The public sector used to be responsible for providing sanitation. However, services are not keeping pace with demand. New policies often involve partnerships between government and civil society. Research from the UK South Bank University studies each partner’s rights and responsibilities, using examples from Cape Town, South Africa.

Environmental health in South Africa was influenced by apartheid laws, which shaped urban areas. Sanitation was traditionally the task of local government. However, there is now a move towards joint government and civil society projects. These have four dimensions:

• political – leadership and setting objectives
• institutional – the ability to implement and manage projects
• technical – constraints imposed by natural resources, education, skills and industrial capacity
• cultural – shared beliefs, objectives and ideas on how power should be exercised.

Which factors help or hinder the involvement of community-based organisations (CBOs) in providing sanitation? The research looked at CBOs involved in infrastructure development projects at Masiphumelele and Victoria Mxenge. Originally both communities used communal toilets and taps. Masiphumelele is developing water-borne sewerage and free-standing blocks containing a toilet and outside tap. In the scheme at Victoria Mxenge, each house will have internal connection to the water and sewer mains.

Interviews with key stakeholders revealed that:

• Residents at Victoria Mxenge are keen to share their skills and resources to improve their living conditions. These previously disempowered people are now involved in the political processes of housing and sanitation provision.
• People at Masiphumelele do not feel sufficiently involved in decision making to take on the responsibility of maintaining sanitation facilities. They are unable to challenge the social and political status quo.
• Because the Victoria Mxenge development did not stick to planning rules for sanitation, the Town Engineer is unwilling to take on responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure.
• Communities do not get the information they need to make decisions about the form of sanitation that best suits their needs.
• Racial and political divisions hamper the formation of partnerships.

The author concludes that governments have the responsibility to enable communities to make informed decisions, while communities have the right to choose a sanitation system that suits their needs. Both partners must actively establish and maintain communication with each other. There must be a clear understanding of who is responsible for what aspects of sanitation. If not, partnerships will not work.

The research highlights a need for:

• partnerships that are equitable in terms of cultural and political willingness to take responsibility
• shifts in people’s perceptions of who is responsible at the individual and community level and of what constitutes environmental health
• new institutional frameworks that assist equitable partnerships
• improved capacity of personnel to bridge political and racial divisions and build consensus
• greater technical capacity to form equitable partnerships.

Source(s):
‘Balancing responsibility for sanitation’, Social Science and Medicine 55: 1539-1551, by M. Allison, 2002
HINARI subscribers can access the full-text article here. Full document.

Funded by: South Bank University

id21 Research Highlight: 26 February 2003

Further Information:
Maria Clasina Stuttaford
School of Geography and Geosciences
University of St Andrews
Irvine Building
North Street
St Andrews
Fife KY16 9AL

Tel: + 44 (0)1334 463941
Fax: + 44 (0)1334 463949
Contact the contributor: maria.stuttaford@st-andrews.ac.uk

South Bank University, London, UK

Other related links:
'Hygiene promotion: evidence of efficiency and affordability from Burkina Faso'

'Keeping it clean: women, living spaces and health in urban Mali'

See id21's collection of links relevant to environmental health.