Monday 28 November 2016

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 21st 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 20th 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 19th 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.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Ana-Lin! Based on the questionable benefits of infrastructure left behind by colonisers, do you think it would have been preferable if they had not built or left behind such infrastructure at all? Despite the consequent inequalities in access, isn't it better that at least some regions of Africa are equipped with outdated but somewhat functioning infrastructure than none at all?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi

    I agree that it is better to have some sanitation infrastructure in at least part of the continent (tend to be the places that colonisers chose as capitals or cities in which to invest) than none.

    The fact that Europeans built sanitation infrastructure is not inherently a bad thing, but the methods and rationale used were often oppressive towards the local populations. There was very much a racist "us vs. them" argument (see Frenkel and Western 1988). Towards the end of the colonial era (when revolutions were beginning in some African countries), there was a movement to provide infrastructure and facilities outside of European enclaves to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of Africans (Njoh 2013).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Ana,

    A very interesting blog post that of course is very thought provoking. Let's be honest, colonisation was never set out to benefit the colonialised locals and therefore any sanitary facilities that the colonisers constructed were for entirely self-interested needs. My question focuses around the Third Wave of Urbanisation and how rapidly the 'global south' is urbanising. What policies/initiatives/stakeholders are needed to develop more sanitary facilities in urban areas without risking the case of being neo-colonial?

    Many thanks

    S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi S,

      It is important to note that it is difficult to find policies or initiatives that cannot be argued to be neo-colonial at all. In rapidly urbanising areas with high population densities, sanitation facilities like pit latrines are not a viable solution, so simplified sewerage has been adapted and implemented in many places (has lower cost than conventional sewerage), with significant success. Please read my final blog post for more information on this.

      Many participative projects, originating from a post-colonial rationale, are designed to be inclusive of locals' needs and preferences. The Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) approach uses activities 'developed for community groups to discover for themselves the faecal-oral contamination routes of disease. They then analyze their own hygiene behaviours in the light of this information and plan how to block the contamination routes' (WHO 1997). In Luweero, Uganda, health education through this initiative lead to a change in defecation and cleaning practices, reducing the risk of catching soil-transmitted helminth infections (Dumba et al. 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824518/)

      Delete