Blog post 7: "Water is life, sanitation is dignity". Local politics

My introductory post presented water as a human right, fundamental to maintaining life, whilst subsequent posts explored water management at national and international scales. In this post I look at water in Africa from a sanitation perspective, and shift focus to local and individual scales. 

Historically, urban sanitation was masked by water supply issues (George 2008) but it’s now seen as a key concern associated with urban poverty and an opportunity for development, with the toilet becoming a development device (Thieme 2018).  Thus, sanitation is inherently political, with the claim to a toilet being both a human rights claim (UN 2010) and/or a public health claim (UNICEF 2008). So why do so many people not have access to adequate sanitation (fig. 1)? This post will go some way to answering that question by looking at political obstacles affecting an individual’s ability to claim this right. But first I’ll contextualise this post by looking at how historical legacies have created the sanitation problems seen today. 

Figure 1. The proportion of the population with access to adequate sanitation facilities (2015). Adequate sanitation facilities include ‘flush/pour flush (to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine), ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, and composting toilet’ (WHO/UNICEF JMP for Water Supply and Sanitation). 

The bigger picture

Sanitation is a reflection of uneven urban development. This asymmetric development is inextricably tied to historic, often colonial, legacies that have shaped urban planning in particular ways, dictating what parts of the city are serviced by certain provisions and support (Baruah et al. 2017). Some argue colonial rule brought modern infrastructure and improved sanitation to African cities (Njoh and Akiwumi 2011). However, indirect British rule resulted in uncoordinated city planning: colonial and local sections developed individually, and cities sprawled. Thus, those in relatively underdeveloped parts of the city were left with poor access to water and sewage (Baruah et al.2017).

Rights to the city

Access is made even more complex by deeply political contests over the urban citizenship of those living in informal settlements. Who belongs in the city and can get their urban rights recognised? Who is responsible for ensuring these rights? The answers to these controversial questions affect an individual’s ability to claim the right to adequate sanitation. So, you might be wondering, why not just make clear laws around this? Well, attempting to inscribe the right of informal settlers in city law comes with a dilemma: if you try to enshrine the sanitation right of informal settlements in constitution, you give the government the authority to enforce it and the power to reframe the right in a way they understand and a way they want to exercise (Attoh 2011). For example, city authorities may use adequate sanitation as a reason to instead rehouse settlers elsewhere. 

Local level politics 

It’s not just the infrastructure that affects a person’s access to adequate sanitation. Toilet access is tied up with local issues stemming from power inequalities within the community. Who controls taps and toilets? How are these accessed? Who can access them and when? This next section builds upon Watkin’s idea that poverty, power and inequality are central to water crisis (2006) by extending the notion to sanitation. 

A pay-per-use public toilet and shower in Kibera, the largest informal settlement in Nairobi (Kenya). It costs 5 Kenyan shillings (equiv. to ~£0.03) to use the toilet and 10 shillings (~£0.07) for a cold shower. Although the average daily wage in Kibera is around 100 shillings (~£0.70), it has an unemployment rate of 50% (Onyango and Tostensen 2015). Image source

Common barriers to sanitation are safety concerns associated with toilet access after dark. It is thought the majority of sexual violence in Kenyan slums occurs against the background of sanitation (toilet use, bathing or menstrual hygiene) (Corburn and Hildebrand 2015). In fact, across Africa, women and girls do not use communal toilets at night for fear of being robbed, raped or killed (e.g. South Africa: Lagardien et al.2012; Ghana: Tumwebaze et al.2013; Uganda: Mazeau 2013). Instead women use alternatives such as buckets, flying toilets or open defecation which leads to increased incidences of water contamination and diarrheal disease. In Kenya, diarrhoea linked to poor sanitation kills 17,550 Kenyans annually, of which a disproportionate number (~65%) are women (Corburn and Hildebrand 2015). The disproportionate impact on women may reflect greater power differentials between genders in communities.

Picture of Meseret, a restaurant manager who lives in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with her children, sisters and mother. At night they feel too unsafe walking to the local toilet so use the side yard next to their house instead. Source

Children are also often excluded from accessing communal sanitation facilities. Communal toilets in informal settlements are commonly pay-per-use (Simiyu 2015) and often children don’t get money for the toilet. This coupled with a general belief that children’s excreta are less harmful than adults (Kwiringira et al. 2014) leads to open urination and defecation in the streets which as previously mentioned is linked to water contamination and increased health risks for the community. Children in particular are at risk as they play in/with water (Katukiza et al.2013) and have the highest mortality rate from water borne diseases (Woodhall 2009). 

Children playing with water in the Lake Chad region. Source

Conclusion

I have to some extent generalised issues described here for the purpose of getting my point across. In reality the individual circumstances and barriers to sanitation vary both between cities in Africa and within settlements. The three main points I hope I’ve conveyed are (1) that to examine an issue, you have to consider spatial and temporal aspects; (2) just because there’s a toilet, does not mean everyone has access to it; and (3) politics is multi-scalar and isn’t just between politicians.