the morning (Van der Geest 1998) is a very developed form of such ‘controlled porosity’. Some of my respondents, such as vegetable farmer Zolubera from Korle Bu, confirmed this cultural form of controlling the body’s porosity:

If you wake up in the morning, you usually go to [the] toilet.

Such institutionalized forms of controlling the body’s porosity often have a meaning that goes beyond the physical, Salisbury (2011) argues: they symbolize control of the social environment. Elias even goes so far as to assert that ‘managing that which exits the body – from faeces to farts – is central to the development of individualism in Europe’ (quoted by Pickering 2010, p. 40). A similar argument is made by Laporte, who sees faeces as the ‘discursive genesis of modern intimacy and individuality’ (quoted by Tomes 2001, p. 402). This indicates that faeces and defecation themselves, in a natural state, symbolize a lack of control, maybe even a lack of individual boundaries. Ultimately, this makes of faeces a strong symbol not only of bodily, but also of (social) identity boundaries. They function as the ‘wall of affects . . . between one human body and another, repelling and separating’ (Elias 1939, quoted in Mennell 1989, p. 44). Laporte (quoted by Bradshaw and Canniford 2010, p. 105) argues that the relationship ‘of a subject to his shit, is . . . not only the subject’s relationship to the totality of his body, but his very relationship to the world and to those representations that he constructs of his situation in society’. Equally, Douglas (2005, p. 79) hypothesizes that ‘bodily control is an expression of social control’, because ‘the relation of . . . . mouth and anus are commonly treated so that they express the relevant patterns of hierarchy [in society]’. And Turner

(1994, p. 28), lastly, asserts that ‘the body remains the site of some . . . of the most fundamental forms of social inequality and control in contemporary society’. This conceptualization of faeces as a symbol of the need to control bodily and social porosity follows logically from a Douglas-inspired understanding of its representation of intimate badness. It is however not directly confirmed by my data: I could not identify social structures that are demonstrably or logically connected to people’s practices with regard to faeces (which does not necessarily mean that they do not exist). Interestingly, this is a common problem of Douglas’s theory. In the 2002 preface to a new edition of ‘Purity and Danger’, Douglas admits that the analysis of biblical pollution rules in her book is problematic because of an ‘absence of any positive implications for the social system of the biblical Hebrews for whom the rules were made’ (Douglas 2002, p. xiv). Because of a similar absence of positive implications for the social system in my study, I now explore some other (but related) issues that help to understand perceptions of faeces in the context of my study. As we will see later, these lead us back to Douglas’s work, and have some implications for an evaluation of her theory.

3.5 ‘What the eye doesn’t see...’

An important finding from my data is the importance of a sensory perception, specifically seeing and to a lesser extent smelling, as a determinant of perceptions regarding faeces. The intimacy of the matter and its associated power to evoke feelings of disgust suggests that anything associated with faeces is considered unacceptable – from defecating to handling faeces, from seeing or smelling faeces to simply knowing that they are there; even talking about faeces could be expected to evoke feelings of disgust. This is also what Douglas’s notion of pollution or contagion implies: if faeces are dirty, everything and every person associated with it is also dirty. But this is not what my data show. Virtually all respondents used the word seeing to describe their problems with accepting faeces, such as vegetable and staple crop farmer Dotse from Ashaiman:

It’s not a nice thing to see faeces. And the feeling you have when you see faeces, to the effect that you don’t even feel like eating anything. It’s a bad feeling to see faeces.

For some, smelling is also important. John, a vegetable/staple crop farmer from Ashaiman, remarks:

The whole thing is, like... the appearance of it, the smell of it, it's really bad, so...

The feelings of disgust associated with seeing or smelling faeces evoke a reflex of distancing from it. John continues:

The moment you see it [human faeces], you just turn your eyes, as if you didn't see... That's what you do.

Of course, John is aware that he is befooling himself by pretending that he does not see the faeces while knowing it is there. But that is not a problem, as fruit/staple crop farmer Sekyi from Maame Dede confirms:

If it is not seen it's not disgusting. What the eyes have not seen, is not disgusting [laughing]. . . .

Similar to Drangert and Nawab’s (2011) findings in Pakistan, in Ghana too ‘a man defecating behind his robe is not seen defecating, although any passer-by understands what is taking place’ (p. 64). As long as your senses do not perceive faeces, you can pretend they are not there. I do not consider this to be a universal phenomenon. For Dutch people, I believe, seeing someone defecate behind a robe is just as disgusting as actually seeing his or her faeces; it’s the fact that someone has defecated in an inappropriate setting that counts. In this sense, there is a difference at least between Ghana and the Netherlands: it is what puzzled Van der Geest (1998) when he observed that Akans were able to simply put their unhygienic environment out of their mind. Illustrative of the importance attributed to sensory perception is the fact that some respondents report that seeing or smelling faeces is a health danger (either physically or socially; see section 2.3). Anumah, another vegetable/staple crop farmer from Ashaiman, tells me:

Yeah, it can cause… you can get a disease from it. Maybe when you smell it, it can cause…

His colleague Kwesi, fruit/vegetable farmer in Maame Dede, explains:

Parents teach their children that faeces have bad smell and once you inhale the smell, it brings diseases.

Such statements correspond to Jenkins and Scott’s (2007) conclusion that Ghanaians believe that sighting faeces alone can transmit diseases. This aversion of seeing or smelling faeces applies not only to one’s own faeces, but also to other people’s faeces – because they remind you of your own faeces, and your own intimate badness. This becomes clear if we recall Opoku’s statement that I presented earlier:

It [human faeces] is disgusting. . . . Because it comes from me, and I know it's not... It doesn't......

Opoku is not talking about his own faeces here; it is his reaction when seeing the ‘faeces’ sample in a small glass jar that I show him. Yet he makes a mental connection between this impersonal sample and his own faeces. Some other respondents make similar statements, such as fruit/staple crop farmer Sekyi and staple crop farmer Richard (respectively), both from Maame Dede:

It [human faeces] is disgusting. . . . [because] it's,... it comes from us, we do it ourselves, but the sight is not pleasant.

Q: What would you think if you would see it [human faeces]? A: You see it as your own toilet [faeces], so.. that's what I see.

Perceiving faeces reminds these respondents of their own faeces, of an intimate badness that they would rather neglect. This also explains respondents’ fear for consumer avoidance of crops fertilized with human faeces. In a group discussion, vegetable farmer Ibrahim from Dzorwulu explains:

If the person [consumer] imagines how the faeces look like and considers the use of it in growing these vegetables, he or she may lose appetite for eating it.

Ibrahim is afraid that consumers of his vegetables, if they know that these vegetables are produced with human faeces, will recall an image of faeces – which clearly evokes disgust. Ibrahim does not say he considers consumers’ knowledge of the use of faeces-based fertilizers itself problematic; only the possibility that this will evoke an imaginary seeing of faeces worries him. If seeing or smelling faeces is a problem and evokes a reaction of distancing, we might expect to find provisions that facilitate such distancing – for example, specific places to be assigned for defecation to prevent people from encountering faeces where they do not expect them. And indeed, although open defecation is a common practice, it is not practiced at any random place. People generally know the ‘defecation places’ in their community: behind the school building, in the bush, or in so-and-so’s field. Tree/fruit farmer Esther from Maame Dede tells me, slightly ashamed:

Where I go to defecate belongs to someone. . . . We all use the same place. And even people from outside come and defecate there. [Turning to my translator:] You know that place! [laughing] It's become a... a place where people usually defecate.

The existence of such places became painfully clear to me when I was enjoying a trip to the beach: as I was enjoying the sunset, more and more people joined me for very different purposes. Such designated places, I was told afterwards, are often institutionalized to the extent that specific sections exist for men and for women. Such unspoken, unwritten, but commonly known arrangements help people to avoid coming across other people’s faeces in unexpected places. Because that appears to be what should be avoided according to Ghanaian culture: not people seeing your faeces (as long as they do not know it is yours), but you seeing someone else’s (or your own) faeces. That may be why open defecation is still very popular, despite feelings of disgust regarding faeces: you simply leave your faeces behind in the bush, it will not bother you because you will not see it again, and another person seeing your faeces is not intimidating because he or she does not know it is yours. Many respondents also told me that it is common to clean faeces that were found near your house – not necessarily because they are yours (in fact

34 everyone knows that they are most likely not yours), but simply because they are within your vision. The argument that faeces are offensive to their beholder instead of their producer also explains the ancient practice of putting faeces in someone’s house as an intimidation or even a curse. During my consumer interviews, I asked people whether they were aware of such practices – and indeed, many of them were. A young man reports:

It’s for… usually, then, it’s for intimidation. The ones who want to intimidate you, they just bring faeces. So… it has been done a lot of times. It usually happens in schools. When the community doesn't like the school, they will bring faeces. Yeah. Somebody... in my church, somebody actually came just to put faeces in my church once.

Similarly, Dotse from Ashaiman tells me:

When we see faeces, traditionally we believe that someone is plotting something evil against you. We see it as if someone wants to destroy your farm.

Such notions can only exist if faeces are perceived to be more harmful for their beholder than for the person who produced them. This has profound implications for the notion of contagion that I discussed earlier. Since pollution or contagion is a ‘material question’, based on ‘whether a forbidden contact has taken place or not’ (Douglas 2002, p. 162), one would expect that the defecation and handling faeces are most problematic. The fact that in this case it is rather a sensory perception that makes faeces unacceptable is something that seems not to represent contagion, but rather serves as a reminder or even an allegory of one’s own badness. Apparently, dirt is not always polluting in the way Douglas refers to: a broader interpretation of dirt and its effects may be possible and necessary.

3.6 Scales of intimacy

Although it is clear that most respondents have negative perceptions towards faeces because of their intimidating power, not all faeces are equally intimidating. Van der Geest (2007) adds to Mary Douglas’s theory a notion of socialization by identifying various relationships between producer and percipient of faeces. He argues that not all faeces are perceived equally; our relational proximity to a person determines to a large extent our feelings towards his or her faeces. My data confirm the hypothesis of ‘scales of intimacy’. Yet contrary to Van der Geest’s (ibid.) statement, I argue that at least for my research population, social proximity increases instead of decreases feelings of disgust. This does not mean that I reject Van der Geest’s conclusions; as I describe below, both frameworks can exist side by side because they are based on different types of proximity that may be applicable simultaneously. My starting point however is rather different from Van der Geest’s. He (ibid., p. 386) states that ‘people are usually not disgusted by their own faeces’ – yet my findings show, as I illustrated above, that own faeces are the most disgusting of all. They are the most intimate material around, because they represent not just any person’s badness, but my own. Various respondents indicated that they considered this to be the natural order of things, that every being disgusts his own faeces. Opoku, flower grower in Spintex, says the same is true for animals:

Every... even, every normal animal disgusts his own toilet [faeces]. So that's why I also disgust my own toilet [faeces], and my own... If you have a dog in the house, and ehm.. you want him to stop defecating anywhere, whenever he defecates, just put it where he normally defecates, before he comes there, he smells his own faeces, he won't come back again. Even if you put the faeces of the goats, cows, and this on the flowers, and they began to chew this, they won't come and chew it again.

Opoku observes that every animal disgusts his own faeces, and concludes that the same must be true for humans – although he does not explain why own faeces are more disgusting than foreign faeces. Based on my data, then, I structure other scales of disgust contrary to the hierarchy described by Van der Geest (2007) – all other faeces are not more 36 disgusting, but less disgusting than my own. Van der Geest (ibid.) describes, in increasing order of disgust: me, known others (including successively children, partners and friends), and unknown others. He describes animals as a separate category, because they do not really fit in his framework: they are very different from ourselves and therefore intuitively less related even than unknown others; yet their faeces are generally considered less disgusting than human faeces. I propose a different framework of ‘scales of disgust’, logically including animal faeces. In increasing order of disgust, I distinguish the following categories: animal faeces, young children’s faeces, adults’ faeces (from either a known or an unknown adult – the fact is that in Ghana generally you do not know who produced them), and finally my own faeces. These categories are based primarily on physical appearance of faeces. In a context where faeces are generally encountered in the open field instead of in a household toilet, faeces are somehow impersonalized – they can no longer be associated with a specific individual. In that sense, my framework is different from Van der Geest’s (2007): he takes social relations as a measure for proximity, I take physical appearance. In my framework, then, it makes sense that animal faeces – generally easily distinguishable from human faeces – are not very disgusting: they simply do not remind people of their own faeces, their own badness. Flower grower Wadis from Spintex reports:

If I see an animal faeces, I don't feel like that, when I see human faeces... [negative gesture] . . . I can use my hands to collect cow dungs and all these things... but human faeces, no! I can't!

Fruit/staple crop farmer Sekyi from Maame Dede has similar sentiments:

The poultry is not that disgusting as compared to human faeces. The sight of it is not that disgusting. . . . When you compare the two faeces, human faeces is much more unpleasant than... as compared to poultry.

In general, Ghanaians consider young children’s faeces to be less repulsive than adults’ (Drangert and Nawab 2011; Dellström Rosenquist 2005; Van der Geest 2007). Van der Geest (2007) concludes that this is because of social proximity – a mother knows her baby does not feel disgust for its faeces. But my respondents,

37 although most of them consider children’s faeces to be less repulsive than adults’, did not give social proximity as a reason. Flower grower Opoku from Spintex argues:

If you see adult faeces, you can see it's an adult, then it is more disgusting than that of a child. . . . You see the adult like yourself, and you look at your own type that could do such a thing... You wouldn't be happy.

Vegetable/staple crop farmer John from Ashaiman explains the difference between children’s faeces and adults’ faeces:

Especially babies, newly born babies... their faeces are [less disgusting than adults’ faeces]. . . . Because... They do believe that the young ones, they've not started taking it in solid food, and stuff like that, and their faeces is not much... not much toxic, or like that. . . . When you take some foods like kokonte or fufu, those hard starched foods, the kind of faeces you produce are hard and...

But apart from the structure, also the quantity distinguishes children’s faeces from adults’, says Sekyi from Maame Dede:

The faeces of children are not that heavy, it means that you don't see that much. An adult who defecates, I mean, the quantity of it alone... yeah. [laughing]

All of these respondents indicate physical appearance as an important issue for perception of faeces. I argue therefore that in addition to Van der Geest’s statement above, another explanation is also possible and in this case inevitable: young children’s faeces do not resemble adults’ faeces and hence are considered less repulsive, less intimidating.

3.7 Faeces-based fertilizers and the importance of good looks

The importance of physical appearance explains why respondents easily accept treated or dried faeces as fertilizers, while they disgust fresh faeces. Dried or chemically treated faeces are no longer recognizable as such, and therefore no longer remind the user of his own faeces. Vegetable farmer Ahmid from Dzorwulu is ready to buy faeces-based fertilizers – as long as they are not fresh:

You see, when you see it's fresh, aii [gesture of disgust], there's something wrong. But when it is dry, you don't even see it's faeces.

Many other respondents shared similar feelings, indicating that they can certainly accept faeces-based fertilizers as long as they are not visually associable with faeces. Treatment therefore appears to be a very important measure for increasing the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers. It does not really matter whether fertilizers contain human faeces, as long as you cannot see it. Indeed, changing physical appearance was the most common recommendation given by my respondents when I asked them what can be done to make faeces-based fertilizers more acceptable for potential users. Vegetable farmers Mohamed and Angelina (respectively) from Dzorwulu recommend:

When it looks like the way it's just like the chemical fertilizer, it wouldn't give a problem.

If you can do it like the chemical fertilizer, then fine! We will buy.

Such statements are promising for actors that want to produce human faeces- based fertilizers. Indeed, physical appearance of such fertilizers can relatively easily be adapted – often standard treatment procedures (see Box 5) already take away all the smell and radically change the visual form of faeces. Beyond the use of faeces for fertilizers, their use in other products may be very auspicious as well: the importance of physical appearance suggests that products such as biogas are even more readily acceptable for the public in and around Accra.

3.8 Matter out of place or out of form?

I indicated before that a notion of contagion or pollution, which is central to Douglas’s (2002) theory on dirt, cannot easily be applied to perceptions regarding human faeces and faeces-based fertilizers in the context of this study. Contagion does not take place between the physical and the social: people are not polluted as such by interactions with faeces, but faeces are a reminder, almost an allegory of personal badness. Contagion also does not take place between multiple physical manifestations of the matter: regarding human faeces as dirt does not necessarily imply that faeces-based fertilizers are also dirt. To the contrary: if they manifest

39 themselves in ‘the right form’, faeces are totally acceptable for most of my respondents. This attention to form and physical appearance to some extent contrasts Douglas’s notion of dirt as matter out of place. Interestingly, place does not appear to be a major factor in respondents’ perception of faeces and faeces-based fertilizers. Fresh faeces are out of place everywhere, according to most of my respondents. It is therefore not true, at least in this context, that ‘order is being maintained when the human-derived nutrients are considered to be in the right place when used in agriculture’ (Drangert and Nawab 2011, p. 64). Farmers and flower growers generally know that human faeces contain nutrients – yet most of them do not consider fresh faeces to be ‘in place’ on their fields. Perhaps contrary to other cultures, Ghanaian culture does not consider fresh human faeces in a toilet to be ‘in place’: wherever they are, faeces intimidate humans and evoke a sense of social deviance. Not place, but physical appearance determines whether or not faeces are acceptable: dry or treated faeces are in fact no longer faeces and do not evoke the strong feelings of disgust that are associated with fresh faeces. If a certain categorization of physical phenomena is intended to exaggerate and reinforce a social structure, as Douglas (2002) maintains, there should be an obvious match between the two: encountering the physical categorization must naturally remind the beholder of the social structure it refers to. Applying this to the difference between place and form as variables that determine whether or not something is acceptable. Being in or out of place is rather straightforward dichotomy: it is either one or the other. Therefore, categorizations in terms of physical place are naturally suitable for straightforward social categorizations – indeed, structures – such as the distinction between men and women, humans and animals, one tribe and the other (the types of structures that Douglas continually refers to in her book). Being in or out of form, however, is totally different: it is a gradual scale, as I elaborated in section 3.6. As a result, it is suitable for representing social issues – not structures – that include a gradual scale: social status, degree of compliance to moral standards, and even individual issues of conscience and personal badness. None of these issues is discussed by Douglas, because her narrower notion of dirt as matter out of place excludes them.

A narrow focus on place, then, creates the risk of adopting a too static approach towards dirt (and other social/cultural concepts). The dichotomy of being in or out of place reduces the state of things to ones and zeroes – without acknowledging, perhaps that some forms of dirt are more flexible and can gradually change into slightly less dirty, almost not dirty, and not dirty at all. By approaching faeces as a phenomenon for which form, not place, decides its dirtiness, I still use Douglas’s (2002) broader concept of dirt categorizations as ‘analogies for expressing a general view of social order’ (p. 4). I adhere to her notion that the cultural construction of physical phenomena influences people’s social life, because that clearly appears from my data. My analysis indicates, for example, that faeces being unhygienic means they negatively affect social status if they are seen near to you; that faeces exposed to others symbolize the exposure of personal intimacy; that faeces are traditionally used to intimidate others. Interestingly, these physical phenomena are always perceived through physical human senses. My analysis shows how important seeing, and to a lesser extent smelling, is for people’s perceptions of faeces. The importance of sensory perception as opposed to other types of interactions with faeces (for example, knowing that it is there or discussing it with a friend) is something that this study cannot explain and that deserves attention in further research.

4. Conclusions

In the introductory chapter of this report, I asked two questions that are based on the idea that the alleged faecophoby in Ghana might influence the acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers. Firstly, why are faeces in general, and their use as/in fertilizers in particular, considered culturally unacceptable in urban and peri- urban areas of Accra, Ghana? And secondly, what measures can be used to influence the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers? Based on the analysis presented in previous chapters, I present conclusions for both questions in this section. Fresh human faeces are intimidating, they symbolize porosity and ‘leaking’ of moral badness. My data analysis suggests that respondents find fresh faeces disgusting because they remind them of their own badness, which corresponds in broad outline with Douglas’s (2002) theory on cultural constructions of dirt as an analogy of a social reality. Because encountering faeces is so confrontational, social customs and personal habits regarding faeces mainly intend to maintain a distance between people and faeces – or at least to create an artificial distance by pretending not to see faeces. This applies not only to an individual’s own faeces, but also to other people’s faeces: seeing faeces that remind you of your own is almost as intimidating as seeing your own faeces. Therefore, the closer the relationship between the faeces you behold and your own faeces (in appearance), the more disgust they evoke. This is different from, and to some extent opposing Van der Geest’s (2007) framework, that maintains that a closer relationship (but in a social, not a physical sense) evokes less disgust. Perceptions regarding human faeces-based fertilizers differ to a great extent from those described above. Acceptance of such products is high, and any non- acceptance generally relates to assumed freshness of the material. Respondents indicated that dried or chemically treated faeces are acceptable as fertilizers because they do not resemble fresh faeces in physical appearance – therefore they are no longer considered faeces, but fertilizers. Dried or treated faeces do not have the power of reminding people of their own faeces or badness, as fresh faeces do: they are considered neutral, socially appropriate. My data do not indicate that any official or unofficial rules currently exist against the use of human faeces as fertilizer. Hesitation regarding the use of dried/treated faeces as fertilizers often 43 originates from assumed customer avoidance of the produced crops or flowers, based on customers’ imagination that may relate such crops to fresh faeces. My conclusion that people’s acceptance of human faeces and fertilizer based thereon depends largely on their physical appearance has implications for the use of Douglas’s (2002) theory. Firstly, the notion of contagion or pollution that is central to Douglas’s theory, is only partially applicable here: negative connotations of fresh faeces pollute an individual’s social status, but they do not pollute dried or treated faeces. Secondly, whereas Douglas considers dirt to be ‘matter out of place’, my study suggests that in the context of this research dirt is first and foremost ‘matter out of form’. This attention to the physical form of faeces, which is a variable with a gradual scale, makes it suitable for symbolizing not clear-cut social structures (as in Douglas’s work), but rather gradual and flexible social dynamics such as status and compliance to social standards. This study therefore proposes a broader understanding of Douglas’s theory, expanding the meaning of dirt from a narrow focus of dirt as ‘matter out of place’ to an inclusion of ‘matter out of form’. This has implications for the common characterization of Ghana as a ‘faecophobic’ country: in fact, faeces can take many forms and faecophoby is only attached to one of these. Concerning measures to influence the acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers, much attention has been given to addressing health issues of the product. This study shows however that such physical health risks are generally not the major issue of concern for respondents – certainly for fertilizers based on treated faeces. Instead, health often refers to a social status of cleanliness, that humans can only obtain by eliminating physical dirt and anything that reminds them of it. Based on the importance of physical appearance or form of faeces, a more effective measure to influence acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers is to make them less recognizable as human faeces. Changing the product’s physical appearance is indeed the most common recommendation given by respondents for increasing acceptance of such fertilizers. Sight, and to a lesser degree smell, need to make people associate it with fertilizers instead of faeces. If that can be achieved, knowing that the product contains human faeces is no longer a problem – instead, many respondents have positive experiences with the fertilizing potential of dried or treated human faeces.

Box 6: Reflection

I made some choices with regards to methods of data gathering and analysis (see Box 3) that I evaluate here by examining their effectiveness and their influence on this study.

Literature review

In my literature review I included publications from many different disciplines, some of which seemed irrelevant at first sight. I included a wide variety of publications that dealt in some way with the meaning of human faeces. Reading all this literature was time-consuming, but very helpful in getting a broad understanding of the topic. Some publications on fine arts, literature, film studies and philosophy gave me very interesting insights – such as the work of Çakirlar (2011) on faeces as a symbol of nakedness.

Fieldwork

During my two months of fieldwork in and around Accra I started with gathering information from SSGL regarding the current state of its work, its ideas, potential informants, etcetera. Starting at SSGL may imply a bias in data gathering; on the other hand, it gave me the opportunity to fine-tune my study objectives and get introduced to many relevant information sources. SSGL put me in touch with two very competent translators with extensive experience in in-depth interviewing, which was very helpful for my interactions with potential fertilizer users. Moreover, the fact that SSGL made a desk available for me in its office really stimulated me to work hard – with the result that I already transcribed and coded most of the interviews during my fieldwork period.

Interviews

Doing semi-structured interviews enabled me to combine a list of predefined discussion topics in my interview guide (that I adapted after every couple of interviews) with flexibility in their use. During the first few interviews, I noticed, I kept myself relatively strictly to my interview guide – partly out of uncertainty and partly because I did not yet know which topics were most relevant. After a

45 while I became more confident and allowed interactions to flow more freely. This helped me to gain the benefits of qualitative research that I had anticipated: acquiring a culturally informed understanding of the topic by allowing respondents to discuss what they deem relevant. I took precautions for dealing with the expected sensitivity of the topic. My aim was to have every interview in a setting that gave the respondent a sense of privacy. In reality I sometimes ended up on a wooden bench between the farm fields, with other farmers coming and going. Whenever I had the feeling that respondents’ answers were too much influenced by others or the noise would spoil my recordings, I asked my translator to explain that we needed a bit more privacy – and the problem was always solved. Another part of my strategy for anticipating the sensitivity of the topic was to always bring a native Ghanaian translator with knowledge of local languages. This would allow respondents to speak in the language that they felt most comfortable with, and at the same time the translator could sensitize whenever my questions were inappropriate. The latter happened once, when I asked a farmer about religious regulations on faeces: I did not notice it, but my translator indicated that the farmer seemed to feel very uncomfortable about the question (while other respondents discussed religion rather freely). Apart from such anecdotic events, discussing faeces appeared to be by far not as sensitive as I expected. I did not use translators for my interviews with consumers, market women, government officials and experts, and I never encountered any problems of sensitivity. To the contrary: the ease with which consumers loudly discussed their perceptions of faeces in the middle of a shopping mall indicated that they felt far from uncomfortable. The interviews with consumers, market women, government officials and experts were meant to provide background information, as opposed to the interviews with potential fertilizer users that I considered to constitute the central part of my research. These extra interviews were nonetheless very useful: interviews with government officials and experts helped me to interpret some data, while my interactions with consumers and market women gave new insights, for example regarding actual consumer avoidance of crops that are fertilized with human faeces.

Focus group discussions

Although my supervisor first advised me not to do focus group discussions, I am glad that I stuck to my plan. I wanted to have focus group discussions with potential fertilizer users in order complement individual perceptions on faeces and faeces-based fertilizers (from my interviews) with social perceptions. Focus group discussions could help me to identify whether respondents discussed the topic differently in a social setting. This was not the case: I was surprised that perceptions of faeces-based fertilizers within each group were very divergent, and that participants allowed radically different viewpoints without judging them. At the same time, participants actively discussed advantages and disadvantages of different types of fertilizers and collaboratively suggested measures for improving acceptance. My suggestion that social contacts are important for the acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers (see Appendix section 7) is partly based on these focus group discussions. At the same time, these discussions were difficult to organize. Participants were often busy, so it was difficult to find five people who could be at the same place at the same time. Most participants did not speak English; therefore these discussions were held in local languages. One of my translators served as a discussion moderator (with a discussion guide that I developed), the other simultaneously translated the discussions for me. Although I think this was the best option, it was not easy: part of the information is undoubtedly lost in simultaneous translation, and I was not always able to steer the discussion moderator when I considered it necessary. Especially my second goal of focus group discussions, to discuss hypotheses that I based on interview data, was not sufficiently achieved.

My influence as a researcher

Despite my continuous efforts to explain that I am a student from an university, doing research for her MSc thesis, respondents often appeared to see me as an expert or fertilizer producer. Apart from the fact that some considered me to be an authority on the effectiveness and correct application of fertilizers, a number of respondents indicated at the end of the interview that they were expectantly

47 waiting for the moment that I would come back to distribute faeces-based fertilizer samples. I realize that this may have profound implications for the reliability of the data from these interviews. Their interest in obtaining free samples may have caused them to respond more positively than they really felt. On the other hand, if respondents’ actual perceptions of faeces-based fertilizers would be really negative, they would probably not even want to have a sample and there would be no need to give a too positive representation of their opinions. I tried to forestall this potential bias by experimenting with different topic sequences in my interviews, in order to see whether these would result in different response patterns. For example, sometimes I started with discussing sanitation and faeces, and I tried to stimulate respondents to start talking about their use for fertilizers spontaneously; other times I bluntly introduced the topic of my research as ‘faeces-based fertilizers’ and tried to find out how this influenced respondents’ subsequent discussions of faeces in a more general sense. The fact that these different topic sequences did not appear to yield different types of responses suggests that the potential bias is not too large.

Data storage and analysis

I used a voice recorder for my interviews and focus group discussions, and made a detailed and literal transcript of each recording. Although this was very time- consuming and the value of such detailed transcriptions was not clear to me right from the start, I noticed later that it revealed some interesting details that would otherwise have been lost. Small hesitations, specific formulations by me or the respondent, and speaking in a certain tone were details that often helped me to interpret my data. I used an extensive coding framework with both inductive and directed codes to analyze my data. I found it very helpful to be able to categorize data and subsequently analyze patterns and relations within and between categories. Without coding, I would never have been able to make sense of my large and divergent data set. The importance of seeing, for example, is something that only appeared to me when I noticed how often I had used the code ‘seeing faeces’; because of the familiarity of the word seeing I had not discovered it by simply reading my transcripts.

I used MS Excel software for my coding, instead of more specialized software such as ATLAS.ti. This saved me the time that I would have needed for learning how to use such software. I found MS Excel perfectly useful for coding: I copied my transcripts into the first column of a worksheet, with a small data segment in each row, and assigned a ‘1’ to each code that applied, represented by the other columns. MS Excel has sophisticated functions for sorting and analyzing such data.

Possible improvements

If I had to execute a similar study in the future, I would do some things the same, and other things different from my approach in this study. I consider my methodology suitable for the type of research: literature review, interviews and focus group discussions complement each other and yield a useful data set. Reading a broad range of publications on the topic, from multiple disciplines, is something I will certainly do again. I would also try to find a local organization or company, like SSGL, that can help me with the first steps of my fieldwork. The use of translators has been very valuable, although I might want to give them an even more thorough explanation of my expectations. Semi- structured interviews have proven to be useful for this study, and my experience with them will probably help me to fully benefit from their advantages in a next study. If the purpose of a following study requires it, I would like to do focus group discussions again – but I would prepare them better. Specifically I would try to ensure full availability of selected participants (although this may be impossible when dealing with, for example, Ghanaian farmers) and I would make a clear role division with multiple assistants that makes it possible for me to understand and interrupt in the discussion if necessary. I would certainly prefer to have such discussions in English. I am still thinking about ways to reduce the kind of bias that may follow from my presence as a researcher. Alternating the order of topics was in this case a reasonably good check, but it cannot really prevent such biases. Depending on the research topic of a future study, I would have to develop effective measures. Regarding data storage and analysis, I am satisfied with the adopted strategy. Transcription and coding, although very time-consuming, have proven to

49 be very valuable for this study. The excitement of analyzing my data and seeing issues appear that I did not notice before will certainly encourage me to do it again in the future.

References

Addo, K.A. (2010): Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Developing Countries Studied using Remote Sensing and In Situ Methods, Remote Sensing 2, pp. 497-513

Asare, I.; G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic (2003): Faecal Sludge Application for Agriculture in Tamale, Ghana, Urban Agriculture Magazine 10, pp. 31-33

Asomani-Boateng, R. (2002): Urban cultivation in Accra: an examination of the nature, practices, problems, potentials and urban planning implications, Habitat International 26, pp. 591–607

Avvannavar, S.M.; M. Mani (2007): A conceptual model of people's approach to sanitation, Science of the Total Environment 390, pp. 1-12

Awuah-Nyamekye, S. (2009): Salvaging Nature: The Akan Religio-Cultural Perspective, Worldviews 13, pp. 251-282

Bensah, E.C.; A. Brew-Hammond (2008): Biogas technology dissemination in Ghana: History, current status, future prospects and policy implications, International Journal of Energy and Environment 1, pp. 277-294

Bensah, E.C.; E. Antwi; J.C. Ahiekpor (2010): Improving Sanitation in Ghana – Role of Sanitary Biogas Plants, Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 5(2), pp. 125-133

Berg, B.L.; H. Lune (2011): Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th edition), Boston: Pearson

Black, M.; B. Fawcett (2008): The Last Taboo: Opening the Door on the Global Sanitation Crisis, London: Sterling, VA

Bradshaw, A.; R. Canniford (2010): Excremental theory development, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9, pp. 102–112

Çakirlar, C. (2011): Masculinity, Scatology, Mooning and the Queer/able Art of Gilbert & George: On the Visual Discourse of Male Ejaculation and Anal Penetration, Paragraph 34.1, pp. 86–104

Cofie, O.; G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic; P. Drechsel (2004): The use of human waste for peri-urban agriculture in Northern Ghana, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(2), pp. 73–80

Cofie, O.; S. Agbottah; M. Strauss; H. Esseku; A. Montangero; E. Awuah; D. Kone (2006): Solid-liquid separation of faecal sludge using drying beds in Ghana: Implications for nutrient recycling in urban agriculture, Water Research 40, pp. 75-82

Cofie, O.; E.M. Abraham; A.O. Olaleye; T. Larbi (2008): Recycling human excreta for urban and peri-urban agriculture in Ghana, in: Parrot, I. (ed.): Agricultures et développement urbain en Afrique subsaharienne - Environnement et enjeux sanitaires, Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 191–200

Cofie, O.; D. Koné (2009): Co-composting of faecal sludge & organic solid waste: Kumasi, Ghana, Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, http://www2.gtz.de/Dokumente/oe44/ecosan/en-co-composting-of-faecal- sludge-and-organic-solid-waste-2009.pdf, accessed 12 July 2012

Cofie, O.; P. Drechsel; S. Agbottah; R. van Veenhuizen (2009a): Resource recovery from urban waste: Options and challenges for community-based composting in sub-Saharan Africa, Desalination 248, pp. 256–261

Cofie, O.; D. Kone; S. Rothenberger; D. Moser; C. Zubruegg (2009b): Co-composting of faecal sludge and organic solid waste for agriculture: Process dynamics, Water Research 43, pp. 4665-4675

Danso, G.; P. Drechsel; S. Fialor; M. Giordano (2006): Estimating the demand for municipal waste compost via farmers’ willingness-to-pay in Ghana, Waste Management 26, pp. 1400–1409

Dellström Rosenquist, L.E. (2005): A psychosocial analysis of the human-sanitation nexus, Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, pp. 335–346

Douglas, M. (2002 [1966]): Purity and Danger, London: Routledge

Douglas, M. (2005 [1970]): The two bodies, in: Fraser, M.; M. Greco (eds.): The body: A reader, London: Routledge , pp. 78-81 52

Drangert, J.O.; B. Nawab (2011): A cultural–spatial analysis of excreting, recirculation of human excreta and health—The case of North West Frontier Province, Pakistan, Health & Place 17, pp. 57–66

Erni, M.; P. Drechsel; H.P. Bader; R. Scheidegger; C. Zurbruegg; R. Kipfer (2009): Bad for the environment, good for the farmer? Urban sanitation and nutrient flows, Irrigation Drainage Systems 24, pp. 113–125

Freeman, F. (2010): Ghana: The Waste Land, World Policy Journal 27, pp. 47-53

Honfoga, B.G. (2011): Fertilizer Market in Ghana: An assessment of organic fertilizer market potential, International Fertilizer Development Centre (unpublished)

Jenkins, M.W.; B. Scott (2007): Behavioral indicators of household decision-making and demand for sanitation and potential gains from social marketing in Ghana, Social Science & Medicine 64, pp. 2427–2442

Jewitt, S. (2011): Geographies of shit : Spatial and temporal variations in attitudes towards human waste, Progress in Human Geography 35, pp. 608-626

Lathers, M. (2006): Toward an Excremental Posthumanism: Primatology, Women, and Waste, Society & Animals 14(4), pp. 417-436

Lydecker, M.; P. Drechsel (2010): Urban agriculture and sanitation services in Accra, Ghana: the overlooked contribution, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8(1-2), pp. 94-103

Mariwah, S.; J.O. Drangert (2011): Community perceptions of human excreta as fertilizer in peri-urban agriculture in Ghana, Waste Management & Research 29, pp. 815-822

McGregor, D.F.M.; A. Adam-Bradford; D.A. Thompson; D. Simon (2011): Resource management and agriculture in the periurban interface of Kumasi, Ghana: Problems and prospects, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 32, pp. 382–398

Mennell, S. (1989): Norbert Elias: Civilization and the Human Self-Image, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd

Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Ghana) (2012): 2012 Fertiliser and Seed Subsidy Programme Announced, http://mofa.gov.gh/site/?p=10057, accessed 12 July 2012

Murray, A.; O. Cofie; P. Drechsel (2011a): Efficiency indicators for waste-based business models: fostering private-sector participation in wastewater and faecal sludge management, Water International 36(4), pp. 505-521

Murray, A.; G.D. Mekala; X. Chen (2011b): Evolving policies and the roles of public and private stakeholders in wastewater and faecal-sludge management in India, China and Ghana, Water International, 36(4), pp. 491-504

Pickering, L. (2010): Toilets, Bodies, Selves: Enacting Composting as Counterculture in Hawai'i, Body & Society 16, pp. 33-55

Salisbury, L. (2011): Bulimic Beckett: food for thought and the archive of analysis, Critical Quarterly 53(3), pp. 60-80

Schönning, C.; T.A. Stenström (2004): Guidelines on the Safe Use of Urine and Faeces in Ecological Sanitation Systems , EcoSanRes, Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute

Sumter, M. (2008): He who eats alone shits alone: Socio- Cultural impact of Public Sanitation Facilities in Esereso, MSc thesis for Wageningen University

Tagoe, M.A. (2011): Accelerating the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in Ghana: literacy, the missing link, International Journal of Lifelong Education 30(5), pp. 651-666

Tomes, N. (2001): The History of Shit: An Essay Review, Journal of the History of Medicine 36, pp. 400-404

Turner, T. (1994): Bodies and anti-bodies: flesh and fetish in contemporary social theory, in: Csordas, T.J. (ed.): Embodiment and experience: The existential ground of culture and self, Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-47

Van Buuren, J.C.L. (2010): Sanitation Choice Involving Stakeholders – A Participatory Multi-Criteria Method for Drainage and Sanitation System

Selection in Developing Cities Applied in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Wageningen: Wageningen University

Van der Geest, S. (1998): Akan shit: Getting rid of dirt in Ghana, Anthropology Today 14(3), pp. 8–12

Van der Geest, S. (2002): The night-soil collector: bucket latrines in Ghana, Postcolonial Studies 5(2), pp. 197-206

Van der Geest, S. (2003): Healthy bowel movements in Kwahu-Tafo: A brief note, Viennese Ethnomedicine Newsletter 5(2): 3-6

Van der Geest, S. (2007): The Social Life of Faeces: System in the Dirt, in: Van Ginkel, R.; A. Strating (eds.): Wildness & Sensation: Anthropology of Sinister and Sensuous Realms, Apeldoorn: Het Spinhuis, pp. 381-397

Van Rooijen, D.J.; T.W. Biggs; I. Smout; P. Drechsel (2009): Urban growth, wastewater production and use in irrigated agriculture: a comparative study of Accra, Addis Ababa and Hyderabad, Irrigation and Drainage Systems 24, pp. 53–64

Warner, W.S. (2003): Cultural Influences that Affect the Acceptance of Compost Toilets: Psychology, Religion and Gender, http://www2.gtz.de/Dokumente/oe44/ecosan/en-cultural-influence- affects-acceptance-2000.pdf, accessed 12 July 2012

WHO (2006): WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater Volume IV - Excreta and greywater use in agriculture

Appendix: Other important issues for marketing faeces- based fertilizers

This appendix has been developed for Safi Sana Ghana Limited.

Full references of literature cited in the text can be found in the References section in the main report text.

This study has been commissioned by Safi Sana Ghana Limited (SSGL), as part of a market study on faeces-based fertilizer in the context of Accra, Ghana. SSGL is developing a fertilizer product that is based on human waste from public toilets. With all technological issues well established (including effectiveness as well as health issues), an important question for the company is to what extent potential buyers consider the product to be acceptable for their businesses. Based on a range of literature, one would expect that the assumed widespread ‘faecophoby’ in Ghana (Van der Geest 1998 and 2007; Avvannavar and Mani 2007; Dellström Rosenquist 2005; Jewitt 2011; Warner 2003) hampers the acceptance of faeces- based fertilizer (Mariwah and Drangert 2011). However, this report has indicated that this need not be the case if the product does not resemble fresh human faeces in physical appearance. This is therefore the study’s first and most important recommendation to SSGL. Apart from data that support the thesis presented in this research report, the research for this study has yielded a variety of other findings that are relevant for SSGL. This appendix describes these findings, in order to enable SSGL to further adjust its product to customers’ preferences. I present the issues that are listed on the following page.

Table of contents

1. Positive about faeces ...... v 2. Samples and research ...... vi 3. Labelling faeces ...... vii 4. What’s in a name? ...... ix 5. Seeing is believing ...... x 6. The role of authorities ...... xi 7. Social contacts ...... xiii 8. Strategic choices ...... xiv 9. Education ...... xv 10. Consumer avoidance? ...... xvi 11. No regulation ...... xviii 12. Gender issues ...... xix 13. Accra versus rural areas ...... xx 14. Region of origin ...... xxi 15. Religion ...... xxii 16. Fertilizer use for non-food ...... xxii 17. Physical appearance ...... xxiv 18. Healthy crops ...... xxv 19. Give me a good price ...... xxvi 20. Conclusions ...... xxvii

iii

1. Positive about faeces

As much as 80% of respondents are aware of the benefits of faeces as a fertilizer1. Many of them also mentioned some examples of the use of faeces – although none reported to have actually used it. Vegetable farmers Karimu and Jahab from Dzorwulu and vegetable/staple crop farmer Anumah from Ashaiman (respectively) tell about their experiences:

About 10 years ago, the Achimota forest, where they go and dump it there, we would go and pick it; we would come and use it for our work. It was OK. We even used our hands to pick it.

I remember the time when I was in school, you see, even my late father used to use human faeces for growing crops.

Like when there is a land here, and they come and shit on it, and their faeces are on it, then the leaves will cover it...... There's something in it, ammonia in it, which in the soil... when you plant something, it will be really fast growing.

More importantly, some respondents reported they prefer fertilizers based on human faeces over animal manure. Later during the interview, Karimu told me:

When you use the human faeces-based fertilizer, it makes the plant become greenish. And it also lasts. Unlike the chicken manure: you always need to add more.

But he is not the only one with this experience. Farmers Angelina from Dzorwulu and Isaac from Ashaiman, and gardener George (respectively) are all positive about the effects of human faeces:

1 NB: This is a qualitative study in which I focused on in-depth engagements with my respondents, rather than quantitative results. The research samples are therefore small and non-random (interviews with fertilizer users, n=21; focus group discussions with users, n=3; interviews with market women, n=6; interviews with consumers, n=20). As a result, any quantitative findings that I present in this Appendix cannot be considered significant for a larger population. Such figures serve merely as an illustration.

When we look at the foods that came, as result of the chicken manure here, and using the human faeces here – the foods of the human faeces one was much more heavier.

Well, the cow dung... it doesn't keep much longer, it will die. But if you use human faeces, it takes a longer time.

That one [human faeces-based fertilizer] too, it's best! It is good, for that one is better... Even more better than the chicken one. Yeah... the human faeces is better.

These and other positive perceptions of human faeces were mainly found in Dzorwulu, where farmers had been given samples of human faeces-based fertilizer some years before. But also in other parts of Accra and its peripheries, many farmers are surprisingly positive about the use of human faeces for fertilizers. This indicates that education about the fertilizing value of human faeces should not be a first priority for SSGL; it would be superfluous to tell potential users something that they already know.

2. Samples and research

Various respondents reported to have received samples of human faeces-based fertilizers, or to have been involved otherwise in research on the topic. Some of them were frustrated about the fact that so much research has already been conducted on the topic, without resulting in availability of human faeces-based fertilizers. Mohamed, Ahmid and Karimu, all vegetable farmers in Dzorwulu, share their feelings:

They brought the sample to us, and then we used it, but now they don't bring it again.

Here in this country people come and introduce things. Now when you want to reach, you can't find it. You hear rumour about it, but you can't find them.

Why do you come and ask if we don't see it again? You come and say everything, and you take it; you come and use the small farmers to do the things – when you're finished you will only be thinking about big farmers and

leave the small farmers. . . . We are willing to buy, and we've had the same question.

These farmers are frustrated, and their frustration is a very clear indication that their experiences with samples of faeces-based fertilizers are positive. Some samples have also recently been distributed in Korle Bu; one farmer showed me the bag with compost-like material. Probably these respondents in Dzorwulu and to a lesser extent Korle Bu have been ‘sensitized’ enough, and are willing to buy the product. On the other hand, there may be other players on this new market – and Safi Sana Ghana Ltd should make sure that its product can compete with similar products. At the same time, SSGL also needs to guarantee continuous availability of the product. If a product is not always available, customers may rather not use it because it is too difficult to switch between products with different characteristics, application methods, and results (pers. comm. Comfort Freeman, agricultural extension expert). If SSGL’s production is low, therefore, it would be wise to start selling it at only one location that is known by and accessible for customers, with a stable supply.

3. Labelling faeces

SSGL has considered whether or not it should indicate (on the product package or otherwise) that the product contains human faeces. Intuitively one might think that it is wise not to do so, but there are reasons to reconsider this. As I indicated in the previous section, many potential users are aware of the benefits of using human faeces for fertilizers. Indicating its origin on the product packing may therefore further encourage people to buy it, indicates the response of fruit/vegetable farmer Kwesi from Maame Dede:

Oh! They should write it. Because that would help me to know that this is made of faeces. And when I use it and it works well, I can tell that, oh, this is what I used. But if they don't write it, I would think that oh, it's the normal ammonia or 15:15 that I used. You can't tell that this is faeces-based fertilizer.

At the same time, there is a moral dimension associated with ‘hiding’ the origin of your product, says Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture: vii

When you don't say it, you create an impression that you're hiding something. Yes. It's... if it's NPK, say it is NPK. But if it is human waste, you will only state... 'processed human waste', and you state the nutrients in it. . . . You shouldn't hide it.

Mr Lawrence’s reaction implies, which is also suggested by various other respondents, that not indicating the faeces component on the product packing may become very risky if someone finds out and starts a riot. Indicating the faeces component may imply that some potential customers will not buy the product, but at least the ones who buy it have deliberately chosen for a faeces-based fertilizer. Not everyone however agrees that SSGL should indicate the origin of its product. In some cases, respondents considered such moral issues only when I gave some hints. Fruit/staple crop farmer Sekyi from Maame Dede, for example, quickly changes his opinion:

A: They shouldn't write it, because... if it is not seen it's not disgusting. . . . Q: So... you don't think it's misleading, if it's not [indicated] on the pack? A: I think it's misleading, so... I suggest that they write it on the pack. And then, when you buy it, you know that it's... it's made of faeces. So when you use it and it doesn't work for you, then you don't go the second time.

Others, such as vegetable/staple crop farmer John from Ashaiman, seem to have no problem with not indicating the product’s origin:

A: I don't think they should mention it. . . . Cause when they do it, . . . the demand will be less. Q: But, ehm... is it acceptable not to mention it? Because in a way... it can be misleading, right? What do you think about that? A: I think, maybe you can say it's... organic fertilizer, simple as that.

John’s opinion too is not unique: various other farmers also reported that they advise companies not to indicate that their product is made of human faeces.

To conclude, there is reason to assume that it may be wise for SSGL to indicate on its product packing that the product contains human faeces

viii because in general this has more positive than negative connotations. On the other hand, if SSGL prefers not to indicate this on the packing, it will most likely not be problematic (see also section 11 of this Appendix on the regulatory framework).

4. What’s in a name?

Beside deciding on whether or not the contents of the product should be indicated on its packing, it is also important to consider different options for naming the product. When asked about their use of fertilizers, respondents usually only mentioned chemical fertilizers - even if further discussion revealed that they also used organic fertilizers. This indicates that organic fertilizers are generally not seen as ‘fertilizers’, but rather as another type of soil improver. Many respondents even seemed to take the use of organic fertilizers for granted, as if it is a natural part of their business and not a strategic choice. Indeed, a large majority of respondents uses organic fertilizers (mostly chicken manure, in some cases supplemented with cow dung) - except those in the village of Maame Dede, who reported that animal manure is not available. As a consequence, SSGL will have to consider carefully how to name the product. If it positions the product as a ‘fertilizer’, it should be able to compete with chemical fertilizers - both in price and in effectiveness. If the product is named otherwise, for instance as a ‘soil improver’, SSGL should determine whether it should be promoted as an alternative to animal manure, or as a new product category. It is important to realize that it will be a challenge to promote the product as an alternative to either chemical or organic fertilizers. For chemical fertilizers, the price is high (ca. GH¢ 35 per 50kg, subsidized price) and matched by high effectiveness (45% nutrients for the most common chemical fertilizer, NPK 15-15- 15). For animal manure, nutrient content is much lower, but so is the price: most respondents either get it for free from animal farms or pay ca. GH¢ 1 per 50 kg. ‘Appropriate prices’ for faeces-based fertilizers indicated by respondents range from GH¢ 1 to GH¢ 35 per 50 kg, revealing that their opinions on what it should substitute are divergent. It would be wise for SSGL to clarify in which market it wants to position itself, based on a consideration of whether or not it will be able

ix to compete with either chemical or organic fertilizers. For the market of organic fertilizers, SSGL may be able to find an interesting niche: contrary to other organic fertilizers, the product will be well-treated, ready-to-use, nicely packaged, less bulky and therefore more easy to transport, (ideally) continuously available, and sold in shops where people can advise on application. An alternative, then, is to promote the product as a unique or new type of soil improver - with a focus not (only) on nutrient content but on, for example, moisture retention or colour improvement capacity. Getting people to accept such a new product would however require a lot of promotion and education.

5. Seeing is believing

I indicated in previous sections that respondents from Dzorwulu seem prepared to start using fertilizers based on human faeces. In other areas, however, respondents indicated that they want to test the product before they start using it on a larger scale. Flower grower Wadis explains:

I would try with a flower to see how it looks like, before I can use it. . . . If I test it and it's good, I will call you. But if I have not tested it, and I don't know... If you have here thirty bags, I will take one, and test it first.

Wadis does not say that he is not interested in the product, only that his business is fragile (as other respondents also mentioned) and therefore he wants to limit his risks by testing new products on a small section of his business. Staple crop farmer Richard from Maame Dede, as well as John from Ashaiman (respectively) indicate that such experiments may also convince others:

Well, you have to bring them for them to try. Once they try on their farm, and then there are changes, everybody will see the changes. Nobody will go back to buy the old fertilizer.

The fact is that, in Ghana, we believe in practical something. So let's say you... you have two plots of land. And this one you use, let's say, the inorganic. And this one use the organic. And I use the, let's say, the human faeces... at the end of the production, the small difference in the production, in colour, even mine is better than the other one... Why not? They will go for it!

If these respondents are right, stimulating one farmer to experiment with the product may encourage many more farmers to adopt it – if the results are positive. This indicates the importance of demonstrations and samples for promotion of the product. Agricultural extension officers can play an important role in demonstration. Mr Lawrence (Ministry of Food and Agriculture district officer and former extension officer) indicates that extension officers often involve farmers in their demonstrations of new products, in order to increase product acceptance. Dr Comfort Freeman (expert in agricultural extension and development at the University of Ghana) explains the nature of such demonstration and experimentation processes:

So [farmers] are used to having extension agents come up with something new, . . . to set up demonstrations for them, to have opportunities to see it . . . and then they make a judgment about whether they think it's good for them. But even that one, sometimes they will want to experiment, but not for themselves; someone has to do the experimentation, and they want to see what it looks like. And then, after that they gain some confidence, and they try it for themselves on a small scale.

Based on Comfort Freeman’s statement, it is important to realize that an experimentation process consists of several steps that may be rather time- consuming. After demonstration on a (community) plot, customers may want to test a sample of the product for themselves – and only after that they are likely to start using it on a larger scale. Each of these steps may take at least one cropping season. SSGL needs to understand and facilitate this experimentation process – which may most effectively be done through engaging with extension officers.

6. The role of authorities

Engaging with extension officers is even more important because they are one of the main authorities that influence decisions of farmers. My interactions with respondents revealed that they attach great value to insights from various authorities. Agricultural extension officers especially have strong influence, supported by their long standing relationships with farmers as well as their

xi expertise concerning new technologies and products (pers. comm., agricultural extension expert Dr Comfort Freeman). When I asked respondents ‘Who makes choices regarding the fertilizer you use on your farm?’, a frequently heard answer was ‘Extension officers taught me what to choose’. Not only extension officers are seen as authorities, however. My data show that also the government, companies or experts, and religious commands influence respondents’ opinions. Importantly, some respondents indicated to accept advice from people they did not even know – seemingly they did not care about whether the person came from a company, from the government, or from another institution. Even my expertise as a researcher – although I explicitly stated not to be knowledgeable on the use of fertilizers – was highly regarded. Esther, a fruit/tree farmer from the village of Maame Dede, told me:

I'm looking up to you. And the way... for me, I don't know much about it [fertilizers], so... whichever way you would present it, yes, it depends on you.

But not only people are seen as influential authorities. There is also a strong belief in the authority of documents. Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture explains what is necessary to get farmers to adopt faeces-based fertilizers:

When it's... it's approved that it's a safe product, by Atomic or by any research institution in Ghana, and also approved by EPA, then we don't have a problem.

My interactions with fertilizer users indicate that they do indeed consider official confirmation of the product to be important. Husseini, the farmers’ chairman and owner of a vegetable farm in Korle Bu, expresses the importance of such documents:

They should have the paper that confirms the fertilizer. So that when they have the paper, you know that it is good.

Indeed, he indicates, he is willing to buy such a product and he is certain that his neighbours will also use it.

xii

This dependence on authorities seems to cause a passive or even fatalistic attitude in some respondents, as in the case of Angelina who has a vegetable farm in Dzorwulu:

It's a little bit difficult [to get people to buy a faeces-based fertilizer]... But we'll try and see how it comes. . . . If they come and they enforce that we should use it, fine. . . . It depends, if they say it [is] useful, maybe [we will buy it]...

She clearly indicates that she prefers not to use faeces-based fertilizers; yet ‘if they come and enforce it’, she feels she has no choice. As in various other interviews, ‘they’ is not specified: this may indicate that respondents are rather vulnerable to the influence of non-official authorities. This clearly creates opportunities for SSGL: advertisement of its product may be taken very seriously, and various channels may be available for such advertisement. On the other hand, it also implies a responsibility to use the power of authority wisely and to advise people well on the effects of the product.

7. Social contacts

A specific type of authority can be attributed to respondents’ social contacts. Dr Comfort Freeman, agricultural extension expert at Legon University in Accra, explains that the social network may be more important than various other authorities:

The input providers, the chemical dealers etcetera, they give them information, their own peers, their relations, their friends, their families... you know, their colleague farmers – they all get information from them. And sometimes even the social eh... what word should I use... That kind of social networking may have a stronger influence, for example on what they do, than other factors.

My interactions with potential users of faeces-based fertilizers revealed that respondents often use the same types of fertilizers as others in their social network. Some respondents even fully relied on their colleagues regarding fertilizer choice, such as in the case of Masuel, a vegetable farmer from Korle Bu:

xiii

What I know is the fact that I go to the shop, I look at the colour that we use here, . . . and then I buy that one.

Esther, a fruit/tree farmer from Maame Dede, has the same type of strategy:

I don't know the type of fertilizer that is been used. But there are other farmers that use them here. . . . So, what I am saying is the fact that I will always look at what people do. . . . My application is usually based on what others do.

These respondents value their social contacts highly, to the extent that they fully rely on them regarding fertilizer choice. Jahab, a vegetable farmer from Dzorwulu, expects the same will happen once some farmers start using faeces-based fertilizers:

Let's take for instance, if as of now they bring it [faeces-based fertilizers], and I'm using it, well... Some of them [other farmers] will come – come and ask me: ‘What is this?’ – ‘Oh, it's human faeces.’ – ‘Ey, let the things look nice, yes. Then, if that be the case, I'll apply some’.

Although the influence of social contacts may in most cases be less direct, Jahab’s statement indicates that he considers the topic discussable and farmers’ opinions flexible. That is certainly promising for SSGL, and indicates that it should certainly pay attention to possibilities of using such social contacts. In combination with local demonstrations and support of extension officers (see resp. sections 2 and 6 of this Appendix), that can be a good entry point for local marketing.

8. Strategic choices

My research indicates that respondents make highly specialized, strategic choices with regard to the fertilizer types they use for each crop. They are well aware of the benefits of various types of fertilizers (chemical versus organic, but also different types of organic fertilizers) and apply this knowledge in their activities. The following statements by vegetable farmers Angelina and Jahab from Dzorwulu and flower grower Wadis from Spintex (respectively) illustrate this:

xiv

I want to look at it from the fact that, the chicken manure becomes my base. Then the chemical manure supports. I combine all.

You see – let's take carrot like this, if you broadcast it, 1 week to 2 weeks, and it germinates, you just sprinkle [chemical fertilizer] on the surface – not too much. After, you use the cow dung.

I have only two kinds of fertilizers I use here. I use the chicken droppings and cow dung. The chicken droppings allow the things to grow. And then the cow dung in the field, slow growing.

Because these respondents apply specific types of fertilizers to specific crops, they expect fertilizer producers to indicate explicitly for which crops their product is suitable, and how it should be applied. SSGL should clarify such characteristics of its product – especially if it is supposed to substitute another type of fertilizer (see section 4).

9. Education

Education can influence several issues concerning human faeces-based fertilizer. Firstly, education of potential fertilizer users can help to break the silence surrounding faeces-based fertilizers and to teach them how to use such products. Secondly, educating the public can help to ensure them that these fertilizers do not influence the quality of the products they consume. Educating potential users is an important tool for breaking the silence that surrounds faeces-based fertilizers. Most respondents indicated that they find the use of such fertilizers acceptable, but at the same time they were hesitant because they were not sure about whether other people also find it acceptable. Education can lift that weight somewhat and encourage users to discuss the topic amongst each other. Respondents also indicated that they need to be educated on how to use the product. They fear harvest failure if they do not apply it correctly – which is a large risk for farmers whose livelihood depends on their yield. SSGL should therefore educate potential customers in order to strengthen their understanding of the product and to increase their confidence in it. Such education can partly take place through the mobilization of social xv contacts (see section 7 of this Appendix). Again, agricultural extension officers can serve as a good entry point to communities. Education of the general public is also important, not in the first place because the public needs to be educated, but because such education reassures fertilizer users of the general acceptance of the product. Many respondents indicated that they will only take the risk to use this type of fertilizer if the public has been educated on its benefits. Vegetable Ahmid from Dzorwulu, for example, explains what needs to be done in order to increase acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers:

Then you need a lot of mass-media education. Radio, television should be able to educate people and to tell them that the use of these things does not have any adverse effects. Because here in this country, if you don't educate people well on something, and they use it, then you are in trouble.

According to Ahmid, educating the general public will encourage fertilizer users to use faeces-based fertilizers. However, SSGL probably has not the potential nor the aim to start a large public education campaign. It might be worthwhile, then, to make the government aware of the need for public education on faeces- based fertilizers through lobbying. After all, encouraging the use of organic fertilizers could ease the burden of fertilizer expenditures that currently comprise a large share of the public budget (see Research report, Chapter 1). If lobbying is too difficult, SSGL could also try to educate civil servants who can, through their role as an authority, spread their knowledge to the broader public.

10. Consumer avoidance?

Related to the previous section is the issue that users need to be convinced that (crop/flower) consumers accept the use of human faeces-based fertilizers. Fear of consumer avoidance seems an important reason for potential customers to hesitate about using the product. This fear seems less in the village of Maame Dede (see Map 1 in the Research report), perhaps because there farm fields are more remote from the village compared to farms in Accra. The reality is, however, that both consumers and intermediaries (market women) generally do not know about

xvi the type of fertilizer that has been used for their food – and moreover, they do not care. A market woman articulates her experience:

Maybe the customer is just... the motive, he's come to buy the vegetables. That is all. Whether... human faeces or human blood, or what... he or she is careless about that.

Indeed, consumer interviews (n=20) revealed that the majority of respondents (60%) is willing to buy crops that are produced with human faeces-based fertilizers – under certain conditions, e.g. the faeces should be treated, have no health effect and leave no traces in the food. A smaller share of consumers (25%) reported to be unwilling to buy crops produced with faeces-based fertilizers, mainly because they see faeces as a waste and they do not see the necessity of using them for agriculture. In reality, however, education on the topic may convince them of the need to use faeces-based fertilizers. Another 15% of consumers did not give a clear answer regarding their willingness to buy crops produced with faeces-based fertilizers. In addition, there seems to be a widespread belief that human faeces are used for various types of food and medicine anyways – not necessarily as a fertilizer. In focus group discussions in Ashaiman and Maame Dede the issue was brought up by farmers Ofue and Emmanuel, respectively:

I will feel good about it, because all the time faeces enter our mouth. Most of the things we eat, faeces are used to grow them. Even some medicine that we take.

I also know that maybe in 15:15 [regular chemical fertilizer] there may be a little bit of toilet [faeces] inside, I don't know. So it's the same as this one [faeces-based fertilizer].

The resignation with which customers and consumers told me this, indicates that the use of faeces for fertilizers does not really shock them. We can conclude, then, that fear of consumer avoidance is largely ungrounded in the current situation (although it may change over time, certainly if people become aware of the use of faeces-based fertilizers). Convincing potential

xvii customers of the fact that there is currently no reason to expect consumer avoidance can enhance the acceptance of the product.

11. No regulation

Currently there is no regulatory framework for the production or use of human faeces-based fertilizers. An official from the Pesticide and Fertilizer Regulatory Division (PFRD) explains that a new Fertilizer Act has been created in 2010, but is not yet in action.

A: A new Plants and Fertilizer Act was created, it was passed by Parliament in 2010, but it is not yet in action. Q: OK, so do you think that this new Fertilizer Act would contain any objections against the production and marketing of fertilizers that are based on human faeces? A: No, that is not how the regulations work... They do not reject any specific type of fertilizer, but rather they give standards for the chemical composition of fertilizer products. So the Act would never reject faeces-based fertilizers per se; only they have to correspond with the chemical standards.

Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture further explains the certification process for new fertilizer products.

We have, eh... Environmental Protection Agency, we have our research institutions like Atomic Energy... So when you are bringing a product, like that, you need to work with them so that they will approve it. Then you will go to EPA, so that they will also carry out their tests, and approve it. Now you can sell it.

At the same time, he admits, current fertilizer regulation is inadequate.

We've not been taking eh... fertilizer policy so serious. Maybe it's now that we are beginning to be very serious about it.

Officials from the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) later told me that fertilizer regulations, including the new Fertilizer Act, aim to prevent

xviii adulteration of (imported) fertilizer. Fertilizers are often mixed with other materials or sold in smaller quantities than indicated on the package. If the Act serves to prevent such practices, it is likely to focus on issues of nutrient content – SSGL will have to find out what implications this has for its product once the new fertilizer regulations are available.

12. Gender issues

Gender may be a relevant issue for assessing or influencing the acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers. Literature gives contradictory information with regard to gender: Mariwah and Drangert (2011) found that the use of excreta is less acceptable to women than to men, while Danso et al. (2006) found no difference in level of acceptance between men and women. First, however, we should ask whether gender matters at all in this context: are both genders active in businesses that involve fertilizer use? And who makes decisions in farming households? My research suggests that the majority of farmers, flower growers and gardeners is male. In my research sample, 85% of the respondents were male – but this is by no means representative: in fact I have actively searched for the women who are included in my sample, which implies that otherwise the percentage of men would have been even higher. This confirms Asomani-Boateng’s (2002) statement that in Ghana, contrary to many other African countries, women play at most a supporting role in agriculture. I asked Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture about the choice for fertilizers on a household level: is the man responsible, or the woman, or do they decide together? He answered:

It is the man. . . . Cause the women are... cause they're doing their own business, and the men also have their own business. However we also have women who are farmers – they are few.

Indeed, on my trips to the field I seldom encountered female farmers, flower growers or gardeners. Women rather work in street trade or restaurants. Findings from my interactions with female fertilizer users suggest that the few female fertilizer users that exist, may be slightly more dependent on their male neighbours for advice on fertilizers. The reason might be that these women often

xix took over the business from their husband after his death – and hence do not have an education or life-long experience in the business. But this is merely a hypothesis that needs to be tested further. Overall, these findings indicate that SSGL can focus its promotion on male fertilizer users, because these are by far the largest part of all users. Moreover, my analysis suggests that female fertilizer users are influenced by their male neighbours – which adds an indirect effect to promotion among male fertilizer users.

13. Accra versus rural areas

Part of the variation in potential customers’ opinions regarding human faeces- based fertilizers can be attributed to differences between rural and urban areas. Agricultural extension expert Comfort freeman explains:

Especially those who are in the urban areas may be not affected so much by the social eh... stronger, let's say socio-cultural values and beliefs that they would have in the closer, eh.. smaller community.

She claims that stronger social cohesion in rural communities is often associated with stricter and more specific behavioural rules. Hence, any cultural aversion against faeces-based fertilizers may be strongest in rural areas. Undoubtedly there will be differences between areas and villages, but due to the scope of my research I cannot draw any conclusions on this. Accra, on the other hand, is a very much heterogeneous city with inhabitants from all over Ghana as well as international immigrants. This gives Accra a special status as compared to other cities, for example Ghana’s second city Kumasi, where cultural aversion against faeces is much stronger according to some of my respondents. Flower grower Opoku from Spintex explains why, in his opinion, Kumasi has much stricter rules in dealing with faeces than Accra:

Here in Accra, you have different sorts [of people]. But Kumasi has to be a homogeneous area. And in Kumasi, I realize that because it's a regional issue, it is not as metropolitan, eh, cosmopolitan, as Accra.

Although his formulation is not completely clear, from the context of this answer within the interview it appears that Opoku considers tribal heterogeneity of the population (which is indeed high in Accra) to create a situation in which rules are diverse or unclear. Other respondents confirmed that Accra has a much looser or less defined moral framework, leading to more flexibility in opinions regarding various cultural issues. As a result, inhabitants of Accra and its urban peripheries are an easy and suitable first target group for SSGL – more easy perhaps than inhabitants of villages around the city.

14. Region of origin

Apart from the urban/rural difference, potential customers’ regions of origin are also important with regard to their acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers. Literature gives some indications that inhabitants of Ghana’s northern regions more easily accept human faeces-based fertilizers than those from southern Ghana. The scarce accounts of trucks with sanitary sludge being hijacked for agricultural purposes (Asare and Kranjac-Berisavljevic 2003; Cofie et al. 2004; Cofie et al. 2008) all come from northern Ghana, and my translator explained that the handling of human faeces, even within Accra, is associated with ‘northerners’. Respondents confirmed this regional difference. George, a flower grower from Spintex, says:

Well, you see... Toilet [faeces], it's easier . . . for northern people to work on it, than Ashantis [tribe from central Ghana]. . . .

Masuel, a vegetable farmer from Korle Bu, explains the difference between northerners and southerners:

What happens is that people from the north... in the north, there's no high disgust for faeces, right, because they easily see it. But when it comes to the south, it's hard for people to come across faeces.

Interestingly, Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture stated that many farmers in Accra – especially in Korle Bu and Dzorwulu – are from northern regions. Indeed, 30% of my respondents stated to be from northern Ghana, while only 15% is originally from the Greater Accra region. This suggests that their acceptance of faeces-based fertilizer is higher than for people from villages around

xxi

Accra, with a native southern population. Therefore SSGL might want to focus firstly on farmers in Accra, preferably with a mainly northern population; their acceptance of the product may gradually increase its acceptance by other parts of the population.

15. Religion

Religion, finally, does not appear to be an important variable with regard to acceptance of faeces-based fertilizer. Both Christianity and Islam, the main religions in southern Ghana, have some regulations or directions with regard to human faeces. For Christians this is mainly the notion that faeces are considered a waste that needs to be thrown away (see section 3.3 of the Research report). For Muslims, as my translator explained, it is not acceptable to approach God while having been in touch with faeces – but simply washing your hands is sufficient for cleansing. In both cases, these notions are related only to fresh human faeces, not to dried or treated faeces-based fertilizers. Also, the fact that these issues were seldom mentioned in interviews and discussions – even when I explicitly asked for them – suggest that they are not very influential.

16. Fertilizer use for non-food

Producing faeces-based fertilizers for a non-food market may be slightly easier than for a food market. This seems to be based partially on the notion of faeces as ‘badness’: associating faeces with food means that you re-consume the bad things that have just been separated from you. Most respondents however assumed that the fertilized product will not contain any traces of human faeces and therefore did not consider this to be a problem. More important perhaps is the fact that various respondents consider human faeces to be enhancing the green colour of crops. Therefore, they asserted, such fertilizers are particularly suitable for flowers, gardens, golf courses, etcetera. Ahmid, a vegetable farmer from Dzorwulu, explains:

It's the greenish nature of the plant, which people look for. But a yellowish plant shows paleness. And like the golf courses, it is green. It will attract more people. And that is what people like.

xxii

Unfortunately, managers of golf courses in Accra were not available for discussions. In reality, however, it is generally hired gardeners who are responsible for maintaining gardens, golf courses and real estate – and they choose the fertilizer they want to use. Because of the specific value of faeces-based fertilizers for flower growers and gardeners, SSGL could consider to promote its product for gardeners and flower growers as a colour enhancing product. Non-food production is perhaps more promising than food production, as indicated by Cofie et al. (2009). They state that in Accra ‘estate development and landscaping could absorb much more [human faeces-based] compost (even of average quality) than agriculture due to its high demand plus willingness to pay, and transform about 18% of the available organic waste into soil inputs for gardening and landscaping’ (p. 160). Respondents indicated that for gardeners and flower growers it is even more important that the fertilizer product is well-treated than for farmers, firstly because they use their hands to apply it, and secondly because they fear that consumers may notice the smell in their gardens (where it may indeed be more perceptible than on a single vegetable). A consumer says:

For the scent doesn’t affect the flowers, but you grow flowers closer to the human being, you know, and growing in your house, in front of your house... You’ll be getting visitors, they’ll be scared knowing that this thing [human faeces] has been sprayed on the flowers.

Gardener George’s opinion seems to indicate the same:

And sometimes the smell, too, you can't put that in someone’s garden...

Interestingly, however, George does not speak about human faeces here but about poultry manure. He told me that he allows them to dry in a space at his home before he can use them for his work. The same, he says, is necessary for human faeces:

You need to dry, dry-dry-dry-dry!

For George, human faeces are not necessarily less acceptable as a fertilizer than animal faeces. In both cases, they can only be used in a treated form. George is

xxiii however convinced of the value of human faeces as a fertilizer: he considers such fertilizers to be more effective than any other type. Indeed, such fertilizers are especially suitable for flower growers and gardeners – as long as they are treated well. More than for farmers, ensuring that the product does not smell is important.

17. Physical appearance

The Research report clearly indicates that physical appearance is important with regard to acceptance of human faeces-based fertilizers. It also explains that SSGL should aim to make its products physical appearance not resemble fresh faeces. Apart from that, however, my research yielded some more information with regard to potential customers’ preferences regarding physical appearance of the product. As indicated in the Research report (section 3.7), respondents generally prefer faeces-based fertilizers that look like chemical fertilizers. Participants of focus group discussions debated about their preference for various types of fertilizer samples that I showed them: 1) fresh faeces; 2) faeces-based compost; 3) faeces-based ‘chemical’ fertilizer; 4) chemical fertilizer (not containing human faeces). Two focus groups concluded that they prefer sample 3 because they perceived it has the best of both: it seems easy to apply as chemical fertilizer, yet having the long-term soil benefits of faeces-based fertilizer. The other focus group arrived at a different conclusion: they did not prefer sample 3 because they perceived it to have the negative effects of chemical fertilizers, i.e. soil depletion. Apparently, giving faeces-based fertilizer a non-organic look makes customers associate it with chemical fertilizers in either a positive or a negative way; emphasizing the positive effects in product promotion may therefore enhance acceptance. Compost is generally not preferred by respondents. This seems to be mainly due to their unfamiliarity with compost (naming the compost sample ‘dried faeces fertilizer’ made it much more acceptable). If SSGL wants to produce a compost product, therefore, it may be wise to give it another name. That will not necessarily convince all potential customers, though, as vegetable farmer Mohamed from Dzorwulu indicates:

We normally don't use compost, because use... applying compost is difficult. xxiv

Mohamed will not easily be convinced to use compost, even if it has another name. Various other respondents had similar reservations. Therefore, it would be best for SSGL to produce a fertilizer product in another form, such as pellets.

18. Healthy crops

I have already discussed the significance of health issues for acceptance of faeces- based fertilizers in section 2.3 of the Research report, where I concluded that health issues identified by respondents often do not match health issues as discussed in scientific publications on the topic. Various respondents confirmed that they do not consider the use of faeces-based fertilizers to be associated with any health risks, or that such health risks are not an important factor in acceptance. In addition to the information presented in the Research report, it is interesting to note that a notion of ‘disease’ often refers to a status of the crop instead of a status of the person who consumes them. As fruit/staple crop farmer Frank says during the focus group discussion in Maame Dede:

Using the treated ones [faeces-based fertilizers], for me, I think it can cause... it can bring about diseases. Because if I'm using it to produce pepper, it may grow well, but then after harvesting the pepper may rot within a few days.

In a similar line of thought, vegetable/staple crop Isaac from Ashaiman states:

Yes, there's disease when you use it fresh. […] If it is fresh, it is very hot. If you use it on the food, it burns.

This suggests that respondents are most concerned about the effectiveness of faeces-based fertilizers in creating healthy crops. Shelf life of the crop was indicated as an important issue by multiple farmers – but contrary to Frank’s statement, some other respondents claimed that the use of faeces-based fertilizers results in longer shelf life. Apparently, opinions on the effectiveness of faeces- based fertilizers differ, but in both cases the health of the crop – also after harvesting – is considered important.

xxv

19. Give me a good price

The fact that SSGL’s fertilizer product is based on faeces causes respondents to assume that it will be cheap. Frank from Maame Dede exclaims:

The price must come down – to say, GH¢ 10 or 5. Because faeces is not difficult to get!

Although treatment procedures and packaging logically bring costs that need to be taken into account in the product price, potential customers may not always realize this. Therefore, potential customers need to be convinced of the value that SSGL adds to fresh faeces and that justifies a higher price. The price of the product is indeed important for acceptance of potential users. Mr Lawrence from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture articulates his experiences with farmers:

What I can say is that, if the farmer is buying fertilizer, a bag of fertilizer, NPK, around eh... 300,000 [GH¢ 30]... And he can apply it on eh... twenty beds... he will also look at the bag in which they are selling the human waste, in bags, he will also look at the bags, and compare. If he thinks buying the [conventional] fertilizer is cheaper, he will go for the [conventional] fertilizer, forget about the human waste.

Mr Lawrence estimates that it will be difficult or impossible to get people to use human faeces-based fertilizers if the product is relatively more expensive than alternatives. Respondents’ emphasis on cost-benefit ratios indicate that they will make their own calculations based on proportions of price, amount and yield. Yet price is not necessarily the single or most important determinant, although the importance varies highly per respondent. Staple crop farmer Emmanuel indicates, during a focus group discussion in Maame Dede:

If you give it [fresh faeces] to me for free, I wouldn't even take it. The mere mention of it as faeces alone – I wouldn't take it. At least for this farmer, his feelings of disgust regarding fresh faeces are still more important than financial considerations. At the same time, Emmanuel is also one of the farmers who appeared to be rather indifferent about his own assumption that

xxvi even chemical fertilizers may contain human faeces. Apparently, these strong feelings of disgust only relate to fresh faeces and are not attached to faeces in another form. Another issue to take into account with regard to the product price is the fact that flower growers generally use more organic fertilizers than food crop farmers – and they usually pay a higher price for it (GH¢ 2-7 per 50 kg, instead of GH¢ 1-4). This suggests that they will also be willing to pay a relatively higher price for a (good quality) faeces-based fertilizer. To conclude, SSGL should realize that its product’s cost-benefit ratio should not be higher than for alternative fertilizers. This cost-benefit ratio differs however per customer type – which means that a separate product for the flower/garden market could be priced higher than a product for food crops. Especially if SSGL chooses to promote a specific product for flowers and gardens, based on the colour-enhancing characteristics of human faeces (see section 16 of this Appendix), it may be worthwhile to consider price differentiation.

20. Conclusions

People’s acceptance of faeces-based fertilizers is influenced by a great variety of issues. In this Appendix I have described a number of these issues that appeared in my data. Each section of this Appendix contains one or more recommendations (in bold text) that can help to adapt a faeces-based fertilizer to the preferences of potential customers in Accra and its peripheries. Together with the main recommendation that followed from the Research report – that a faeces-based fertilizer will be considered more acceptable if it less resembles fresh faeces – these form a clear framework that can be used by SSGL.

xxvii