Colonial Legacies in WASH and Politics

 Hi and welcome back! In this post I'll be talking a bit about how colonialism still lingers through politics and the WASH Sector. I'll also be talking a bit about responsiblity (or a lack of it) and how this impacts the solutions to water and sanitation. 

Cape Town 

In 2013, Cape Town saw 'poolitical' protests in response to the inadequate provision of sanitation services (such as open air toilets) by the government. This included raw sewage and faeces being thrown at political opponents. However, this represented a much larger issue of inadequate sanitation and the ever increasing inequalities being 'expressed materially in basic infrastructures'.  

WASH history and how this impacts decisions for solutions now

It is all thought to stem from the colonial imagination where binaries exist, separating clean and sanitary Europeans from their disgusting colonial 'others' . This created 'geographies of contamination' linked to dirty, undrained and malodourous spaces. This was seen through American disgust at indigenous defecation practice in the Philippines encouraging 'modernizing' strategies to 'disinfect social and racial boundaries'.

The view that Africans need to be educated on sanitation instead of understanding the social contexts for open defecation or poor sanitation practices could also arguably stem from this 'colonial imagination'. For example,  UNICEF highlighted 'changing social behaviour' as a way to stop open defecation. This would paint people in informal settlements as uneducated and incapable. However, as my last blog post has mentioned, behaviours can be an adaptation to the given situations rather than a result of lack of education. For example, women may defecate in the open because they do not see pay-per-use toilets as worth the cost. Alternatively, not using a shared pit latrine and instead opting for a 'flying toilet' may be because they feel unsafe. UNICEF's strong advocacy for WASH also hinders the wider discourse for more suitable, effective alternatives.

Fox also notes that in colonial Africa, investments in urban infrastructure, housing, and economic diversification were limited and towns and cities were designed to cater to and conserve Europeans and their lifestyles. The increasing size of slum settlements in Africa is also argued to be evidence of a government's failure to invest in urban development. He argues that the colonizers set Africa's urban transition in motion but left a legacy of underinvestment and ad hoc urban governance structures.

Who is responsible?

Bare with me for this. There's a lot of finger pointing.  Conflict when it comes to responsibility for improving sanitation in communities hinders and delays the actual improvements that communities can benefit from. 

Household owners blame Landlords and Government

The majority of women in Mathare perceived sanitation to be the responsibility of landlords and local governments. The reason for this is that tenants are unwilling to pay directly for sanitation improvements because they feel landlords would be the ultimate beneficiaries. Landlords can use improved sanitation to charge higher rents and evict tenants unable to afford rent. 

Often, Government refuses to take responsibility and blames Landlords

Kenya's Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy corroborates residents' perceptions (agrees with) that landlords should be responsible for sanitation improvements in the informal settlements. The policy admitted Kenya's government lacked public financing to properly coordinate sanitation financing and provision particularly in areas with the poorest residents like informal settlements. This is quite similar to the political reasons for poor water quality mentioned in the third blog. 
More importantly, it could hint at Fox's argument that African governments may have internalized anti-urbanization bias which encourages a laissez-faire approach to urban governance and indicates the presence of a colonial legacy. 

Neocolonialism through forcing strategies?

There is general agreement from Jewitt,  Kwiringira and Thieme that top-down approaches are extremely limited because they prioritize 'hardware' and 'neglect wider political ecologies' and socioeconomic and cultural dimensions. Kwiringira said that 'mere provision of infrastructure without adequate emphasis on proper use, cleaning and maintenance triggers and involuntary descent off the sanitation ladder'. Thieme also noted that initiatives in the hands of big institutional players during the construction phase reach 'relative paralysis when it comes to working with communities on management and maintenance of facilities'.  I could argue the similarity between forcing top-down approaches that don't work and the supposed need for 'modernizing strategies'  in the Philippines could further extend this colonial legacy and hinder development. 





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Why Why?

Image
Why Water and Sanitation? Hi and welcome to the first post of my blog!  This post will be about why I've chosen this particular theme for my blog and some of the ideas that I've found very interesting in the  papers from the reading list so far. What is sanitation? According to the Cambridge dictionary , sanitation is 'the systems for taking dirty water and other waste products away from buildings in order to protect people's health'.  Sanitation is recognized as a human right by the UN General Assembly yet not everyone has access to adequate sanitation. Why the theme? Personal Experience Well, the majority of my childhood was spent living in Mauritius where we had to boil our tap water and let it cool before drinking. I remember in my time at secondary school here in the UK, I was made aware of the fact that the water from my tap here had been treated and was safe to drink without having to boil (and also that limescale was the result of hard water an...
Read more

A different perspective for Malawi's 'Water Crisis'

Image
 Hi and welcome back to my blog on Water and Sanitation in Africa. In this post, I have come across some interesting literature regarding water quality in Lilongwe, Malawi that challenged mainstream, oversimplified ideas. The background: As of this year, an estimated 1,170,000 people live in Lilongwe with a growth rate of 4.38%( World Population Review )compared to a total 19,800,000 in Malawi ( World Population Review ).   According to  UNICEF , there is an inequality between urban and rural areas. Improved drinking water sources are said to be more common 'at 87%' in urban areas than rural '63%'. What does that even mean? 87% coverage? What does 87% coverage even look like?   More people living in rural areas have to spend more time collecting water than those in urban areas.   More importantly, however, are the reasons proposed: Neglected/Old Water points Poor access to sanitation services Increased Droughts and Floods Poor hygienic practice (i...
Read more

What can we learn from Lukaya?

Image
 Hi and welcome back to the blog! In the last post I talked about how water quality issues have been oversimplified by some charities in the media and, with the help of Boakye-Ansah's work, how sometimes the problems may be more political than they seem.  In this post we'll be looking at Lukaya, Uganda. In particular the on-site facilities available, their advantages (which helps explain why they're used) and also some of the issues that have been found.  1. The Water In Lukaya, the main sources of water are unprotected springs and shallow wells with hand pumps ( Nayebare et al. 2020 ). an image of a shallow well in Kenya (   source  ) So shallow wells are holes which have been dug/bored or drilled into the ground. They work by allowing people to access groundwater from an aquifer.  Shallow wells are only 'shallow' if they are less than ~50 feet deep.  So what are the pros/cons? Well (pardon the pun), the advantages of wells are that they allow people ...
Read more