Report on Sanitation by the Mvula Trust
Water and Sanitation
20 June 2001
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
20 June 2001
REPORT ON SANITATION BY THE MVULA TRUST
Chairperson: Ms BP Sonjica (ANC)
Documents Distributed :
Breaking the Rules Manual
Mvula Trust Marketing Pack
Guidelines for Faecal Waste Management
The Use of Dry Sanitation in the Urban Environment (see Appendix 1)
Report on Rural Sanitation Programme in SA (see Appendix 2)
Kraaipan Case Study – North West Province
SUMMARY
Currently approximately R20million is available for the provision of
sanitation services but this amount has not been utilised. The Portfolio
Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry invited the Mvula Trust, a
Non-Governmental Organisation concerned with the provision of basic sanitation
services, to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to establish why the
services have not been provided considering that the Ministry of Water Affairs
and Forestry has provided the funds.
MINUTES
Mvula Trust made a presentation which sought to explain why R20 million made
available for sanitation purposes has not been utilised.
Report on Sanitation by the Mvula Trust
Ms Dikego Mathule (Mvula Trust) explained why Mvula Trust should deal with rural
sanitation problems. The Mvula Trust, a Non-Governmental Organisation, was
established in 1993. The sole purpose of the trust is to support water and
sanitation projects especially in rural and peri-urban areas. This is part of
an overall strategy to alleviate poverty. To do this, they test and advocate
new models that will provide better sanitation. The Trust is also involved in
supporting local government sanitation programmes. Mvula Trust places great
emphasis on community empowerment.
Mvula Trust has worked in 478 communities. This work has led to the provision
of sanitation services in 100 schools. 85 policy, advocacy and training
projects to develop rural and peri-urban areas have been completed. In
addition, the Trust has developed a unique community management model for the
implementation of projects.
Ms Mathule explained that sanitation is not only about building toilets but
also about improving the quality of life. If one no longer has to spend money
on health care services as a result of poor sanitation facilities, one can use
that money in other areas in order to improve quality of life. Sanitation is
also about people’s dignity as poor sanitation facilities can humiliate people.
The Draft Policy of Sanitation (May 2000) includes a broad definition of
sanitation. The definition of sanitation includes the following :
- adequate hygiene at home
- adequate environmental hygiene
- protection and use of water sources
- safe disposal of human faeces
- food hygiene
- water hygiene
- personal hygiene
She emphasised that sanitation is also very important for an AIDS patient.
These patients require very hygienic conditions because their immune systems
are so weak. In addition, many of these patients have diarrhoea and need toilet
facilities. For those that are bed ridden, their diapers must be disposed of
efficiently.
Ms Mathule described the current project implemented by Mvula. Villages are
identified by Municipalities. This means that Project Agents are introduced by
the municipalities.
She listed the the governing principles of Mvula Trust. These are as follows :
1) A Demand Driven Approach
Rarely do people prioritise sanitation. Awareness is needed so that people
understand its importance. There are contributions from community members to
open bank accounts. Subsidies for the programme are deposited into these
accounts. This includes half the cost of building the toilets and improving the
environment. In addition, there are household registration fees and household
contributions.
2) Community involvement and participation
Management is done through a Committee elected by the community. This Committee
is capacitated to identify sanitation needs, to plan, to implement projects,
and to manage the process. The community is solely responsible for this. There
is no outside controlling body.
3) Level of Service
There is a belief that the Mvula Trust favours the apartheid level of
service. This is incorrect as the organisation provides options to the
community, and the community decides which level of service it wants. The
Community is only encouraged to be realistic, that is, to choose a sustainable
level of service. Technological choices are made using the ‘Sanitation Ladder’.
This requires one to realistically look at the sustainability of the project.
Choices are given to the community and not forced upon them. Using the ladder,
it is more sustainable to begin at the bottom and move to the top. Thus one can
move from using the bush to a toilet and improvements can be made later on.
4) Local Economic Development
There are economic spin-offs for rural communities. Communities are encouraged
to use local labour. Approximately R200 to R250 per toilet is paid to the
builder. In addition, community members are capacitated into village health
workers who will be employable in the future. The community is also encouraged
to use local materials. An element of entrepreneurial development also exists
because local hardware stores will also benefit.
5) Subsidy
Ms Mathule insisted that R600 is not a lot of money. This can appear unfair
considering urban areas have better facilities. However, the reality is that
South Africa cannot afford to give a 100% subsidy to everyone because this is
not sustainable. The principle of ‘some to all’ rather than ‘all for some’ is
followed. Thus each household receives between R0 and R600. In addition,
household contributions can be in trade. The community will then decide how to
structure their subsidy in order to achieve maximum benefit.
Discussion
Mr DS Maimani (ANC) asked whether the Trust could explain where the
government had gone wrong considering the fact that government had researched
the problems.
Mr R Holden (Mvula Trust) replied that the biggest problem is the lack of
continuity of funding. Flow of funds is irregular and unstable. The approach is
correct but because of the gains from local economic development, people leave
to find income elsewhere. Therefore, once a programme has begun, there will be
breaks and this drives up costs. He reiterated that more continuous funding
with less fluctuation is needed.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) added that sanitation must be looked at broadly, and
this must be kept in mind when funding. In addition, progress must be measured
in terms of improvement and not in terms of the number of toilets built.
Mr Maimani (ANC) remarked that subsidies are assumed to be in reference to
private toilets. He asked if the state was obliged to provide public toilets
and how public toilets related to the issue of subsidies.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) explained that the Trust is implementing the project
for the government. It is strictly a household matter and not for public
institutions such as Churches. A community can advise public bodies on how to
build a proper structure. However, as a general rule, public institutions are
not subsidised.
Mr Maimani (ANC) asked how the word ‘community’ is defined because it is
referred to so often.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) replied that the group of community members in the Committee
is accountable to the entire community, as this is a community programme. The
programme is implemented at household level so ultimately the Committee must be
in contact with the entire community.
Mr Maimani (ANC) asked how much the material would cost, and whether the
subsidy covered these costs. He also asked if people had to provide their own
labour.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) responded that costs differ from community to
community. Labour costs are between R200 and R250. This means that the community
can subsidise materials. An average toilet will cost R1200 and of this, R200
goes to labour and R1000 to building. Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) added that where
there is an existing structure, costs will be cheaper. Therefore, it is
difficult to give an exact cost, but he said that Mvula can provide toilets at
R600. The cost depends on what government chooses.
The Chairperson said that the Committee’s general concern relates to the demand
led approach. She asked if the approach could be improved because it has
delayed the delivery of sanitation services.
Mr GBD McIntosh (DP) asked how the Education Department is involved in the
programme given that sanitation services for schools was mentioned. He also
wanted to know what role the schools played in teaching children, especially in
rural areas, about sanitation and health.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) said that the programme operates on a household level
only. The European Union is funding programmes aimed at creating sanitation in
schools. She added that the programme encourages communities to enter schools
and give sanitation advice.
Mr McIntosh (DP) asked why farmers in the Northern Cape received R700
subsidies, and not R600 as was received elsewhere.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) replied that the Northern Cape had strong ties amongst
district councils and the Department of Local Justice. He explained that farm
dwellers are identified as a necessity. Therefore, district councils provided
more money using personal funds. Farmers are viewed as special cases because
they have no access to resources. This decision was made by the district and
local municipalities.
Mr Maimani (ANC) pointed out that all communities fall under local government.
He asked how this factor was taken into account in the strategy. He agreed that
the demand approach is a weak approach.
Ms Mathule (Mvula) explained that the approach to water and sanitation is
adopted at district municipality level. It is no longer a broad provincial
programme and is not operated per district.
Mr E M Sigwela (ANC) asked whether Mvula Trust was making any efforts to
network with other NGOs involved in health care. Further, he asked if the Trust
has any interest in the government budgetary process. He pointed out that there
may be funds in other government Departments geared at community development.
Ms Mathule (Mvula) replied that sanitation is the responsibility of a number of
Departments. Although up until now, it has primarily been the responsibility of
the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
The Chairperson asked if Mvula was a national organisation.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) responded in the affirmative.
Mr Maimani (ANC) asked what the problems are with regards to funding. He
reiterated that sanitation is a concern for various government Departments and
asked how co-operation was initiated amongst different Departments at a local
level. He also asked members of the Mvula delegation how they would deal with
sanitation problems if they were holding a Ministerial position.
Mr Dau (Mvula Trust) replied that the Trust is working with the Health
Resistant Trust with regards to the promotion of health and hygiene. 15
different Departments are co-ordinating the new sanitation programme in
Mpumalanga. 175 health promoters and environmental health officers have been
trained to use participatory methods. They are co-ordinated by the Department
of Health. This programme is in the initial stages only. He contended that
these projects do indicate co-ordination amongst different department.
Jacobeth Mabeo (member of the Kraaipan community) argued that the demand
approach did work. Jaque Cloete (member of the Lilifontein community) took the
same position.
The Chairperson highlighted that awareness is necessary for the demand approach
to work. However, some communities are too poor.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) said that although people want sanitation they have no
knowledge of how to get it. The demand approach does not reflect uniform
results throughout the Republic. At present costs are running between R40 million
and R50 million. He argued that these costs indicated demand. He said that
Mvula believes that the approach is working. He went on to say that using a
supply-side approach, it would take approximately 45 years using current
funding to supply sanitation to all who need it.
The Chairperson stressed that sanitation is needed urgently. It must be
provided faster than it is at present.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) said that there is a distinction between funding
sanitation and water. The Ministry has projected to spend R100 million, but not
all of these funds have been allocated. At present, the Trust has a R30 million
budget. Mrs Tamie Mpotulo (Chief Director of Water Services) explained that a
budget is allocated to various provinces. The province can decide whether or
not to use the Mvula Trust. The R100 million will be given to various
communities according to their needs, and not all the funds will go to the
Mvula Trust. It is up to the District Council to choose the agency. Over
previous years, there have been leaky funds rolling over. This means that these
funds have to be transferred to needy areas. NGOs are used by the different
regions if the District Councils decide to use them.
Mr Maimani (ANC said that funding is not being used properly. He wanted to be
informed of the problems so that he and other policy makers could be efficient.
In conclusion he said that the impression is that money is not being used when
it is available and this, he argued, affects the efficiency of the demand
approach.
The Chairperson asked why there are rollovers. She asked whether the demand
approach is the correct approach considering that there are still rollovers
even though the need for delivery is great.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) responded that the biggest rollover occurs in the
Eastern Cape because no approved implementing plan exists there. If a business
plan is not prepared, money will not be spent. This is what happened in the
Eastern Cape. Even if the business plan is approved, there is a struggle to use
the funds properly. The full allocation in the North West province was spent in
half a year. This shows that the delay is from the Department because money is
given to the District Council who then decides how the money will be spent.
Mrs Tamie Mpotulo (Chief Director) interjected and clarified how business plans
operate. They are generated at a local level and they have to be approved by
the District Council. The Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga and the Northern Province
have the capacity and the authority to approve their own business plans.
Therefore, not all business plans are done on a national level. The national
level is approached only for noting. Business Plan approval is required because
accountability is essential.
Mrs Mpotule (Chief Director) added that only some regional officers have the
capacity to approve business plans. However, this capacity is not the capacity
to run the project. Capacity means that the need to approach national
government for approval is removed. This saves money and time. In order to have
capacity, it is necessary to consider the steering Committee. This is why some
regional officers do not have capacity.
Mr Maimani (ANC) insisted that the matter be solved. He said that there
appeared to be very little organisation. He said that the presentation gave the
impression that the work had been done but that somewhere impediments existed.
Individuals have visited the provinces and all made their own observations. He
emphasised that despite having this information available for policy making,
the policy will not be effective if the problems are not clearly identified. He
repeated that the demand approach may not be appropriate for the sanitation
programme.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) introduced various speakers who explained their
sanitation needs to the Committee.
Mayor Gert Maarman from Namaqualand explained that his area includes 15 small
settlements and 2 big towns. Settlements are 100 to 200 kilometres apart. There
are 50 to 200 households in a village. The Namaqualand area is a semi-desert
with about 150mm of rain per year. People are dependent on boreholes and
municipalities are challenged to manage the ground water. These factors make
service delivery expensive and difficult. There is also a lot of unemployment,
making it difficult to bring infrastructure to the area. Whilst struggling to
manage water projects, sanitation was also recognised as a need. Mvula Trust
introduced options to the community. There are new sanitation projects in 13
villages and most households now have toilets. Mayor Maarman stressed that
toilets are not enough and that health and hygiene projects must also be
introduced. The project has been based on community participation. Another
advantage is that builders have developed skills. These skills can be used for
different projects such as housing projects. There were many obstacles in the
process but the council finally succeeded.
Ms Jacobeth Mabeo, a member of the Kraaipan Sanitation Committee, explained how
the sanitation project was implemented in Kraaipan with the Mvula Trust acting
as implementing agent. Kraaipan is in the North West Province and has between
2500 and 3000 households. Mvula Trust emphasised the importance of community
participation and told the community that it must make its own decision. Previously,
approximately 6 toilets per month were built, but with the new project and the
assistance of Mvula Trust, close to 20 toilets per month were built. When the
Committee took over, the community became interested. In addition, local
materials are now used. Previously there were no public toilets. However, the
community has taken the initiative, and has, without any subsidies, built
public toilets.
Neighbouring villages are also asking Kraaipan for access to the project.
Nurses working in Kraaipan have realised that medical cases are less than in
other villages. Demand has also increased after a community health week was
held. The Committee went from section to section making people aware
sanitation. Local nurses and health officers were also invited. The result is
that the demand for toilets has increased greatly. The sanitation Committee
realises that prices are rising. In this light, they revisited the subsidy and
added to it, for instance, by providing more sand. The subsidy is usually for
materials that are not particularly accessible to the household. People are not
forced to buy new structures, as whatever is available will be used. Toilets
cost about R500. These include costs such as bricks, digging holes and getting
sand. A builder is paid R200. Ms Mabeo concluded by saying that she has
benefited in terms of skills, and now she can reconcile books by herself. She
is also used to train other communities.
Jaque Cloete from Tweerivier (Namaqualand) explained that the project involves
a learning process. In 1999, Mvula Trust appointed the Namaqualand Water and
Sanitation Support Group (NWSSG). Previously, fly by night consultants would
make many promises to the community and leave. The community met Mr Holden and
became acquainted with the Mvula group. This created trust, said Mr Cloete, and
cannot be likened to a "fly by night" situation. He stressed the need
to make people aware and to involve the community in the whole programme.
People were given choices and were told how to sustain their choice. In the
beginning he was only a field worker, but now he is fully involved in the
community. He feels that this is one of the most successful projects in
Namaqualand. Neighbouring villages have been stimulated by the success. The
Premier of the Northern Cape, visited the area and approved of the dry
sanitation scheme.
Discussion
Mr GB McIntosh (DP) asked why, despite the activity of NGO’s, they were unable
to deliver sanitation in rural South Africa. He commented on the successes of
Lesotho and Zimbabwe in this area. He wanted to know what Mvula Trust, as an
implementing agent, believed were realistic targets and mechanisms for the
project.
Mr Holden (Mvula Trust) explained that Lesotho and Zimbabwe have had a head
start. The pit toilet originated in the mid-1970s in Zimbabwe with Peter Morgan
through the introduction of the Blair toilet. The idea was then introduced in
Lesotho. The culture of toilet building is so firmly embedded in those areas
that people do it anyway. In addition, knowledge is so deeply embedded in the
communities that less assistance is required. In Zimbabwe the subsidy is only
for four bags of cement. In some areas in South Africa there is rock underlying
the soil. People have the knowledge now to circumvent these impediments. In effect,
delivery is speeding up, albeit at a slower pace. Progress is also the result
of increased awareness.
The Chairperson gave a short summary of the meeting. She explained that the
purpose of the meeting was to discuss why approximately R20 million, allocated
for sanitation services, had not been spent. The Committee sees itself as
stakeholders representing the broader constituency of South Africa. The
Committee feels that service delivery must occur at a faster pace. She said
that although she initially found the demand led approach to be problematic,
the presentations by the speakers, made her realise that there were successes.
She stressed that community involvement and awareness are instrumental in the
success of the program, because educating the community would stimulate demand.
She pointed out that there are shortcomings in the process that cannot be
neglected. Funding is a serious problem and lack of funding is causing delays.
There are also delays in the approval of business plans. She added that members
of Parliament have a role to play in disseminating information. Municipalities
are aware of this and they are working on making linkages at this level. She
emphasised the need to progress in other areas. The Department must monitor the
progress and duplicate the programme elsewhere. She added that the argument
given for paying farmers a higher subsidy did not convince her. Farmers in the
Northern Cape receive R700 whilst those in the Western Cape receive R1200. She
said that one would expect a smaller gap.
She concluded by listing 7 areas identified by the ANC as needing sanitation.
These included informal settlements, rural settlements, farm dwellers, schools
(especially rural schools), small towns still using buckets, homeless people in
cities, highways and roads.
Ms Mathule (Mvula Trust) said that acknowledging the problem of unspent funds
is a starting point. However, she said that quick fixes are not sustainable.
Mistakes were learnt through water projects, and should not be repeated in the
sanitation projects. She said that the process must start at a local level by
encouraging people to give serious thought to sanitation problems. She saw the
process as more of a ‘bottom-up’ approach. She concluded that a longer and more
sustainable approach is required rather than a fast and unsustainable one.
The Chairperson added that in order to stand a chance at re-election, there
must be delivery. Therefore, an unsustainable approach cannot be followed.
Mr Holden reminded the Committee that the projects are about communities.
The meeting was adjourned.
Appendix 1
The Mvula Trust
The Use of Dry Sanitation in the Urban
Environment
Introduction
Dry sanitation and the recycling of
greywater in Bellevue East, Johannesburg have been incorporated into urban home
in to demonstrate that it is possible to maintain a high standard of living
whilst keeping monthly municipal service costs to a minimum. The secret of this lies within the use of
appropriate technology and the household participating in the maintenance of
the systems.
Convention wisdom maintains that in the urban environment waterborne sewage is
the only solution even when full pressure house connections are provided. Experience then showed that the communities
and municipalities could not afford the operating and maintenance costs. This has resulted in large-scale pollution
from overflowing sewer systems and huge arrears by consumers.
The work of the Mvula Trust in the rural and peri-urban areas had demonstrated
that this was not necessarily the case.
The problem was that all the work had been carried out in the poor communities
and understandably the politicians viewed the technology as somewhat second
rate.
Inspired by the involvement of Premier Mannie Dipeco in the Northern Cape Water
Services Programme and the initiative of the communities of Namaqualand and
Weiler's Farm in Johannesburg’. The
Technical Manger of the Mvula Trust converted his house to prove that within
the city it is possible to have a high standard of living without need for
municipal sewers and high monthly municipal service costs.
Thus in January 2001 a greywater recycling system was installed followed by the
removal of the en-suite flush toilet and replacing it with dry sanitation in
February 2001.
Re-use of Greywater
In an urban area the disposal of greywater presents the biggest problem
and this has been the one of the main reasons for the installation of
sewers. Also when mixed with the
blackwater from the toilet it is carrying pathogenic material which is harmful.
To demonstrate that a municipal sewer connection is not required the first
stage was to separate the blackwater from the greywater. The outlet pipes from
the kitchen and the main bathroom, collecting approximately two thirds of the
household consumption, were led to a sump.
A simple submersible pump with a float control pumps to a normal garden
sprayer to irrigate the garden. Spraying
the water aerates it as well as distributing it enough to prevent damage to the
vegetation from the soaps and fats.
Spraying also ensures that the combination of evaporation, transpiration
and permeation prevents saturation of the ground.
The result a green garden without the use of municipal water. The only effort required is the cleaning of
the filter every second week and moving the sprayer. The water could also be re-cycled through
flush toilets for additional water savings
The cost of the installation was approximately R1,000. This could have been lower, and the whole
house put on the recycling system, if the installation was planned when the
house was built. Unfortunately the house
was built in 1910 precluding this. The
cost saving depends on the block tariff
that a consumer is paying but payback should be between 1 and 2 years.
Dry Sanitation
A waterborne sewage
reticulation is often seen as the ultimate solution for sewage disposal. If one does not want to handle faeces and has
the money to pay for the system then perhaps it is. However any waterborne system carries the
risk of blockages and overflow, as the people of Sandton can testify, and is
just a way of passing the problem onto someone else.
If one is prepared to handle desiccated faeces then a dry sanitation system
offers enormous advantages over waterborne sewage in terms of capital
investment, service costs and risk of pollution. To anyone who is prepared to participate in
faecal waste management a dry sanitation system can be seen as the ultimate.
The use of dry sanitation together with recycling of greywater totally removes
the need for a municipal sewer connection.
The house incorporates a system called urine diversion, which separates
the urine from the faeces. This type of
toilet is used in the same manner as normal toilets except a man must sit down
to urinate. The urine is led into a
container and the faeces falls into the pit below. A mixture of soil and ash is then thrown down
the pit to help kill off the pathogens and dehydrate the faeces. This system was chosen as it can be built
inside the house and is easy to maintain.
The pedestal is made using a fibreglass mould into which a sand cement mixture
is cast. After finishing and painting
the toilet looked no different to a ceramic pedestal. The cost if made by oneself R30. Even if it is made commercially the
production is so simple it can be made in the community promoting local
economic development.
On this particular toilet the urine, which is a fertiliser, is removed once a
week and poured into the compost heap and around the garden and every 6 months
the dried faeces is removed from the rear of the toilet, a simple 15-minute
job. The faeces are then disposed of
within the compost heap to ensure pathogen destruction. Since the faeces is partly desiccated and
mixed with soil and ash it can be handled with a rake and spade and is totally
inoffensive.
Composting is an essential part of the process as the heat generated within the
compost heap ensures destruction of the more hardy pathogens such as worm
eggs.
The house garden is purely ornamental.
However, as has been shown by various international organisations, if
the greywater, urine and faeces are used for crop production the results are
hugely beneficial. For poor people
improved food production can lead to better health with the surplus crops being
sold for cash.
If dry sanitation and recycling of grey water are incorporated in the planning
of a residential development the savings are significant. Since there is no need for reticulation, bulk
sewers or treatment works it is conservatively estimated that there is a capital
saving of R5,000 with a reduction in monthly service costs of R100 per
month. Although some of the capital cost
is offset by the need for the pump the cost saving is still in the order of
R4,000.
In up market housing this is not that significant but in RDP housing could
result in a significant improvement in the quality of house and standard of
living without a household incurring unaffordable, monthly municipal service
costs.
Conclusion
The decision by a household on whether to
install wet or dry sanitation depends on a number of factors. These are:
1)Whether the household is prepared to be involved in the maintenance of the
system;
2)If the system involves outside maintenance whether they can and are prepared
to pay for this;
3)Whether there is the institutional capacity to support the chosen system; and
4)If water is required whether or not there is a sufficient supply.
In many areas the conditions imposed by 2), 3) and 4) are not met and a wet
system cannot be installed. This does
not mean that dry systems are limited to these areas. As has been shown in Bellevue East even when
the above 3 conditions can be satisfied a dry system is still a viable option
providing exactly the same level of service and convenience as a wet system so
long as the household accepts the first condition.
Appendix 2
Status Report on the Rural Sanitation Programme in South Africa
Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry
June 2001
1.Background
In October 1994 the South African Rural Sanitation Programme commenced with the
adoption on the White Paper on Water and Sanitation. The main principles contained in this policy
document are:
1.Development should be demand driven and community based;
2.Basic services are a human right;
3.“Some for all” rather than “All for some”;
4.Equitable regional allocation of development resources;
5.Water has an economic value;
6.The user pays;
7.Integrated development;
8.Environmental integrity.
Between 1994 and 1997, the Mvula Trust implemented eleven pilot rural
sanitation projects to test and develop an implementation strategy. In 1997 the Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry (DWAF) allocated substantial amounts to sanitation and provincial
implementation programmes were commenced.
Since then the programme has gradually expanded and has improved the situation
of over 26,000 households in 491 villages.
Experience gained from the rural sanitation programme has shown that, in
general, the biggest problem faced by households in improving their
environmental sanitation is not unwillingness to change or a lack of
recognition of the problem, but a lack of:
1.Knowledge i.e. not knowing how to build a VIP or urine diversion toilet;
2.Finance. To date many of the options
proposed to the community are simply unaffordable even with the government
subsidy;
3.Access to water (both in quantity and quality). It is no good telling people to wash
themselves more often if the water source is over 1 km away;
4.Knowledge of the routes of transmission of disease. Even if the routes are known people are not
shown how, within the constraints in which they live, to improve the situation;
and
5.Lack of belief in themselves. This
stems from the apartheid system and official constantly telling people what to
do. This results in people not believing
that they can do anything to improve the situation themselves.
The rural sanitation programme has, thus far, focused on providing finance (in
the form of subsidy of up to R600 per household) to people to improve their
toilets. This has been done in a demand
responsive and participatory way and thus has addressed the issue of lack of
belief in themselves.
2. Prevention of Transmission of Disease
Diseases such as shigellosis and cholera are transmitted through the faecal
oral route. The main barriers to prevent
such transmission are:
1.Containment of faeces by burying or the building of a toilet:
2.Provision of an adequate supply of water for personal hygiene. This includes body washing, washing of
cooking utensils and laundry; and
3.The provision of safe water for drinking and cooking.
A single barrier on its own is insufficient to prevent the transmission of
disease but the introduction of multi-level barriers, as is done in water
treatment plants, significantly reduces the risk of transmission. Also in the event of a barrier failing there
is backup in the second or third barrier.
The rural sanitation programme by concentrating on the first route of
contamination and only having improved the situation of 1% of the population at
risk, is failing in its objectives to reach the greater population. There are many reasons for this some of them
being:
1.The subsidy being targeted at an improved toilet, making this the main Key
Performance Indicator for the Programme;
2.Lack of capacity in the sector; and
3.Lack of appropriate technology to address the issues of personal hygiene and
improved quality of water when the tap is situated at 200m or further.
The issue of the subsidy has been gradually addressed by:
1.Not increasing it for the last 5 years;
2. Making it a fixed materials and/or labour subsidy; and
3.Now that the knowledge is in the community, people improving their toilets
without waiting for the government subsidy.
The issue of lack of capacity has been addressed over the past 4 years and now
we have a core group of professionals dedicated to the sanitation sector.
The lack of affordable options for toilets has been overcome by the
introduction of
1.The Archloo, which at the present moment can be built within the R600
subsidy;
2.The introduction of a modified Sanplat from Mozambique, which allows the
construction of a strong slab without the need for reinforcement;
3.The introduction of a methodology for the moulding of pedestal seats from Mexico,
which allows for the construction of durable effective pedestals within the
community;
4.The introduction of urine diversion technology , which caters for situations
where ventilated improved toilets are not appropriate and where people would
like dry sanitation inside there house; and
5.The incorporation into the programme of all the ideas and successful
experiments generated from the community.
This has included children’s toilets, hand washing facilities, single
pit urine diversion etc.
The issue of lack of appropriate technology for personal hygiene and improving
the quality of water has also been addressed over the past 4 years.
At present there are 3 affordable and water efficient hand washing facilities
available. These are
1.The “wine tap” model. This uses a the
wine tap found on the box wines fixed onto any suitable container;
2.The “squeezy” model. This is created
by making a small hole in the bottom of a 2-litre beverage bottle. When the top is opened water comes out when
it is closed surface tension prevents the water coming out.
3.The “self closing” model. This
requires a special top to be made which fits on a 2-litre beverage bottle. The advantage of this model is that it is the
simplest one for a child or old person to use.
However it requires the special manufacture of the top.
In the case of water quality, EWAG, the Swiss federal research institute, have
undertaken trials to demonstrate that solar disinfection (SODIS) is an
effective way of improving the quality of water. All that is required for SODIS is a supply of
2 litre transparent beverage bottles, a black surface and sunshine. All of these components are readily available
in South Africa.
Surveys in similar areas have shown that symptoms of disease are often not recognised
and either incorrect treatment given or medical assistance sought too
late. This component of the programme
will seek to identify the diseases prevalent in the area and assist households
and care givers to recognise symptoms and treat accordingly.
It is felt that conditions are now ready for the gearing up the rural
sanitation programme to introduce hand washing and SODIS thus ensuring that the
3 main barriers to the transmission of disease are in place and that there is
better care thus ensuring a better standard of living for all.
3.Implementation Strategy
Although the White paper was published in 1994 the funding of sanitation
remained restricted to a small number of individual projects until 1997 when
the Department started to fund Provincial Sanitation Programmes. The one exception to this was the
Inqualabutho Sanitation Programme based on Mosvold Hospital, Ingwavuma,
Northern KwaZulu-Natal.
The Department’s provincial offices in Northern Province, North West, Northern
Cape and KwaZulu-Natal asked the Mvula Trust to submit provincial business
plans (the Northern Province was split with the CSIR and later with Metsico,
the BOTT consortium which the Mvula Trust is responsible for sanitation).
At a later stage the AquaManzi Consortium in KwaZulu-Natal became involved in
the provincial sanitation programme and in Mpumalanga the Mvula Trust was asked
to prepare District Sanitation Business plans.
By this time it was a requirement of the Department, as a result of the
Division of Revenue Act that local government approve the Business Plans before
they could be implemented.
In Eastern Cape the only 9 individual projects, implemented by the Mvula Trust,
were approved by the Department. This
did change in December 2000 when the Alfred Nzo District Municipality requested
the Mvula Trust to be its implementing agent for the Department’s sanitation
programme and in March 2001 a District Municipal Business Plan was passed
covering 107 villages.
The results to date are as follows
Programme |
No of Toilets Built |
No of Villages |
Comment on 2000/2001 |
Northern
Province |
7180 |
199 |
Spent
Allocation |
Eastern
Cape |
584 |
9 |
|
KwaZulu-Natal |
5418 |
39 |
Nearly
spent allocation |
Mpumalanga |
1617 |
4 |
Late
approval by councils |
Northern
Cape |
4121 |
63 |
Spent
allocation. Combining efforts with DH&LG to ensure integrated approach |
North
West |
7923 |
157 |
Spent
allocation even though BPs were only approved in October |
Inqalabutho |
2700 |
13 |
Project
stopped as no further funs were allocated to it. |
Total |
26
543 |
491 |
|
This has been achieved for a total expenditure of approximately R100 million or
at a cost of less than R4000 per toilet.
Since this cost includes liaison with Provincial sanitation task teams,
councils and other stakeholders, training workshops, capacity building
etc. In comparison Durban Metropolitan
Unicity Municipality has just priced a supply side approach to building double
ventilated improved pits in Mzinyathi and for the construction costs alone have
calculated a price of R4,500 per toilet.
However the 29,543 toilets represents 160,000 people served, less than 1% of
the population without adequate sanitation and it has taken 4 years to achieve.
Only in the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga were the sanitation allocations not
spent in the financial year 2000/2001.
It demonstrates that in the remaining provinces, where according to the
Departments policy a Demand Responsive Approach has been followed, there is
sufficient demand for sanitation.
Even if costs can be reduced the question still remains, is there sufficient
money allocated to sanitation even with an allocation of R100 million per year?
The table below illustrates this point
Estimated No. of people still without adequate sanitation: 18 million
Estimated No of Households to be served: 3 million
Cost per Toilet |
Estimated Cost of Programme (millions) |
No. of Years to Complete Programme |
R4,500 |
R13
500 |
135 |
R3,500 |
R10
500 |
105 |
R2,500 |
R7
500 |
75 |
R1,500 |
R4
500 |
45 |
The answer is a categoric no! Moving to
a supply side approach will further worsen the situation, which would
concentrate the benefits on a few people.
A supply side approach has already been tried and failed in the Rustenburg
District of the North West Province.
Under the Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme a number of
villages were selected to receive toilets.
The following occurred:
·The households were not consulted
over the toilets and frequently came home to find the pits being dug on their
property without permission.
·The toilets were of precast
concrete, manufactured in Gauteng. This
resulted in
-The villages received no economic benefit from the manufacture of the toilets;
and
-Not being able to move the structures when the pits were full (the cost of
emptying the pits is beyond the resources of the municipality and the
households)
·No further funding was available to
continue this programme but adjacent communities demanded free toilets. This delayed the Departments sanitation
programme in the district for 2 years whilst the residents and councillors were
convinced that the money would not be forthcoming.
4.Analysis of the Problem and Recommended Solutions
Many hard and bitter lessons have been learnt over the past 4 years as theory
has been put to the test and demolished in the face of the practical realities
on the ground and on coming to understand communities needs. Many of these lessons have been incorporated
into the sanitation programmes but it has been an ad-hoc approach due to
vagaries of the business planning process.
The main problems with the recommended solutions are as follows:
Perceived Lack Of Household Demand For Sanitation At National Level And
Consequent Lack Of Support For Sanitation Programme
If there is no demand for sanitation at a household level why do over 80% of
households in South Africa have some form of sanitation facility and why did
the implementing agents in 4 out of 6 Provinces spend their financial
allocation last year?
Most households understand the importance of containing faeces and wish to have
a toilet for the privacy it offers. With
the resources and knowledge they have they often come up with the most economic
solution (A tin top-structure which can be moved when the pit is full. Where the soil is stable and larger pits are
possible, which last longer, it is common to find brick top-structures). Where no structure exist the overriding
factor is poverty preventing the households improving the situation. In both KwaZulu-Natal, EG Kei and the Mohale
Programme in Lesotho as soon as material support was offered households were
prepared to invest sweat equity in improving their facilities.
The sanitation programme has bought in new ideas venting of toilets, fly
screens, lining of pits, new construction techniques and new technologies. Households have readily adopted these to
obtain a toilet, which gives not only privacy but also comfort, dignity and
status. Once these ideas are firmly
established in the community it has been found people adopt them without the
need of a subsidy. The subsidy, if
available, can then be targeted at the poorest members of the community.
These principles are well understood in many of the Departments Provincial
offices, by local government and in one case by the Provincial Government of
the Northern Cape. Premier Mannie Dipico
after visiting the communities and listening to their problems supported them
in their proposed solutions.
Recommendation: Decision and policy making should occur at provincial
and local level with the national level co-ordinating efforts.
Two Phased Approach To Sanitation Implementation And Lack Of Continuity Of
Funding
Most sanitation projects adopted a Phase A & B approach in their
implementation. The result was that
projects would complete Phase A (The training of committees, creation of
awareness and building of the first toilets) only to wait for the Phase B to be
approved, often under another Business plan.
Even when Phase B was approved insufficient money would be allocated to
complete the project and a further Business plan would be required to access
further funding.
The result was that committees and builders gave up and looked for employment elsewhere
resulting in retraining when the projects were restarted. Also many communities lost faith in the
process
Recommendation: That once a village has been approved to receive funding
it should continue to receive funding so long as there is sufficient demand
within the community to for improved sanitation. This should be applied retroactively to all
villages on the current business plans.
Village Based Rather Than Area Based Approach
In the first sanitation programmes consultants were appointed per village. Projects were also found to be far apart and
therefore economies of scale were not achieved.
Later consultants were appointed to cover a group of villages in close
proximity to each other. This achieved
economies of scale and greatly reduced costs.
In 1999/2000 the North West province implemented this to great effect by
increasing the number of projects from 22 to 157 within 6 months.
This approach still has its problems as often demand is created from households
in adjacent villages not named in the Business Plan, yet this demand cannot be
satisfied until a new business plan is approved. If it were allowed for these households to
access subsidies, through an adjacent village committee, even greater economies
of scale would be achieved and the programme could target many more people.
Recommendation: That local municipalities form the basis of the business
plans. rather than individual villages.
However, the local council would still prioritise which villages should
be targeted within that area and statistics would be reported per village. This is in fact the basis for the Water
Services Development Plans, as required by the Water Services Act.
A well constituted Water Services Development Plan should in fact form the
basis for the release of capital funding to the Water Services Authority and
this should be the objective of the Department.
Unstable Funding Flows
It is extremely difficult for all parties involved in the implementation of
sanitation to plan when it is not known from one year to the next what the
funding allocations will be, that they vary so much between the financial years
and that the finical allocation is not known until May or June and even then it
can be changed during the year.
For example in 1998/99 budgets were severely constrained, in some provinces,
due to budget constraints then expanding in 99/00 leaving implementing agents
struggling to increase capacity. At
present in Mpumalanga and EG Kei we do not know the financial allocation for
this year, even though there are approved business plans, and therefore cannot
plan spending to ensure there is continuity into the following financial
year. In Northern Cape in 2000/01
originally there was an allocation of R438,000 to sanitation. Ultimately R5,519,592 was spent due to an
increased allocation. Changes like this
lead to ineffective spending of resources
Recommendation: Have 3 year rolling budgets with a guaranteed 80%
allocation of the previous years budget.
Lack Of Capacity Within The Sector
Until 1994 very few people had worked with communities in a Demand Responsive
Approach. The approach was for a
government department to decide that toilets needed to be built, appoint a
consultant to design and supervise the work and appoint a contractor to build
them. The result toilets in the veld or
proprietary systems which did not work.
To involve households and communities in the process involved skills,
which many professionals did not possess.
These skill have had to be built and even today it is a struggle to find
the necessary professional skills though this is being overcome with the use of
community to community training. The
added advantage of community to community training is that the money for
professional fees is retained within the community thereby fostering local
economic development. In Namaqualand
this approach has been used to great effect resulting in 10 community people
providing support to other communities.
It needs to be recognised that all stakeholders are striving towards a common
goal, sustainable sanitation services for all.
This happens in an atmosphere of co-operative governance, which is set
out as a principle in most of the legislation.
This is best achieved in an atmosphere of co-operation and mutual
support, rather than confrontation and an us and them attitude. In some provinces this is being achieved but
rarely is this witnessed between the provincial and national offices of the
Department.
Recommendation: Expand the programme slowly and ensure that
skills are transferred to community people.
Be prepared to pay for training and to rigorously analyse the
performance of departmental staff, local government, implementing agents and
consultants. Monitor, evaluate, mentor and support to achieve maximum results.
Approval Of Business Plans At National Level
A significant delay has been in the approval of the business plans with up to
an 18-month delay in the approval of the business plans.
It is significant that the delays have occurred in Provinces, which do not have
authority to approve business plans. In
contrast in the Eastern Cape the EG Kei Sanitation Programme Business Plan was
written and approved within 2 months as a result of concentrated teamwork
between the Council, Mvula trust and the Department’s Eastern Cape office. It must be stressed that this co-operation
exists in other provinces but they do not have the support of their colleagues
at national level and who often have no experience in the sanitation sector.
A further problem is the number of organisations required to approve the
business plan before it can be submitted and that the rules are changed during
the writing of the BPs. These are:
1.The Municipality. Since the Water
Services Authority functions often sit at District Municipality level this
involves obtaining 2 council resolutions. (A letter from the Municipal Manger
is not acceptable). Council resolutions
require political support and for a Council meeting to take place. This can take several months.
2.The Provincial Sanitation Task Team.
This is a non-statuary co-ordinating body. Not all provinces have such a body and in
some cases it is difficult to obtain signatures.
3.The communities. On average it takes 8
hours per community to obtain this letter of support. In the EG Kei where 107 villages were targeted
this represents a cost of R214,000.
Although we have been informed that money is available for the
preparation of Business Plans we have never been able to access this and when
such a budget is presented we are told it is too expensive i.e. the department
wants the letter of support but is not prepared to pay for it. Also due to the delays between the submission
of the Business Plan by the Provincial office of the Department and approval by
the National Business Plan Approval Committee all momentum is lost and the
process must be restarted.
Recommendation: The provincial offices of the Department understand the
sanitation process and have been involved in the development of the business
plans. They, should, therefore have the
authority to approve the Business Plans.
The quality of the business Plans can be monitored at a national level
by someone who has had experience in the implementation of sanitation
programmes.
The only approval required should be from the District and local
Municipalities in the form of a Council resolution. It is unconstitutional for
a non-statutory body Provincial and regional Sanitation Task Teams) to have a
right of veto over the Councils and it is too expensive to obtain local
community approval.
Changing Local Government Environment
Local Government is tasked in the constitution to provide access to water and
sanitation. However, in most of the
areas in which the Departments sanitation programme is targeted local
government was only established in 1995.
Councillors and officials have struggled to come to grips with the legislation
developed by all the national departments when they do not have adequate
resources.
In the early stages of the sanitation programme we were often faced with
councillors, fresh from classroom based training, who insisted that the council
would perform certain functions without having the resources to carry them
out. After a few disasters, such as the
collapse of the bucket collection system in the Leliefontein TLC, a more
practical approach was adopted by the Councils, which resulted in them becoming
involved in the programmes, understanding the issues and solving the problems
in the field. This required ongoing
mentoring and support from the programme in contrast to the once off classroom
based approach.
This approach was starting to bear fruit when the demarcation of the new
councils occurred together with the elections.
The confusion that this has caused is still being sorted out.
A second issue is the lack of capacity
at local government level. This does not
necessarily mean a lack of understanding of the issues but more often the lack
of financial resources and personnel to undertake all the tasks given to them
by National and Provincial government.
Often decisions taken at national level take the form of an unfunded
mandate to local government. The decision has severe financial implications for
local government but at no stage were they consulted on how they would fund
this decision. The result has been an
ad-hoc approach to development as the local government responds to outside
demands rather than an integrated approach where external support is sought
when the council is unable to manage.
Recommendations:
All training must include ongoing mentoring and support to be effective.
Programmes need to take into account the changing environment as well as
political considerations during election time.
Financial and human resources need to be transferred to local government to
enable them to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities; and
National government must apply the principle of co-operative governance so that
collectively national departments do not place unsustainable demands on local
government.
5.Conclusion
The rural sanitation programme has strengthened and improved over the past 7
years. A wealth of experience has been
gained and a far better understanding of the problems facing rural people in
improving their sanitation.
The Mvula Trust believes that if the above recommendations are followed it will
drive down the costs of the programme to R1500 per toilet or under. This is still looking at 45 years to service
all households with inadequate sanitation at the current level of funding of
R100 million per year.
However it has been shown that with proper awareness creation and training of
local people, households will improve their toilets without waiting for a
government subsidy. In the Tugela Valley
and at Mseleni two builders are in the process of developing businesses which are
founded on this principle. As awareness
grows it is hoped that more business will become involved.
The sanitation programme can then concentrate on developing awareness and
targeting the subsidy to poorer areas and individuals. Within 20 years and the same funding it
should then be possible to ensure that the entire population of South Africa
has access to sustainable sanitation services.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.