The Rural/Urban Divide

As some of my previous posts indicated, one of the distinct Geographies of sanitation access in sub-Saharan Africa is the urban/rural divide. As the figure below denotes, trends in rural sanitation continuously appear lagging behind those of urban – a correlation maintained internationally.

Graphic denoting the contrasting differences in urban/rural sanitation coverage from 1990-2015. Composed from the 2015 WHO Report ‘Progress on Sanitation & Drinking Water’ (Pg. 79).

For the purposes of clarification, an improved facility is defined as one in which human excreta is hygienically separated from human contact i.e. through a piped water tank or pit latrine system – however, even these may not be considered ‘improved’ if they are shared by other households. An unimproved facility is one where this separation does not occur, for example, a bucket or hanging toilet (WHO, 2008:39).

The figure delineates a clear split between urban and rural coverage, particularly regarding the practice of open defecation. In addition to the difference between SSA and the rest of the world, the stark difference within Africa is also surprising. North Africa has urban sanitation coverage almost matching that of the ‘developed’ category and rural coverage has drastically improved over the 25-year period - a feat that countries in the South have failed to replicate. The relative success of education and awareness programmes may help to explain some of this difference. Yet, the rural/urban divide remains.

Perhaps surprisingly, although a similar water access divide does occur, the sanitation trend is starker and cannot be explained by clean water availability alone. In fact, a logical rationalisation is one of need. In a crowded urban area, the risk of disease and contamination is greater than for rural settlements (Neiderud, 2014:2). Corollary to this is a greater need for adequate sanitation measures in the face of rampant urban squalor and deprivation. It is also likely less expensive to implement sanitation infrastructures in a densely populated urban community than in dispersed rural farmsteads. Build one toilet block and hundreds can benefit from its proximity, whereas, several rural blocks may need built for similar impact.

Correspondingly, Black & Fawcett suggest that the rather bleak rural image of sanitation is actually misleading (2008:37). They pose the case that the logical argument of reduced rural need, stipulates an environment that cannot be considered in the same manner as the urban. Lower disease risk and the open landscape make existing sanitation methods more appropriate and thus harder to shake. For example, many rural villages have designated spaces set aside for sanitation purposes; these are away from buildings and often follow natural streams or rivers (2008:36). Hence, existing practices of open defecation and poor hygiene do not induce the same severity of negative health impacts as they do in cities. The result is rural societies with a diminished relative need for sanitation and thus a weaker incentive to adopt new techniques. Indeed, any marginal benefit of improvements may be outweighed by economic cost and the difficulties instigating behavioural change. Jewitt (2011) furthers this point by suggesting that rural attitudes towards sanitation are inextricably linked with the use of excrement as a crop fertilizer (pg. 610). This practice inhibits the perception of faeces as something ‘disgusting’ or ‘dangerous’ as its usefulness is embedded within rural culture. Put plainly, the rural/urban gap in sanitation provision may be partially explained by the fact that many rural settlements neither want nor need any change to existing practices.

Yet, the failure of measuring techniques to take this into account generalises these practices on par with their ‘unimproved’ counterparts in cities. Thus, life in the countryside is reputed as less conducive to wellbeing when in fact the reverse is most often true. In reality, the vast majority of the world’s poverty exists in towns and cities in circumstances of deprivation that far outweigh those of rural areas (Black & Fawcett, 2008:37).

In essence, the implication is that measures to deliver improved sanitation will tend to differ greatly from rural to urban. As I will examine further in my next post, differing methods and indeed actors of provision may be better suited to each environment. For example, the remoteness of rural settlements often leaves them disconnected from the influences of the state – in both identity and provision (Harvey & Reed, 2006:367). In light of this absence, community based schemes offer a perhaps more effective alternative. Where inefficiencies and political inertia harm urban provision, private sector participation may be more suitable.

The aim of this post was not to suggest that rural sanitation is not a problem in SSA. Rather the intention was to emphasise how misunderstanding often leads to a particularly weak impression of rural coverage versus urban. In reality, the threat of inadequacy is felt nowhere greater than in towns and cities. The global sanitation crisis is urbanising (McFarlane, 2014:989), requiring specific policy engagement, particularly within informal settlements.

In my next couple of posts I plan to take a more contextual view of the water and sanitation problem, focusing on contrasting examples of urban and rural.

Jon Lane Water Week Interview

Here is an interesting interview with Jon Lane, former director of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). Here Mr Lane builds on some of the discussions of my previous posts in highlighting the significance of sanitation and the importance of raising awareness. He also stresses the particular need for sanitation in the urban context – something that I will look at in my next post.

Big words; now time for Big actions...

Following inclusion in the MDGs and their subsequent failure in this regard, more has and is being done to raise awareness of sanitation to a level more befitting its importance. A turning point was marked by the UN Year of Sanitation’ in 2008, prompting a wide range of research and subsequent publications. More efforts were made to contextualise the existing WASH campaign (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) and the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) was becoming more active as a collaborative global network. Development actors were beginning to comprehend that adequate sanitation was a necessary pre-requisite in the realisation of several other development related goals (UNDESA, 2010). Indeed, further links have been made to suggest that sanitation is important not only in its outcome but also the act of its provision. Nathaniel Mason has outlined government involvement in sanitation projects as an important tool for state building, not just because of what is provided but how. Indeed integrative and collaborative sanitation policy was important in legitimising Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe and in peace building for post-conflict Rwanda (Mason, 2012:11, 26).

In July 2010 the United Nations formally recognised access to sanitation as a human right (UN, 2010). This was a particularly pivotal moment, allowing sanitation issues to be considered both separately from and matching in importance to those of water. The culmination of this was sanitations equal inclusion in goal 6 of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 to replace the now expired Millennium targets. This new goal aimed to ‘ensure access to water and sanitation for all’ by 2030 (UN, 2015). The target also made a commitment to end open defecation, making specific reference to the needs of women and girls. On the whole, SDG 6 symbolizes the stark transformation in the minds of policy makers, from the footnote style addition to MDG 7, into a meaningful commitment for change. Indeed, this new goal is far more ambitious in its objectives from the ‘reduce by half’ intent of 2000. It epitomises how inadequate sanitation is being recognised for what it truly is -an abhorrent blockage in the pipeline towards further freedoms of right from which not millions but billions are still excluded.

All 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030. Source UN Agenda.

In spite of the positive recognition as part of the SDGs, there is still something of a public ignorance about sanitation. Public support is critical in achieving the necessary political will to realise the SDG target. Yet, this years WHO GLAAS report (Global Analysis & Assessment of Sanitation & Drinking-Water) highlighted that despite increasing commitments, funding gaps prevail. The report details that less than half of countries have enough financial resources to reach the target – in Sub-Saharan Africa, this figure falls to zero (WHO, 2017:6). In turn, aid flows to the region have fallen drastically from US$3.8 billion in 2012 to only $1.7 billion in 2016 (pg. 22) – a decline of over 55%. This paints a rather bleak picture for sanitation objectives. If goals are to be realised, a more concerted effort must be made to raise awareness in the public eye. Wider public engagement is crucial in achieving a political will for change.

In response, more is being done to raise the profile of the emerging sanitation crisis. Most notable is the annual World Toilet Day (WTD) held on the 19^th November and UN officiated since 2013. In partnership with the separate World Water Day on March 22^nd, WTD aims to promote awareness and inspire action. It has a dedicated website and is active on social media. Below are a couple of WTD videos, explaining the message:

Campaigns like this are a really important part of achieving the SDG. Yet, they still suffer from a perceived lack of interest – many remain blissfully unaware of their existence. Thus far they have failed to instil the same excitement as ALS’s ‘Ice-bucket challenge’ or Prostate Cancer UKs ‘Movember’. These kinds of grassroots campaigns can help to provoke a real interest that will often translate into cash donations. For example, Cancer Research’s #nomakeupselfie raised £8million in just one week (Guardian, 03/04/14). Despite an upward trend, a more innovative and stimulating sanitation awareness campaign may be needed if this new target is to better the last.

On a slightly different note, perhaps awareness of the emerging sanitation crisis in Africa will be more compellingly asserted onto the wider audience of the global North. The permeating forces of globalisation have worked to broaden the risk of pandemics. For example, the 2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak did spread to isolated cases in Europe and the US – perhaps a more likely future occurrence if African water & sanitation improvements fail to materialise.  

In my next couple of posts I plan to take a more contextual view of the sanitation problem, focusing on contrasting examples of urban and rural.