Pathways to universal and equitable access to safe water and sanitation - part 1

Concepts of urbanization within Sub-Saharan Africa have argued that urbanisation is taking place at a rapid rate. Indeed figures from the Joint Monitoring Program have highlighted how within Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, improvements in urban sanitation are struggling to keep apace with population growth.

As a result, one of the papers I read when researching this blog topic suggested that demographic pressures in urban areas can only be controlled in two main ways, both of which involve the curtailing population growth (Fox, 2011). The first (lack of) approach, is to 'permit draconian mobility restrictions or permitting disease and hunger to re-surface in urban areas'. This cannot be allowed to dominate. Instead, Fox argues that the only humane policy option is to focus on family planing and fertility decline thus easing the stresses, such as poor urban sanitation and water supply, associated with rapid urban population.

I'm not sure I really buy into the suggestions above.. Further research led me to a paper which offers a very different approach.

A paper by Dranget et al., (2002) argues that water and sanitation improvements in urban areas are usually are as a result of interrelated factors such as physical, economic and social. Yet, demography also has a large part to play. Instead of rapid population growth just serving as an argument for urgent action,  it is suggested that it is an important factor itself in determining the likelihood and success of water infrastructure improvements. The study uses the example of the town of Kisumu in Kenya to analyse actual phases of urban water  and sanitation developments.

Drangert et al., arguments are founded on the principle that hydrological conditions and demographic characteristics are vitally important in the instillation and maintenance of water management solutions. As an aside, it is interesting to note how these  arguments fit within the broader arguments I made earlier in this blog series about physical and socio/economic factors determining water access. Demographics, and specifically population growth within an urban area directly affects the ability of the urban area to manage access to water management solutions and this can be defined into three broad stages (figure 1).

Drangert et al., hypothetical relationship between population increase and infrastructure.

1.  At stage 1 (A-B, figure 1), when population levels are low and only growing slowly, a large proportion of the population falls within the economically active age group They hypothesize that although the investment capital may be available, central government are often engaged else where and thus the majority of citizens needs for water and sanitation will be met through arrangements made either at local community or household levels.
2. Stage 2 (C-D) marks a period of rapid population growth, not too dissimilar from that experienced within Sub-Saharan Africa at present. In such times, the authors argue that during such times, provision and maintenance of the public infrastructure that is required, is poor and experiences very little (if any) expansion and improvement. This is primarily because tenancy, and tax collection have not been formalized, again requiring residents to make their own water management arrangements and community and household levels. Furthermore, even if infrastructure provision are put in place they often fall into disrepair or are misused.
3. Stage 3 ( E-F): Over time and once population growth slows down and stabilizes, only then will the relevant authorities have the capacity and financial strength to invest in and effectively manage water management solutions.

So Sub-Saharan Africa population growth is increasing rapidly. What should be done about it - wait around until population growth begins to slow and the governments can finally take up the slack?... NO!

The solution: Going small when the city expands rapidly:

Kisumu, Kenya: Source

Drangert et al., call for improvements to focus locally and that can act independently, without reliance on central, and potentially unreliable sources of financial revenue. These arrangements are common place, and are built upon demographic, hydrological and socio-economic circumstances. However, one of the greatest problems is that they are often not viewed as appropriate or acceptable. 

These arguments are well demonstrated through the use of the Kisumu case study with high rates of population growth and increasing strains on the municipal council, which has failed to provide water management solutions with issues compounded by conflicts of interest within the council. Despite the rapid growth in small scale, local and community provision due to a lack of municipal support, the council refused to support or endorse such improvements.

Local solutions in Kisumu, have come to the fore with the majority of residents living in lower density suburbs, with resident installed latrines and wells, with members of the community providing water on a commercial basis in some places. Surely it makes more sense to encourage or at least not actively discourage such schemes when they are providing at the very least, a stop gap in water management solutions. Although reticulated sewerage and piped water were practical and financially viable in the densely populated 19th century Europe North America, they may not provide the long term solution in Sub-Saharan Africa and other developing areas. In Rapidly growing but less densely populated areas, going small when the city grows, providing low-cost, on-site provision of safe water and sanitation may be a more sustainable and appropriate long term solution for developing areas moving forward. Developing areas do not need to follow the trajectories of North America and Europe. Yet, as I hope this blog has argued successfully, one thing that is certain is that demographics are important and should be considered.

For part 2, click here