Coordinating WASH efforts

The water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector in sub-Saharan Africa is made up of a range of organisations and institutions whose various approaches to providing WASH services are all slightly different. Reading this blog, one can see that the WASH services in SSA are provided by government institutions, private companies, philanthropic organisations and NGOs, all operating over multiple scales, in different environments and with different models of provision.

Even at local scales there can often be multiple actors working side by side but using different approaches to provide WASH services. The result is that the sector is extremely fragmented and incoherent and in many cases highly inefficient and unsustainable. A simple example that could be solved easily through better communication is the type of water pipe that is used. Different service providers use different pipes and this can mean that the water and sanitation systems of cities can consist of many different types of pipe, each requiring different kinds of expertise and different replacement parts. These types of challenges are the result of WASH financing being channeled too often into short-term, independent projects that are not part of wider common plan (Battle 2015).

At the root of these challenges is the way WASH actors work with each other. While SDG 6 sets out a clear and united set of goals to be achieved by 2030, the development strategies and the structures through which they are delivered can sometimes lead to inconsistent approaches that undermine the development process. To address this issue, recent efforts have been made by WaterAid and other sector partners to identify 'collaborative behaviours that, if adopted by countries and their partners, will make development cooperation more effective in the sector, and ensure universal, sustainable access to WASH services' (Battle 2015). Four behaviours have been identified:

Applying these behaviours to the water sector is a challenge but progress is already being made. In 2015 these behaviours were adopted by the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) partnership, a global consortium of WASH development actors including over 150 country governments dedicated to working 'towards a common vision of sanitation, hygiene and water for all, always and everywhere' (SWA 2016). Experience from other sectors suggests that a global platform such as SWA has an important role to play in realising the universal adoption of these behaviours (Sanitation and Water for All 2016).

Institutional change is notoriously difficult to achieve for it poses a threat to the established ways of thinking and must often must be done through those persons who have been most successful in the current system. However, the adoption of these behaviours by the SWA represents an important step towards achieving an effective and coordinated action in water and sanitation development. 

Liberia is one such country whose government has been aiming to increase coordination in the WASH sector with the help of SWA. To do this, a number of institutions have been set up to coordinate and monitor the many actors involved in the WASH sector in Liberia. The National Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion Committee (NWSHPC) was set up in 2012 and by 2013 was coordinating the activities of 51 institutions both government, private and charitable. Without such an umbrella committee, the activities of these institutions that include the likes of WaterAid, Oxfam and the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, would be near impossible to coordinate and organise into an effective action.

Harmonisation in the WASH sector is beginning to happen at a global, national and local scale and represents an important step forward for the sector which currently suffers from inefficiencies due to a lack of coordination between actors. However, many challenges lie ahead including a lack of institutional capacity to organise the almost absurd number of WASH actors, a lack of political will to bring about change that may require more funding and a change to the status quo, and disagreements between actors that have conflicting attitudes about WASH provision (WELL 2016). What is certain however is that if the SDG number 6 goal is to be completed by 2030, it will require the coordinated efforts of institutions around the world of all types and sizes and not a confused mess of short-term, parallel delivery mechanisms fated to undermine one another. 

The cost of 'total cost recovery'

South Africa is leading the way in Africa in terms of privatising its water sector and is therefore a useful case study for other sub-Saharan countries considering the private sector as a solution to their issues with water provision.

In 1991, apartheid in South Africa was abolished, putting an end to a system of racial discrimination and segregation that had split the country for almost 50 years. Three years later, on the 27th of April 1994, the country held its first democratic election and voted decisively to give power to the African National Congress (ANC); a party that promised to create a more equal society by restoring the rights of those previously oppressed. To do this, one of the ANC's central policies was to provide every person with access to adequate health facilities, sanitation, and a clean, safe water supply. Not long after, in 1996, these policies were successfully enshrined in the constitution;

South Africa is one of the only countries in the world to make access to clean water a constitutional right and yet today, many of the poorest people in the country remain without continuous access to safe, clean water supplies. Soon after the election of the ANC, local municipalities were urged by the government to increase the cost recovery of water utilities. To do this, some municipalities turned to the private sector; granting long-term contracts to private multi-nationals. One such case was the Mbombela municipality, which awarded a 30-year concession agreement to a subsidiary of the British water company Biwater in 1999. Other municipalities decided to reorganise their utilities as profit-driven, publicly owned enterprises (Pauw 2003).

However, this policy of cost recovery has attracted major criticism. Many argue that while water and sanitation services have been dramatically expanded since 1994, access to these services remains a problem in poor communities because many people cannot afford to pay for them. This issue came to a head in 2003 when hundreds of people in South Africa died and many thousands more were hospitalised during an outbreak of cholera. The cause of the epidemic was blamed on the fact that many people had been cut off from their water supplies because of their inability to pay, and therefore had been forced to use unsafe sources of water (Pauw 2003). Between 1994 and 2002 as many as 10 million South Africans had their water supply cut off for various amounts of time.

Today, water provision remains a big social problem in South Africa. Since 2012 there has been almost one protest per day linked to water provision, deriving mainly from complaints about tariff prices and water quality in urban and peri-urban areas (WRC 2016, Aljazeera 2014).  The process of cost recovery in many municipalities can therefore be said to have undermined the original aims of privatisation. Some have even compared the emerging disparities in provision between rich and poor as a new form of apartheid (New York Times 2003).

Gauging Province, SA, saw 500 delivery protests in just a few months in 2014. Though few made the news.

It therefore seems irresponsible of the World Bank and developed countries such as the UK to be pressurising sub-Saharan African countries into adopting private sector models of utility provision. In 2001 for example, the Department for International Development in the UK gave Ghana a loan of £10 million on condition that it privatised its urban water supply (WSWS 2003). Other countries including Benin, Angola and Guinea Bissau have been given similar propositions by the IMF and the World Bank leading to a widespread shift towards privatisation across sub-Saharan Africa. Further cause for concern stems from the fact that there are only a few private water companies currently operating in sub-Saharan Africa and almost all of these are foreign - most of them either British of French.  

The water issues in South Africa should serve as warning to those considering private sector models of utility provision. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to many millions of people in similar situations to those that cannot afford to pay for running water in South Africa. These people would likely best be served by a government-subsided supply of water and could be devastated if the current wave of privatisation forces them to turn to unsafe sources of water. 

Necessity is the mother of invention

In 2011, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation launched a water and sanitation programme entitled 'The Reinvent the Toilet Challenge" in a bid to find sustainable sanitation solutions to help the billions of people worldwide without access to improved sanitation facilities. The foundation offers grants to researchers around the world trying to come up with innovative toilet designs that meet a number of guidelines set by the foundation.

The guidelines state that the toilet must:

• Remove germs from human waste and recover valuable resources such as energy, clean water, and nutrients.
• Operate "off the grid" without connections to water, sewer, or electrical lines.
• Cost less than US$0.05 cents per user per day.
• Promote sustainable and financially profitable sanitation services and businesses that operate in poor, urban settings.
• Be a truly aspirational next-generation product that everyone will want to use-in developed as well as developing nations.

 

This is an interesting and ingenious approach to water and sanitation development that will hopefully provide new answers to the problems facing sanitation provision in Africa's urban slums. If you would like to know more about this project or the other philanthropic sanitation work the Gates Foundation is carrying out follow this link. 

It works in the UK, so why not privatise the water sector in Africa?

In the United Kingdom our water supply is owned outright and operated by the private sector. In 1989 under the Thatcher government, the ten previously public regional water authorities in England and Wales were sold and since then the government has assumed a regulatory role via two institutions; the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) and the Environmental Agency. Water and sanitation coverage in the UK is 100%, continuity of supply is 100%, waste water treatment is 100% and the water companies are strictly regulated to ensure high standards of service, reinvestment in infrastructure and low environmental impacts. So is our model of water and sanitation service something that should be strived for in sub-Saharan Africa where the public sector has more often than not failed to provide sufficient coverage?

The debate regarding the role of the private sector in utility provision has been going for a long time but it has recently come to the forefront of water and development policy in sub-Saharan Africa. In response to widespread public sector failure, over the last 30 years there has been a shift from the state to the private sector in utility provision which has been driven by idealogical arguments of market forces, increased efficiency, reduced corruption and improved cost recovery. However, while at least 14 countries in SSA have privatised their water sector to some extent since 1960, results have been highly varied and the evidence suggests that in many cases privatisation has not led to any significant improvements in service (Bayliss 2003).

For any government looking to shift the responsibility of utility provision to the private sector, there are a broad range of options available that differ in the extent to which responsibility and risk is transferred. At its lowest level, this involves short term management contracts of 2-5years in which a private company bids for the contract and once won, operates the water supply network for profit until the contract is renewed. In these arrangements the water supply network remains under government ownership and the government is responsible for the maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure. Leases and concessions are similar arrangements but contracts may be awarded for up to 50 years. In these cases, the private company usually has to meet contractual agreements regarding investments in infrastructure but may have more power regarding the pricing structure of the service. The most extreme scenario, as is the case of the UK, is complete divestiture of the water network in which the whole system is sold and ownership is completely transferred to the private sector. This last scenario has not yet occurred in Africa.

So in the 14 countries that have partially resorted to privatisation in SSA, what have been the results? Kate Bayliss (2003) looked at just this and found that results have been mixed. Her three key findings were firstly that the impact of privatisation was highly dependant upon the precursive conditions of the water supply system that the private sector inherited. In countries that already had relatively good systems of water provision such as Senegal and Gabon, performance and coverage was slightly improved following privatisation. In countries such as Guinea on the other hand, where the private sector got involved with weak systems of water supply, improvements did not occur and in some cases prices soared and no investments were made in expanding the network infrastructure. Secondly, regulation of the private companies and their performance has proved extremely difficult even where institutional capacity is relatively advanced. And thirdly, the idealogical arguments for privatisation have been undermined by a lack of investor interest and competition for government contracts.

If we link this back to the UK. At the point of privatisation in 1989, water and sanitation provision in England and Wales was already excellent. Performance was good and bill collection was very high. Since then, performance has been slightly improved in terms of reduced leakage, infrastructure expansion, increased service reliability and increased water quality. Furthermore, a strong existing institutional structure has held private water companies to strict laws and regulations. In 2016, Thames Water was fined £1million after the Environmental Agency found that they had accidentally released sewage into a canal in Hertfordshire. In other cases, fines were ordered to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than given to the government directly, and in 1998 a law was passed to make it illegal for water companies to cut off houses following non-payment.

Poorly performing inlet screens failed to prevent sewage entering the  Grand Union Canal in Hertfordshire

However, while performance has improved, in the first nine years after 1989, water tariffs increased by 46% while operating profitability increased by 142%! This can be partly attributed to the natural 'monopolous' nature of water networks. The success of the private sector is based strongly upon the concept of competition. In the UK competition is partly induced by Ofwat but water companies can still to a large extent assume a permanent customer base due to their individual spatial monopolies and therefore get away with relatively high prices. Fortunately for them, in the UK pretty much everyone can afford to pay such prices.

Using Bayliss' findings we can conclude that privatisation has worked in the UK because the inherited system was already very good, there was a strong institutional capacity for regulation and the customer base was wealthy enough to allow the water companies to make substantial profits while meeting service requirements. Furthermore, Ofwat has enough power to induce incentives for good performance thus simulating a reasonable degree of competition.  In sub-Saharan Africa however, many of these conditions are lacking. Privatisation may not therefore be the best way forward, particularly for those countries where water and sanitation provision are the least developed. Bayliss concludes that privatisation should be considered much more carefully in context with the conditions of the prospective country and that while success is possible, it should not be pushed by international donors as the ultimate solution to all SSA's water supply problems. Others are even more sceptical, arguing that government regulation in much of Africa is simply not conducive with utility privatisation and that it will therefore lead to many of the poorest people being completely cut off from safe water supplies.

Dakar: a unique challenge in need of a unique solution.

This blog has recently focused a lot on participatory development approaches and how these owe part of their success to the recognition that development challenges are context specific and require adapted solutions. In a recent lecture on climate change and water supply, I learned a little about the challenges facing urban communities in Dakar, Senegal and saw that this was a good example of an urban area facing a unique set of problems that requires an equally unique and ingenious set of solutions.

Rapid population growth in Dakar has resulted in an increased demand for water and a growing pressure on an already stressed and inadequate water supply (Re et al. 2010). Public water supply in Dakar is sourced from a combination of groundwater (46%) and surface water piped from the Senegal River via hundreds of kilometres of underground pipes (Taylor 2016). The sanitation infrastructure is dominated by septic tanks that are attached to households and emptied periodically by tanker trucks.

Household Septic Tank in Dakar

Source: Professor Richard Taylor 2016

A combination of challenges stand in the way of effective water supply and sanitation in this city. The main issue is groundwater contamination. In recent decades groundwater has been cited as the answer to water and sanitation provision across much of Africa (Taylor et al. 2009). Not only are groundwater resources in Africa plentiful and relatively simple to access in many regions, they also provide a comparatively high-quality supply of water that tends to require less or even no chemical treatment compared to surface water and also stand to be the only water resource that may benefit from climate change (Taylor et al. 2013). However, in Dakar groundwater may not be the solution. Although the city depends heavily on groundwater for its public water supply, the groundwater quality here is incredibly low. 

The low-quality of the groundwater in Dakar is mostly due to contamination from human waste. Many of the septic tanks in the city are poorly maintained and as a result occasionally spill over allowing effluent to drain to the aquifer. Furthermore, during rainfall events, public toilets and sceptic tanks may flood and spill out onto the streets and also drain to the aquifer. Waste may reach the aquifer via a number of pathways. If it drains through the soil and there is a long enough distance between the surface and the water table, the harmful organisms in the waste may be removed and subsequently the aquifer will not be harmed. However, if the water table is shallow, some harmful organisms may reach the aquifer before effective filtration has taken place. Alternatively, waste may drain to the aquifer more directly via a macropore in the subsurface. This could either be a vertical crack in the ground or man made heterogeneity such as a poorly sealed well. 

Aquifer contamination from human waste means that groundwater may contain harmful pathogens and have much higher levels of nitrates. The international guideline for the concentration of nitrate in drinking water is 50mg/l. This value is based on evidence for the development of methaemoglobinaemia in infants exposed to higher concentrations (WHO 2011). In Dakar, nitrate levels have been found to be as high as 500mg/l. 

However, it is not only fecal contamination that threatens the quality of Dakar's groundwater. Due to its coastal location, the aquifer is at risk from salt water intrusion if too much groundwater pumping occurs. This means that even if the Dakar authorities prevented contamination from human waste, the aquifer may still not be able to provide the city with enough freshwater.

Dakar is in a difficult position and is in need of alternative water and sanitation solutions to those now being widely promoted elsewhere across Africa. Already a number of ingenious solutions are being proposed including waste treatment (shown in the video above) and the pumping of urban groundwater to peri-urban areas where it can be used to both irrigate and fertilise farmland. But it is clear that more needs to be done to improve water and sanitation provision in this city. 

From participatory development to community management.

In my last post I introduced the concept of participatory development as a way of ensuring the actions of NGOs and international organisations are in keeping with the needs of the communities they are trying to serve. Participatory development is a practice that is often presented as an alternative to state-led or private sector development approaches so in this post I want to unpick the underlying principles behind this concept and find out whether it really is a new and alternative solution.

The practice of participatory development is considered to have begun in the early 1990s after top-down, Euro-centric development approaches were recognised to be ineffective.  However, this type of grassroots development can be traced back to the 1940s. During the Second World War, the foreign aid budget of Britain was re-alocated to help with the war effort, leaving the then 'Colonial Development Advisement Committee' no option but to pursue development policies that did not require significant government funding. E.R. Chadwick, a British development official, decided the solution was to encourage colonial communities to step up and take the initiative themselves.

 “The Government does not have enough money to give every village what it needs...we often think that Government has all the money in the world. But this is not so... It is true that the Government is there to help all the people in the country. But surely the people should help themselves. The best things in life are the things we have made for ourselves.”

“Community Betterment in Africa” pamphlet published in the early 1950’s under the authority of HMSO. 

Community Labour in Cameroon 1964. Source: Professor Ben Page

The concept of grassroots development is therefore not a new idea. Today, although much has changed from the 1940s and 50s following the end of colonial rule, a similar problem remains -  many African governments simply do not have the capital to provide public services such as water and sanitation to their entire populations. So is participatory development still the answer?

Encouraging communities to take it upon themselves to provide water and sanitation services appears to be both a rational action; because it acknowledges the long history of government failure to do so, and an ethically attractive action; because it is based upon principles of fairness and community empowerment and appears to avoid turning to the private sector to provide basic human rights. However, many case studies have shown that participatory development is most likely to be successful when communities contribute resources such as capital and labour to the development projects themselves (see Fielmua 2011, Harvey and Reed 2006). This investment gives the community a sense of ownership to the project, reminiscent of the principles of labour and property rights described by John Locke;  

"That labour put a distinction between them and the common. That added something to them more than nature...and so [making them] his private right."

( Two Treatises of Government p288. 1689)

Creating a sense of ownership is important if development projects are to be successful. Case studies have shown that where communities do not feel this sense of ownership the installed service equipment often falls into disrepair after a few years because the local community does not take responsibility for its upkeep (Kleimeeier 2000). A paper by Wesley and Ghatak (2001) analysed how ownership matters in public good provision. They argue that success is most likely to occur where the ownership of a public good "lie[s] with a party that values the benefits of it relatively more" (p1). This sense of ownership is most obviously achieved through community investment of labour and capital. Yet this clearly is based strongly on market principles and therefore does not appear to be any different from private sector led development.  

Furthermore, central to private sector led development is the idea that service provision must have some aspect of cost-recovery if it is to be economically sustainable (WSP 2010). This aspect has attracted criticism because it means clean water and sanitation should be treated as an economic good (Bakker 2007). However, this is no different from participatory development. Case studies have shown that cost recovery is needed from services provided through participatory development projects if the services are to be maintained (Whittington et al. 2008).

Participatory development does at first appear to offer an alternative approach to government-led development. However, further case studies have shown that participatory development is more likely to work when complimented with government support (Carter et al. 1999, Harvey and Reed 2006). If significant and urgent investments are needed to pay for infrastructure repair or expansion, and local communities are not able to mobilise the capital themselves, government institutions may be the only potential source of funding. Continued government support therefore remains necessary to the participatory development process. 

Where the balance of responsibility should lie between communities and government is a complex question and one that needs far more than this blog post to do it justice. Participatory development does appear to offer an attractive alternative solution and it is frequently advocated based on ethical principles of fairness and community empowerment. There is no doubt that Guijt and Shah's description of participatory development as the "inclusion of marginalised peoples in the decision making over their own lives" is ethically attractive, but is this inclusion of marginalised people supposedly more successful because it is based on principles of fairness and empowerment or is it because it draws on liberal market principles of ownership? 

Participatory development appears in theory to present a new and alternative development solution to state or private-sector led development. However, in practice, case study evidence suggests that if it is  to work it must be supported by government and be strongly rooted in market economics. This evolution of participatory development has given rise to the practice of community management - a new hybridisation of development approaches based on principles of community participation, state intervention and private sector economics. 

WHO decides what is meant by 'improved'?

In my last post I highlighted some of the concerns regarding the effectiveness of 'improved' water and sanitation services in meeting UN targets of providing safe and affordable drinking water and adequate and equable sanitation and hygiene for all. In this post I want to unpick the term 'improved' even further, by looking at who decides whether a source of water or sanitation is 'improved' and on what criteria this decision is based.

Figure 1

The task of monitoring the provision of water and sanitation services supplied by the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals is the responsibility of the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) which is run jointly by the WHO and UNICEF. It is the JMP that decides how drinking water and sanitation services are classified (Figure 1). In Annex 1 of the UN report "25 Years Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water" the JMP is described as having "benefitted enormously from the support and advice of experts, policymakers and practitioners working in the field of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene"..."to provide technical advice on specific issues and methodological challenges related to monitoring the MDGs" (p50). Although these experts have undoubtedly provided a wealth of useful information to the JMP, there appears to be no mention of any advice provided by those targeted by the goals themselves.

The concept of participatory development has been prominent within developmental rhetoric since the early 1990s. Guijt and Shah define participatory development as the involvement of "socially and economically marginalised peoples in decision making over their own lives" (1998: p1). It advocates for a bottom-up approach to development practice in which the views of those targeted by the practice are used to ensure that development plans are in-keeping with the needs and wants of the local people.

In a study conducted by Schouten and Mathenge (2010) based on the results of a case study in the Kibera slum attached to Nairobi, concern was raised regarding the lack of inclusion of local people in determining what does, and what does not, constitute an improved sanitation facility. A key issue for prospective sanitation providers in slum areas is determining the most appropriate sanitation facility given the circumstances of the area. For the Kibera slum, a number of potential facilities are identified such as VIP latrines, pour-flush latrines, WC toilets and biogas toilets. Whether or not one of these facilities is more appropriate than another is determined by the prevailing local conditions and environmental, social and economic considerations. However, since this decision is in the hands of the service provider, there is a risk that it will be made without the consultation of the local community, with whom the decision should ultimately lie. Evidence provided in the study indicates that in many cases, the opinions of those who stand to gain/lose the most from these decisions are often not listened to. Instead it appears that providers tend to fall back on the JMP definition of what constitutes an 'improved' sanitation facility when making their decisions, regardless of whether this is the best option for the individual location in question. In the case of Kibera, this involves ignoring the option of communal toilets because they do not officially fall within the classification of an 'improved' sanitation facility. Yet as noted by Schouten and Mathenge and others, communal toilets are often the only viable option for sanitation provision in slums where piped sewage systems are simply not possible to install. Furthermore, the biogas toilets that were found to be widely advocated by government organisations for Kibera, proved to be very unpopular with the local people because they smelt far worse than the other facilities.

Perhaps then the WHO/UNICEF should reconsider their classifications of water and sanitation services. If the existing classification is holding back the progress of service provision, as in the case of Kibera, a more inclusive system should be adopted that uses local knowledge to determine which service options are the most appropriate. Treating locals as 'experts in their own realities' rather than relying on the views of experts in the traditional sense, may prove to be the most effective way of supplying water and sanitation services in a format that benefits the local people to the greatest extent.

SDG number 6: a brief overview and critical analysis.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set an historic precedent of global cooperation and mobilisation to achieve a common set of humanitarian targets. By packaging the development objectives into eight clearly defined and time-bound goals the MDGs have proved to be very politically effective and have led to substantial (though highly-varied) progress towards sustainable economic, social and environmental development around the world (Sachs 2012).

Following on from 2000-2015, the Sustainable Development Goals are a similar but more demanding and specific set of targets that build on the MDGs and that aim to be completed by 2030 (UN 2016).  The SDGs are made up of 169 clearly defined targets grouped between 17 goals that encompass everything from eradicating poverty to tackling climate change. Within these goals is included sustainable development goal number 6: ‘Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’. The objectives of this goal can be found here.

Two key targets of SDG 6 are to provide safe and affordable drinking water for all, as well as, adequate and equable sanitation and hygiene for all. It is important to interrogate the definitions of these targets in order to understand how they will be measured. The UN uses the term ‘improved’ to describe safe drinking water within water policy rhetoric. Having access to an improved source of water, as defined by the UN, is to be within 200m of a source of water that has had human intervention to reduce its contamination from pollutants such as faecal matter. However, this definition has attracted concern from many water experts for hiding inconvenient realities. For one, having an ‘improved’ source of water nearby does not necessarily guarantee good access. In their paper, Tucker et al. (2014) investigated the socio-economic constraints on improved water source access in Ethiopia. They found that access to improved water sources was driven by interactions of poverty and rainfall variability, rather than the presence of improved water sources. For example, poorer households with less labour and capital to devote to water collection used less water even when improved water sources were available. Furthermore, poorer households were found to sometimes resort to using nearby, unimproved water sources over improved sources located further away. Similar results were found in Johannesburg following the installment of many communal taps in rural communities. Although access (distance) improved significantly from 750m to 120m, water-use remained very low at around 18l per person per day (Jagais 2006)

Further criticisms have been raised regarding the monitoring of improved water resources. After an improved water source is installed it is not uncommon for it to fall into disrepair due to a lack of maintenance. This may lead it to become contaminated and no longer safe to drink. However, if the well is not regularly monitored (which many are not), as far as the UN is concerned it will remain an improved source of water. In their paper, Heitinger et al. (2015) highlight this problem in Peru. They found that 47% of ‘improved water sources’ in the study area were contaminated with E.coli.

Furthermore, water collected from improved water sources may also be contaminated between collection and the point of use. Following the assessment of improved water sources in rural Zimbabwe and South Africa, Gundry et al. (2006) found that 12% of water samples collected at source were contaminated with E.coli. Yet more than 40% of water samples collected from household storage were contaminated, suggesting significant contamination between collection and the point of use.

‘Improved sanitation’ is a similarly ambiguous term. Many socio-economic factors affect a person’s access to sanitation even when ‘improved sanitation’ is ‘available’. One particularly pressing concern is the access inequality between men and women. Women are more threatened than men when using sanitation facilities due to the risk of sexual attack (see Moszynski 2010). It is therefore not uncommon for women to avoid using toilets at night or indeed communal facilities during the day and instead resort to alternative methods such as going to the loo in the home before throwing it outside. In Lagos for example, 67% of women interviewed by WaterAid stated they felt unsafe using a shared toilet (WaterAid 2012). 

This blog has provided a brief overview of the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals before looking in more detail at SDG number 6. A critical stance was taken in order to highlight the complexity of achieving improved water and sanitation access for all. If the UN is to achieve SDG number 6 by 2030 it must carefully consider how it defines and measures access to improved water/sanitation to ensure that statistics are not misrepresentative of reality.

Is urbanisation a blessing or a curse for sub-Saharan Africa?

The high rates of urbanisation in sub-Saharan Africa are being fuelled by rapid population growth and mass rural-to-urban migration. Although urbanisation is generally considered to be a universal driver of economic development, it is also recognised that most theories of economic development are based upon the historical development paths of ‘western’ societies and therefore do not necessarily apply to developing nations. There is little doubt however that urbanisation provides the means for increased economic and social development. Cities offer many opportunities for both rich and poor to increase their incomes, political influence and access to services such as education, health, and transport that are lacking in rural environments (WHO 2010). The agglomeration of people in urban centres is linked to structural adjustments in a nation’s economy from a low-income agrarian society to a higher income, industrial and service-based economy. As incomes rise and money becomes available for investment in urban infrastructure, the capacity for further economic and social development increases.

Urbanisation in sub-Saharan Africa has contributed to high levels of economic growth in recent decades (>5% between 2000 and 2010)(Barton and Leke 2016). Although Africa remains the most rural region on the planet, cities are playing an increasingly important role within the continent’s growing economy. Large cities such as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, now account for significant proportions of their country’s GDP (17.5%) (NBS & RCO 2014), while the city of Lagos alone is the 7^th largest economy in all of Africa – higher than that of countries such as Kenya and Angola (Kazeem 2016). The economic benefits of urbanisation are also being translated into social developments as service provision is substantially higher in cities than it is in rural areas. In 2015, approximately 87% of those living in urban areas in sub-Saharan Africa had access to “safe water” compared to 56% in rural areas (WHO/UNICEF 2015). 

However, economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa is slowing (~3% in 2016) and is currently lower than population growth (World Bank 2016). Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where rates of urbanisation are much higher than rates of economic growth (Molen 2014). Although there have been reductions in the incidence of extreme poverty in recent decades, it still remains high (43% in 2012) and overall economic growth has been much less able to reduce poverty in Africa than elsewhere in the world (World Bank 2016). The implications of this can be seen clearly in many of sub-Saharan Africa’s major cities. The proportion of the urban population living in slums is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world (>60%) while some countries such as Sierra Leone have more than 95% of their urban population living in slums (UN-HABITAT 2010). Those who most need it are not feeling the benefits of economic growth and the result is that many of Africa’s cities are being dubbed ‘oceans of poverty with small islands of wealth’ (UN-Habitat 2010 p12). 

As for water and sanitation provision in urban areas, there is evidence to suggest that this too is suffering to a greater extent compared to previous decades. Thompson et al. (2000) investigated changes in domestic water use between the 1960s and 1990s in rural and urban areas across East Africa. Their findings showed that while rural water supplies improved during the time period, urban water supplies showed signs of fatigue under the stresses of rapid population growth. Urban per capita water use fell by almost half between 1967 and 1997 due to the deterioration of piped water supplies, leading to an increased reliance upon expensive private water vendors. The increased unreliability of urban water supplies is suggested to have had a negative effect on hygiene, as less water is available for activities such as washing. 

There is little doubt that urbanisation is a necessary prerequisite for economic and social development in sub-Saharan Africa. The growth of cities has allowed many millions of people to have access to better economic opportunities and social services compared to those offered by traditional rural societies. However, the challenge exists where rates of urban population growth are so high that urban governance structures are unable to keep pace. Slums are an unfortunate product of this, however it is important that slum dwellers are not viewed as part of the problem. Acknowledging that these people represent resources rather than problems is critical if people-centred, sustainable urban development is to be achieved (UN-Habitat 2010).

Introduction

"The biggest change of our time?

- Africa's increase from 1 to 4 billion people!"

- Hans Rosling 2015

The image above illustrates the fact that almost half of the world’s present population is concentrated in Asia. With a population of over 4.4 billion people, Asia supports approximately four times as many people as the continent of Africa (1.2 billion). However,  according to UN projections, this will not be the case for long, for this century we will witness a population explosion that will see the number of people living in Africa shoot up to over 4 billion by 2100.  By this time Africa and Asia will together be home to over 80% of the world’s population. The implications of this for Africa are huge and it will be a great challenge to try and realise the socio-economic potential of such growth without suffering from severe growing pains.

 

One consequence of this population growth will be the swelling of urban areas to absorb the increasing number of people (Fox 2013). By 2050, Africa will be the most rapidly urbanising region in the world with urban dwellers numbering 1.3 billion people, up from 500 million this year (UN 2016). Although this urbanisation will in theory give Africa the means to achieve substantial economic development, it may also lead to increased rates of urban poverty and the continued cancer-like growth of urban slums.

In their paper, Ravallion et al. discuss the implications of urbanisation on economic growth in many developing countries around the world. They address concerns regarding the increase of urban poverty due to rapid rates of urbanisation and identify sub-Saharan Africa as one region where this is particularly prevalent. According to UN-Habitat 2008, over 60% of urban dwellers in sub-Saharan Africa live in slums, more than any other region in the world, and this value is increasing as cities such as Dar Es Salem in Tanzania, and Lagos, Nigeria, continue to grow at record speeds.

The growth of slums represents one of the greatest challenges facing the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as more people than ever will be forced to live in inadequate housing with little or no access to freshwater and improved sanitation. This blog will present an overview of the current slum situation in sub-Saharan Africa and attempt to understand whether SDG number 6 can be achieved by 2030.