AfricaSan Reaching Low Income Communities Experiences from eThekwini, Durban

1. AfricaSanReaching Low Income CommunitiesExperiences from eThekwini, Durban Neil Macleod

2. A municipality of contrasts

3. The context • A metropolitan municipality with a recent history • Present boundary formed in 2000 • A high level of poverty and a large rural community • Then a city of 3 million people, with 1m having full water and sanitation services, 1m having poor services and 1m having no services • Population now estimated at 3,5 m

5. The sanitation edge

6. The sanitation challenge in 2000 • 200 000 families without basic sanitation • 60 000 pit toilets filling or full • No policy on basic sanitation for poor communities • Reports of health problems (cholera) within these communities

7. Development of a sanitation policy • Piped, waterborne sanitation with conventional treatment at large centralised plants in developed areas, within the urban edge • A free basic sanitation service in the form of one pit emptying every 5 years • The use of double pit, urine diversion toilets, outside the urban edge

8. Pit emptying challenges • Many pits unlined and toilets subject to catastrophic collapse • Pits constructed in inaccessible locations • Pit contents not homogeneous • Highly variable pit sizes • High cost of emptying

9. Emptying the 60 000 existing pits • The high cost (over $120 per pit) of emptying single pit toilets individually, made this approach uneconomic – given the cost of constructing new single VIP type toilets ($140 to $420) • A research project was initiated to determine how best to empty these toilets • A solution that maximised job creation was favoured

10. Requirements for sanitation solution beyond the urban edge • Cost competitive to construct and maintain • Able to be emptied by households at an affordable cost • Is environmentally sustainable • Uses minimum amounts of water, if at all • Is generally accepted by the communities who will use the technology

11. The long term solution • Double pit urine diversion toilets • Overall construction cost of approximately $500 • Emptying is the responsibility of the household, with entrepreneurs already offering their services at $4 per chamber emptied • Matched to level of water service • Linked to extensive community education • Environmental impacts and health benefits extensively researched

12. A description of the process • Community based approach used • A local steering committee is elected for each project • This committee makes decisions on how the project is to be implemented • The use of local labour and local small businesses is maximised • Community education and awareness building is a vital component of the process

13. The process, continued • Follow up visits after construction have increased acceptance levels and emphasised the family’s responsibilities for maintenance of the toilet. The period needed for follow ups extends to years • Independent research is ongoing to evaluate acceptance of the solution and to confirm that the hygiene messages have been internalised

14. UD toilet

15. The research agenda • The impact of UD toilet waste and urine on the environment, including crops grown in the waste material • The use of grey water for urban agriculture • The impact of UD toilets on community health, particularly in areas where no proper sanitation service existed previously • Solutions for cases where house densities are high and sewers are remote.

16. Research relationship with UKZN • An agreement with the University of KwaZulu-Natal to undertake applied research • Approximately $140 000 a year, for a 5 year period • Covers technical, biological, social and economic aspects of water and sanitation provision

17. Progress to date • Over 63 000 of the UD type toilets have been constructed to date. • Follow-up visits show that communities generally accept the technology and are capable of maintaining it • The solution is affordable and appears to be sustainable - economically, environmentally and socially • Many challenges remain !

18. Poor communities within the sanitation edge • Communal toilet blocks are being constructed as an interim solution • Maintenance is a significant challenge • The solution is temporary (less than 10 years duration), until the area receives formal housing

19. Plot size as a determinant • The amount of land available to a family is a key factor in deciding on sanitation options • Low density communities are very expensive to service using reticulated water borne sanitation • Small plot sizes make septic tank solutions impractical

21. Conclusion • No solution is perfect • There will always be families who expect more • Realisation of the goal of water and sanitation for all is a progressive process • Improving the level of the sanitation service to urban poor communities has a positive impact on the environmental health of the whole community