BASIC SANITATION SERVICES in SOUTH AFRICA Learning from the Past, Planning for the Future

BASIC SANITATION SERVICES IN SOUTH AFRICA Learning from the past, planning for the future David Still, Nick Walker and Derek Hazelton Report to the Water Research Commission by Partners in Development WRC Report No. TT 414/09 September 2009 Obtainable from: Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 Gezina 0031 The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled: The Financial Sustainability of Basic Sanitation Services (WRC Project No. K5/1632). DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ISBN 978-177005-880-4 Printed in the Republic of South Africa ii Executive Summary South Africa’s Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) uses the slogan “Water is life. Sanitation is dignity” to promote universal coverage of water and sanitation for all. In fact both improved water supply and sanitation are known to be key requirements in the drive to achieve improved public health. In a survey of 11 000 readers conducted by the British Medical Journal in January 2007, improvements in sanitation were voted as the most significant cause of public health improvements in modern times, narrowly edging out antibiotics and anaesthesia (British Medical Journal, 2007). At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 the importance of sanitation was recognised when the target to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation was added to the Millennium Development Goals (Evans, 2005).1 In 2004 the World Health Organization and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation released their midterm assessment of progress, which showed that during the period 1990 to 2002 world sanitation coverage had improved from 49% to 58%. The MDG target implies that sanitation coverage must be above 79% by 2015. With the world population increasing all the time, realisation of the target will require the rate of sanitation delivery to double from 80 million to over 160 million people per annum. In 2001 South Africa adopted a policy of free basic services for the poor. These services include water supply, sanitation, refuse removal and electricity. What does it mean to provide free basic sanitation to the poor? On 21 March 2009 the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry approved the Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy (DWAF, 2009). This document is intended to give Water Services Authorities a framework for planning and operating sanitation services for the poor. It provides substantial leeway to municipalities to determine how to go about this, depending on their geography, demographics, income distribution and capacity. In the Strategy’s Section 6.4, titled What are the limitations to providing the service free, in relation to capital and operating expenditure?, the following guidance is given: 1 The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of targets to extend the benefits of development to a substantially increased proportion of the world’s poor. iii As noted in Section 6.1 it was implied that 'free' sanitation means that the poor household does not have to contribute towards the cost of providing the service initially (capital) and managing the service in the long term (operating). However, there are certain limitations in this regard: Construction of new infrastructure and rehabilitation of infrastructure (Capital items): Poor households will not be required to fund the capital cost of constructing the infrastructure necessary for a basic service but with the proviso that the water services authority may set a ceiling amount of capital to be allocated for construction per household. Where rehabilitation of infrastructure is required (a capital item), this will be provided free. But this excludes the 'on site' infrastructure which is the responsibility of the household with an exception described below. An exception may be made by the water services authority for the rehabilitation costs of pits or tanks, the underground infrastructure associated with 'on site' sanitation. Typically such an exception may apply to situations where it is not feasible to empty ventilated pit latrines and relocation of such pits is required. It may also apply to rehabilitation of collapsed pits. The rehabilitation of buildings, pedestals and pipework, which are part of the ‘on site’ facility, is the household's responsibility. Operating and maintenance of infrastructure Households are responsible for the day-to-day operating costs of the 'on-site' component of the service. This includes providing anal cleansing material, cleaning the pedestal and the room or privy in which the toilet is located, and ensuring that solid waste is not discharged into pits or tanks. In the case of systems which require flushing, the household must ensure that the 'on site' water pipe work and flushing systems are fully functional and that water used beyond the limit set for free basic water is paid for. Day-to-day maintenance of the complete 'on site' facility is the responsibility of the household. This includes all repairs to pits, tanks, pipes, pedestals, flushing mechanisms and buildings in which the toilet is housed. However, an exception may be made with regard to sludge or compost handling, as described below. As far as possible, 'on site' sanitation systems should be designed so that the households can themselves manage the sludge or compost which is produced. However, where this is not possible the water services authority may arrange for a sludge or compost removal service to be provided to the household free. Source: DWAF Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy, 2009 The drive to provide basic sanitation to all South Africans began in earnest only after the accession of full democracy in 1994. In the early years delivery was slow, with construction at scale only really beginning after the establishment of the new local government structures in 2000. iv In 2003 South Africa adopted the Strategic Framework for Water Services (SFWS), which, inter alia, included 19 specific performance targets. Of the 19, the second target was to completely eliminate South Africa’s sanitation backlog by 2010. The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry produces a quarterly “Consolidated Water Sector Report” under the aegis of the Masibambane programme. In the report for the quarter ended December 2008 the sanitation backlog is estimated at 3 311 512 homes, down from an estimated 4 759 709 at the time of the 2001 Census. At this rate South Africa appears to be on track to meet the MDG sanitation goal, although the goal of eliminating the full sanitation backlog by 2010 has proved to be too ambitious. A key question, however, is whether the sanitation being provided is working well and whether local government and the beneficiaries are together capable of maintaining these services? In an attempt to throw light on this question, this report includes 18 case studies of different types of sanitation in different provinces, with between 4 and 12 years of operational history. It was found that there was no single type of sanitation that fared uniformly well. For example, at Ntuthokoville in Pietermaritzburg the waterborne sanitation which was provided in 1996 as part of the services upgrade to an informal settlement has worked very well, but the municipality is left carrying bad debts totalling tens of thousands of Rands per home. In Newline, Mpumalanga the VIPs continue to fulfil their function with no significant problems 11 years after construction, whereas at Mbazwana in northern KZN, after a similar time period, five out of twenty five VIPs inspected had collapsed, and at Inadi fifteen out of twenty-seven inspected were full. The UD toilets at Bereaville, Kammiesberg and eThekwini are generally working well, whereas those at Koel Park and Ekurhuleni have been disastrous. A common lesson is that communal sanitation is very prone to failure (and in this light it is interesting that the Joint Monitoring Programme of the WHO and Unicef do not recognise shared sanitation as meeting minimum improved sanitation requirements). Another common lesson is that a failure to properly involve the community in the sanitation choice, in the sanitation implementation and in health and hygiene education is likely to result in poor functioning of the resulting latrines. The report includes the results of a survey of over 1 000 people from poor rural or peri-urban communities, approximately half of whom have to date benefited from government sanitation projects. Although the new toilets were found in general to be cleaner and freer of flies and odour, it is a concern that there was no difference found between the two groups in the likelihood of a hand washing facility being found near the toilet. v The key design consideration for VIPs is how the management of faecal waste is to be allowed for. A typical pit filling rate is 30 litres per user per year, although significant variability is found in practice. Assuming an average VIP has six users, the sludge accumulation in 10 years will be 1.8 m3. Allowing some freeboard, a pit should have a capacity of at least 2.5 m3 if the emptying interval is to be, on average, once every ten years. The emptying of single pit VIPs can be difficult and hazardous. For this reason planners should rather favour more easily maintained options such as movable VIP toilets (with lightweight top structures), twin pit VIPs (with relatively shallow and therefore more emptyable pits) or single or double pit UD toilets. Pour flush latrines, already very widely used in South East Asia, may provide a more affordable alternative to septic tanks or fully waterborne sanitation.

Load more