Use and Acceptance of
Urine-Diversion Sanitation Systems in South Africa
Report no 1439/2/06
June 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
This report forms part of the output of Water Research Commission
project number K5/1439 entitled “Strategy for the furtherance
of knowledge and good practice of ecological sanitation (ecosan)
technology in South Africa”. The aims of this research
project were as follows:
- To establish the
current “state of the art” in ecological sanitation
(ecosan).
- To determine:
- the nature of
processes
taking place in the vault of a urine-diversion (UD) toilet; and
- The relevant pathogen
destruction parameters in order to increase understanding of the health
aspects of UD toilet operation and maintenance (O&M), as well
as safety criteria for use of the processed excreta.
- To explore
appropriate practices for faeces collection and disposal, in order to
facilitate the abovementioned safe O&M of the toilets.
- To produce a
report describing the research conducted for the project, with
conclusions and recommendations for improving the future implementation
of UD sanitation projects.
REPORT STRUCTURE
The literature review of this study was published by the Water Research
Commission as Report no. TT246/05. The other outputs emanating from
this study are presented in four separate volumes.
The four volumes are:
-
Volume 1: 1439/1/06
– Pathogen destruction in UD sanitation systems
-
Volume 2: 1439/2/06 - Use
and acceptance of UD sanitation systems in South Africa (this volume)
-
Volume 3: 1439/3/06 - Use of
human excreta from UD toilets in food gardens: Agronomic and health
aspects.
-
Volume 4: TT275/06 -
Guidelines for the design, operation and maintenance of UD sanitation
systems.
SUMMARY OF THIS VOLUME
Chapter 2: Acceptance and use of urine-diversion sanitation systems in
South Africa
The sanitation policy of the South African government stresses that
sanitation is not simply a matter of providing toilets, but rather an
integrated approach that encompasses institutional and organisational
frameworks as well as financial, technical, environmental, social and
educational considerations. The White Paper on Basic
Household Sanitation is based on a set of principles where sanitation
is about being a human right and about environment and health.
The Terms of Reference for the social research aspect of this project
were to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of
communities/beneficiaries using UD sanitation systems in various parts
of the country. People’s behaviour is not motivated
by rational needs, but rather by what they 'feel' or 'perceive' their
needs/wants to be. Their choice of sanitation system or
product to satisfy their needs/wants is influenced by their feelings
towards that entity, their perceptions of it and its ability to satisfy
their needs/wants. The scope of the study did not include the
evaluation of UD sanitation projects themselves or the evaluation of
the implementation processes of these projects. It focused on
the views, perceptions and attitudes of the users of the UD toilets as
well as their daily routines (practices) when using these toilets.
The approach for the research focused on participatory data gathering
in the target communities. A representative sample was drawn
from various communities in South Africa where UD toilets had been
built in order to gather the information. An interview
schedule was developed and used as a guideline to steer the interviews;
it was not used as a questionnaire. The questions were
respondent-generated, meaning that the answer of the previous question
led the researcher to the next question. The interviews were
conducted by four social researchers of the CSIR in Northern Cape and
Eastern Cape during the periods 18 to 25 August 2003, in KwaZulu-Natal
during 08 to 11 June 2004 and in North West during 25 to 28 August
2004. The dates of the research varied due to the
differing availability and readiness of the target communities for the
research to be conducted. In each of the target communities
the CSIR researchers were assisted by local community
members. A total of 200 interview schedules were completed,
covering 222 respondents representing 1 329 household members.
Even though there were differences in the perceptions of people from
different provinces, the general conclusion of the research was that
the implementation processes of the UD sanitation projects and the
general lack of community participation in terms of decision making
hampered the successful and sustainable implementation and use of the
toilets. The implementation process of a UD sanitation
project is a joint venture amongst officials, politicians and service
providers, as well as the community. It should be
acknowledged that the community, as the beneficiary, is a key factor
throughout the process, and it is important to implement the project
with the community members, not for them (community
participation). If the whole process is implemented properly,
the community will use, operate and maintain the UD sanitation systems
effectively, as they chose them (association with the sanitation system
and the sense of ownership is strong).
The research also showed that the UD toilet was accepted as a toilet
but not as a technology, i.e. the respondents would use the UD toilet
as a toilet but were reluctant to use the products (excreta) from the
toilet. The general norm amongst communities of not handling
human faeces presents a huge barrier for the use of excreta.
The majority of the respondents was satisfied with the fact that they
at least had a toilet, but almost all the respondents would have
preferred to have a flush toilet or would rather use a VIP, as the
operation and maintenance of a UD toilet was perceived to be
difficult. Only in the target communities in Northern Cape
did the respondents prefer the UD toilet because they were acutely
aware of the water shortage in the province.
There was a tendency for interviewees to assume that the provision of
sanitation services was the responsibility of local
authorities. During the research this tendency was identified
in the target communities (except those in KwaZulu-Natal where the
issue was not discussed) where most of the respondents indicated that
the disposal of excreta should be the responsibility of the local
municipality and not the household. The need for a
disposal/collection system was very community-specific. Some
community members did not want such a service or to pay for such a
service. Those who were willing to pay for
disposal/collection of the faeces also thought it was the
responsibility of the municipality to perform this task.
Advocacy and training regarding the UD toilets were insufficient to
change the perceptions of the users regarding ownership of on-site
sanitation systems.
Most respondents were aware of the fertiliser value of faeces but not
of urine. Only some of the respondents were willing to use
the faeces in their gardens (mainly in the Northern Cape).
Most respondents indicated that it was a bad practice to handle human
faeces and that they would not eat food that was grown in human
faeces. None of the areas visited used urine for agricultural
purposes as there was a general perception that urine was harmful to
agricultural produce (burning). The issue of using the
products from the UD toilets was not discussed with respondents in the
KwaZulu-Natal communities because eThekwini did not advocate the use of
the products.
From the results of the research it is seen that careful planning is
essential for effective communication and advocacy regarding UD
sanitation. Because it is a relatively new technology in
South Africa, it is essential that correct information on the operation
and maintenance of the system is transferred. The difference
in operation and maintenance between a pit toilet and UD toilet is
significant. Proper training in the O&M of UD toilets
for all the stakeholders is crucial; this includes both the
implementing agents and users. No training or insufficient
training will only impede the progress and sustainability of a good
technology.
Local authorities should thoroughly engage the users in a consultation
process prior to implementing UD sanitation technology projects to
ensure a better understanding of the technology as well as to afford
the communities an opportunity to air their views. Sanitation
technologies and services should meet the needs and interests of the
community and should be designed so that they complement existing
practices. The approaches adopted by sanitation
agencies/local authorities should also be acceptable to the culture and
traditions of the communities. Demand responsive approaches
(DRA) and participatory approaches (including the use of PRA and PLA
methods), in particular the use of approaches such as Participatory
Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST), improve the
sustainability of UD sanitation projects.
Promotion and advocacy processes should be systematic and continuous,
rather than sporadic, and education/awareness sessions should be
carried out at times and in locations that are convenient to the
different groups of communities. Community partnering, in
which communities contribute towards investment in UD sanitation, can
help to make projects successful and sustainable.
Building standards for UD toilets should be flexible and
appropriate. Construction companies should also adhere to
good building standards. Poor construction, in order to save
money, only deters users from optimal utilisation of the UD toilets.
Monitoring and evaluation are key elements in the sustainability of any
technology. Monitoring mechanisms should be in place to
ensure that projects are well implemented and to establish, with the
users, any problems encountered with the systems. The health
and/or environmental departments/sections of the local council should
support the efforts of the community institutional capacity
(volunteers) by providing incentives or allowances, since the majority
of these people are unemployed. This will ensure the
sustainability of the systems.