Colonial sanitation infrastructure: issues then and now

The connection between development and colonialism is surrounded by huge controversy; there is a split opinion on whether colonialism benefitted or worsened life in Africa. The European colonisers built a significant amount of sanitation infrastructure in Africa; could this be the reason why there are spatial disparities in sanitation conditions around the continent today?

The construction of public infrastructure during colonial times comprises a ‘strong predictor’ of development in Africa (Njoh 2013). Colonial rulers endeavoured to make life for the Europeans stationed in their respective colonies more comfortable and similar to their environment in Europe, which meant investing and developing ‘modern’ water and sanitation infrastructure. This required not only financial resources, but also significant lengths of time to complete, and therefore were developed only in territories planned for permanent settlement. Countries that have had a longer history of colonial occupation have ‘inherited more pieces of modern infrastructure’ according to Njoh and Akiwumi (2011: 459). Despite the debatable benefits that colonial rule brought to Africa in terms of sanitation infrastructure, there have been countless severe problems, including equity issues and their suitability for conditions of the 21^st century, which I will focus on in this blog entry. 

Post-colonialist scholars such as Rodney (1982) slam European colonialism for Africa’s underdevelopment, discrediting any infrastructure that may have been developed by the colonisers.  Firstly, the objective of building such infrastructure was not necessarily to benefit the lives of the African population, but to protect the health and well-being of colonial officials, troops and civil servants based in colonies. An important element of this mission towards better sanitation was the segregation from the ‘natives’ to avoid contagion of diseases perceived to be carried by them. This was achieved through the physical separation of races, notably by forming residential areas solely for Europeans. A perfect case to illustrate this is the creation of Hill Station in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in 1904. The British Colonial Office used the rationale of needing to protect European residents from tropical diseases (notably malaria and yellow fever) to justify the creation of the enclave on a plateau about 240m above Freetown. The bungalows, equipped with private latrines, were designed around health and comfort, yet nothing was done to improve the health and sanitation of the ‘native’ population (Frenkel and Western 1988). Other similar situations occurred in other countries too. In Lagos, Governor Egerton evicted hundreds of locals from an area of land in the city in order to construct an enclave exclusively for Europeans (Njoh and Akiwumi 2011). These highlight the hugely inequitable nature of sanitation projects in African countries under colonial rule.

Bungalows at Hill Station, 1904-05. Source: Royal Commonwealth Society Library

The manner in which colonial infrastructure was implemented has angered many. Walter Rodney (1982) in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa writes that funds for such projects came from the African continent’s natural riches and labour inputs. The land on which the infrastructure was built was also expropriated from African peoples. Forced labour continued into the middle of the 20^th century under colonial rule. For instance, in Kenya the British used such labour to develop the Mombasa water project from 1911-17, while in the 1930s the French conscripted Africans to work on the scheme to irrigate the Sahara (Njoh and Akiwumi 2011). This again demonstrates a history of injustice when comes to the provision of water and sanitation infrastructure in Africa.

Nowadays, regardless of colonial rule, the implementation of infrastructure, water and sanitation is one of the biggest challenges that Africa faces. In many cities in sub-Saharan Africa, clean drinking water and safe sewage removal are largely unavailable to a large proportion of the population, with open defecation and inadequate disposal of waste being common practices. In a recent report published by WaterAid (2016), South Sudan made the top of the list of the world’s worst countries for urban sanitation, with the greatest percentage (84%) living ‘without safe toilets’. The country was also found to be the worst with respect to the percentage of urban dwellers who defecate in the open, at almost 50%. Similarly, in Khartoum, the capital of the neighbouring country Sudan, there are no public toilets and a limited sewerage network serves just 28% of the population (Njoh and Akiwumi 2011). Many households therefore rely on private septic tanks, while those at the very edges of the city dispose of human waste more un-hygienically (e.g. shallow pits that allow faeces to seep into the environment or water system). The septic-tank system was introduced in African countries by colonial authorities in the late 19^th century, involving individual tanks and absorption pits as a form of modern sanitation facilities.

The case of Khartoum is a perfect example of colonial sanitation infrastructure that is insufficient and practically ineffective now. Africa has the most rapid rates of urbanisation and the fastest growing population of any continent. The rudimental colonial infrastructure sometimes implemented up to over a century ago simply does not meet the needs nor the standards of today; it is not adequate to deal with high population density in today's cities. Its outdatedness (and lack of proper maintenance over time) has meant these pose a hazard to the rapidly growing urban populations (Njoh 2013). Moreover, the somewhat better picture we see today of sanitation conditions in both African cities and rural areas is thanks to the work of non-governmental bodies in post-colonial times that have strived to build and improve facilities and access. Today’s infrastructure is not necessarily a legacy of colonisation.

Whilst it has been found that longer colonial rules correlate with more modern sanitation infrastructure, the former may not be the reason why there are spatial discrepancies in sanitation conditions around Africa at present (though it is a factor). From the beginning, there have been many problems related to the nature and means of the construction of such infrastructure that ultimately highlight the inequalities and injustices that stain the colonial era. Furthermore, the construction of these water and sanitation facilities then do not translate directly to benefits now, with much infrastructure unable to provide for large and densely populated urban areas in terms of coverage and quality. Non-governmental entities have since been responsible for bettering sanitation infrastructure on the continent. To conclude this post in the simplest and clearest manner: there was, and still is not, equitable access to sanitation in African cities.

World Toilet Day 2016

Yesterday, Saturday 19^th November, was World Toilet Day. An initiative created by the UN, its purpose is to mark and remember the importance of the ‘oft-neglected global sanitation crisis’ (UN 2016).

The shocking figure of 2.4 billion people living without access to improved sanitation – that is one third of the world’s population – resounded through the media. Over 100,000 people gathered in Mumbai, India, for the Global Citizen Festival which included Jay Z and Coldplay as headliners. I was surprised to find that even the Mirror engaged in publicity for the Day with an article on “genius” funny graffiti in toilets. Scrolling through the tabloid’s pictures of vandalised public loos made me realise how much we take for granted our access to functioning toilets that are free to us in the UK. We take toilets and sanitation for granted much more than we can imagine. We do not expect to pay for such a basic service or encounter faeces outside the sewers – much less see those around us become ill, dropping out of school or work because of inadequate access. Our reality with respect to sanitation is unbelievably different to that of millions of people in other parts of the world.

An unhealthy population makes an unhealthy economy. This year’s theme focuses on ‘toilets and jobs’, highlighting the significant drag that poor sanitation puts on economic development. The UN estimates that in many countries it accounts for a 5% loss in GDP; lack of access to toilets in households and the workplace leads to poor health and increases absenteeism, lowering the overall productivity of the labour force. Improved sanitation is a preventative measure to tackle diseases that burden many low-income countries, and is much cheaper than curing these. To avoid the $260 billion currently lost and huge number of people who die each year as a result of poor sanitation and unsafe water (UN 2016), greater, better and more equitable investments need to be made (Water Aid 2016).

For more information on World Toilet Day, check out the website: www.worldtoiletday.info

Loo Roll art: depiction of Timbuktu, Mali, by artist Anastassia. Source: http://www.wateraid.org/uk/news/news/the-worlds-cities-reimagined-in-toilet-roll

Failure of Water Stress Index as a sanitation indicator

In the previous post I outlined the basis of the Water Stress Index and how it can provide an idea of sanitation levels around the world. However, as I said, there are many components that the Index fails to take into account: spatial and temporal variations, quality and access to water, all of which hugely affect sanitation.

Lack of access to water is not necessarily a consequence of a national shortage; in fact, very often significant numbers face inadequate access to clean water despite living in a country that is not water stressed. This is because of economic and physical barriers affecting availability, which vary from place to place. Affordability and infrastructure play a major role, and differences are especially marked between urban and rural areas. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa only 5% of the rural population has a piped water supply in their homes, in contrast to 35% of urban residents (UNEP 2012). The most important factor that affects urban water usage in East Africa is whether households have access to a functioning piped system. During the 1960s, a person in a piped household consumed eight times as many litres as someone in an unpiped household. In 1997, the latter walked on average about 300m to unprotected sources to obtain water, increasing the risks of poor hygiene and water-borne diseases (Thompson et al. 2000). This demonstrates that although an area may physically have sufficient water (especially when considering water storage and groundwater, not accounted for in the Index calculation), it is not inexpensively, easily and safely available to all. It is access to and quality of water that define sanitation.

Water quantity in a country changes over the course of the year; seasonal differences are not taken into account by the Water Stress Index. As an annual national average, the Index does not take into account that at some times of year there are great quantities of water present, whilst at others there are severe shortages. Rainfall and river flow (especially the upper course) can have strong seasonality in sub-Saharan Africa and is more and more variable between years as a consequence of global climate change. In Namibia, though renewable water resources are plenty (at 45.5km3 per year, or an average of 26,300m3 per year), river flow is extremely seasonal (Taylor 2004). In the month of February rainfall is around 66mm, but in July it is roughly 0.6mm (World Bank – see graph). The changes in water availability force individuals to ‘draw water from a mix of sources through the year’. This is not investigated at all by the Water stress index, suggesting that it cannot represent the ‘spatial and temporal variability in the supply and demand of water’ (Taylor 2004: 14).

Average monthly rainfall for Namibia 1960-1990. Source: World Bank 

A question that must be addressed is: what do we actually mean by ‘water scarcity’? According to Frank Rijsberman (2006: 6), it is when many people in an area are ‘water insecure’ (do not have access to safe, affordable water to meet drinking, washing and livelihood needs) for a ‘significant period of time’. In truth, there is actually no widely accepted definition, since it must be considered very much on a case-by-case basis. What can be deemed “scarcity” depends on how needs are defined, the potential proportion of the resource that could be made available, and temporal and spatial scales. A vital element of good sanitation is full and constant access and use of safe water sources. Nevertheless, in some of the most water scarce countries in North Africa, sanitation levels are high. This is because of other factors also affect sanitation, such as the prevention of food contamination and access to sewage infrastructure or flush toilets. In 2004, Morocco had a coverage of improved drinking water resources of 56% in rural areas, but the improved sanitation rate in these same areas was almost 75% (UNICEF 2006). It is extremely questionable whether there is truly a relationship between water stress and low levels of sanitation.

A measure as one-dimensional as Falkenmark’s Water Stress Index does not capture the essence of water scarcity, let alone what this means for sanitation. To use the Index as a main indicator for sanitation would be to say that sanitation is principally affected by water quantity in a country, without looking at other factors that determine sanitation: affordability, quality, infrastructure for water provision, investments in sanitation facilities, health literacy… The Water Stress Index does not illustrate access to clean water, nor how this varies over time and space, and therefore fails to indicate how sanitation and water truly correlate.

Water & Sanitation: to what extent are they linked?

One of the ways in which the water crisis in Africa has been studied is by looking at where and to what extent water shortages occur. In 1989, Malin Falkenmark published a paper using her very widely used Water Stress Index to emphasise the ‘massive water scarcity’ threatening Africa.  Yet, how does this worrisome issue actually translate to outcomes in sanitation and health? In this blog entry I will look at the foundations of this water index and how it may help assess sanitation-related issues. The backdrop of Falkenmark’s paper is the recurrent and serious droughts in Africa during the latter half of the twentieth century that caused many to lack access to water, especially clean safe water.

World Map showing levels of water availability. Source: FAO

To assess water scarcity, information about the gross water available in the country is needed, calculated from measurements of number of flow units as river discharge (equal to 1 million metres cubed per year). This water quantity is compared to the number of people dependent on the water (for food, drink, washing, manufacturing etc) to analyse the degree of water stress. The Water Stress Index states that water scarcity occurs when an area has fewer than 1000m3 of water per person per year. The simple index is useful because it takes into account demography and number of people dependent on a restricted quantity of water in a country each year. This is important to investigate because a higher people-to-water ratio and population density not only means that there is less water to go around (and that, in reality, inequalities of distribution will arise), but also that quality of water used is often compromised. Falkenmark's diagram below illustrates different levels of water scarcity, with each cube representing one flow unit and each dot representing 100 people reliant on that unit. Typical usage in industrialised countries is between 100 and 500 people per flow unit; in temperate zones, beyond 500 people per unit would mean a country is considered water stressed.

In light of this, it is ‘deeply worrying’ that many African countries are seeing numbers higher than these - and which are still rising (Falkenmark 1989: 115). In the period 2005-10, the African continent saw the highest average population growth rate at 2.3% per year (UNFPA 2009). Judging by the Index and the author’s predictions, most of East and some South African countries would be water stressed by 2000 and, 25 years later, some of them would face scarcity. In 1982, Malawi had a population of about 6.6 million and was estimated to increase to over 11.6 million by the year 2000, with level of competition for each flow unit going from 730 to 1300 people (Falkenmark1989:113).  Demand is clearly out-stripping supply – population growth is high and there is a need for greater water quantity to expand agriculture and increase yields.

Water shortage mainly influences sanitation by its effects on quality of drinking water. Africa as a whole did not meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of halving the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. According to the Africa Water Atlas, water stress or scarcity means that both quantity and quality of water is insufficient to be able to ‘provide safe drinking water, food and hygiene’ (UNEP 2012: 16). Since water is an absolute necessity to live, in areas of high rainfall variability during times of shortage, people may resort to using lower standards of water. For example, if water from an improved water source (e.g. a well) fails or is not enough, households may turn to water collection from unprotected sources, such as rivers or streams. Yet even if they still only used improved water sources, the microbiological quality of the water in these deteriorates when rainfall decline significantly. A major consequence of this is the increased incidence of water-borne diseases, such as cholera and typhoid. The 1991-92 drought in southern Africa left many, especially in rural areas, without access to water. In Malawi, this number reached around 3 million, and the use of unprotected sources which were open to contamination ‘led to outbreaks of diarrhoea, cholera and dysentery’ (Calow etal. 2010: 248). At the end of 1992, the country faced a large cholera outbreak, with over 25,000 cases and 524 deaths reported (WHO 2010). 

This case is a clear example of how a country with high water stress can have low levels of sanitation and poor public health. When it comes to public health, the Water Stress Index may be helpful in painting a general picture of what we might expect to see in a country on average. Nevertheless, like all averages, the Index hides discrepancies and has limitations. I will explore these later on, particularly its failure to show quality, access, and spatial and temporal distributions that immensely affect sanitation.