The Relationship Between Sanitation and Food

 Hello again! After the previous lecture on urban poverty, sanitation and social innovation I got really interested in sanitation’s link to food. This blogpost is a little longer – but actually there is so much more to talk about! So far, I have only written posts about rural areas and solely considered volumes of water in terms of measurement, irrigation, community-led management and virtual water. However, urban places as well as the quality of water must be discussed and will thus be central to this blogpost. I hope you enjoy it! 

From rural to urban societies

The first wave of urbanization took place in the Global North between 1750 and 1950. In the mid 20^thcentury, the second wave of urbanization in the Global South began. This wave will supposedly last until year 2030, whereby developing countries see the share of urban dwellers rise drastically (UNFPA, 2007; Pieterse, 2008). Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has a current annual urban population increase rate of 4% (World Bank, 2018). In fact, Africa and Asia have the highest urbanization rates in comparison to other regions of the world (Figure 1). By 2030, Africa’s cities are believed to house more people than more remote, rural areas, resulting in a “transform[ation of] the landscape of the urban hinterlands as demand for building material, food, energy and water” is likely to rise (Pieterse and Parnell, 2014). 

Figure 1– Urban population from 1995 to 2015 (World Cities Report, 2016)

While urban growth can lead to economic growth and global connections, the fast inflow of people resulted in the widespread expansion of slums (Davis, 2006). Such slums are commonly described as informal settlements that lack electricity, sanitation and legal protection, as well as areas that have no waste collection system, poor quality housing and a disorganised everyday life (Pieterse, 2008; Figure 2). Nevertheless, one must not strip these settlements of their worth – despite limited public service provision, inhabitants are indeed capable of ‘making-do’ and establishing their own urban system. 

Figure 2– Example of informal settlement: Mathare slums in Nairobi, Kenya 

(The New Humanitarian, 2007)

Poor infrastructural conditions in slums were already acknowledged by the MDGs launched in year 2000. MDG Target 7D states the need to achieve “a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers” (UN, 2015). In order to address issues of sanitation and water provision, various NGOs direct their assistance and financial aid towards these ‘informal’ settlements. Their projects not only include physical construction of facilities, but also introduce ways to teach people about sanitation by advocating its likage to water and food through conversations and activities. 

Local slum dwellers do care!

Before going into more detail and discussing the problem of open defaecation as well as a case study, I want to emphasise the involvement of slum dwellers in calling for improved sanitation facilities. Actions in the capital of South Africa, Cape Town, show that locals actively call for changes in service provision. In the past decade, slum dwellers have added to the politicization, or according to the authors McFarlane and Silver (2017)the “pooliticization” of human waste. Locals’ way of underlining their frustration was implied in the form of a ‘poo-protest’, in which slum inhabitants threw their faecal matter at the “hyper-sanitised” airport, the provincial legislature building, main roads and state authorities’ cars (McFarlane and Silver, 2017). Those with flushing toilets and improved access to clean water interpreted this act of “pooliticization” as shocking and vulgar, making the protest somewhat effective. Subsequently, it must be noted that an inherent part of sanitation and water is the conflict between different actors, namely government, civil society, wealthy citizens and slum dwellers. As it will become clear in later case studies included in this blog, there are always advantages and disadvantages involved in sanitation and water projects, making the alleviation of sanitation issues challenging but necessary. 

Open Defaecation 

Open defaecation essentially denotes the practice of ‘doing ones business’ in an outside space. These spaces can be fields, water bodies, railway tracks, ditches and the list goes on (Jewitt, 2011). Open defaecation essentially happens when toilet facilities are not present, hence why many slum dwellers have limited choice and choose public areas. Even if facilities are available, maintenance may not be of a standard at which people are willing to pay. For example, toilet facilities in the town Tema Manhean in the Accra region of Ghana are sprayed with graffiti stating “clean this toilet”, emphasising the often dirty and badly serviced toilets found in slums (Chalfin, 2014; Figure 3). Nevertheless, the practice of open defecation can be extremely shameful. Cultural norms oftentimes forbid women and girls to do so in daylight, forcing them to go at night. During darkness, however, they are more susceptible to rape and violent attacks. Moreover, open defaecation can result in the breeding of flies and various parasites, further adding to the danger associated with not having adequate sanitation facilities available (Jewitt, 2011). Given such threats, alternative strategies of dealing with human faeces are required.

Figure 3– Toilet facility in Tema Manhean. Newspaper is used as toilet paper and is placed in baskets for subsequent burning. (Chalfin, 2014)

NGO involvement: Linking food to sanitation

An emerging approach to human waste management is to use it for the production of organic fertilizer. As expressed by Esrey (2001),it must be acknowledged that faecal matter canbe used for positive social outcomes and should not solely be regarded as matter for disposal. Sanergy, an NGO based in various slum districts in Nairobi, has the aim of addressing the sanitation crisis found in the settlements (Figure 4). In addition, Sanergy receives support from foundations like the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’, which invested a total of $2.4 million in the NGO by 2017 (BMGF, 2017). 

Figure 4 – Sanergy’s Service Area, Nairobi (World Bank, 2019)

The two main actions taken by Sanergy in Nairobi are (i) the building of toilet facilities and (ii) the collection of human waste. Each toilet costs around $500 and is, once constructed, purchased by entrepreneurs of the area. These entrepreneurs are given the responsibility of maintaining the toilets and finding ‘customers’. People can access these toilets for a small fee, which includes the price for later collection of faecal matter. A summary of the Sanergy toilet and data on waste collection is depicted in Table 1. 

Table 1– Summary of Sanergy Toilet Facilities (Adapted from: O’Keefe et al.2015; World Bank, 2019)

Buyers	Local entrepreneurs purchase toilet and supplementary materials from Sanergy, through cash-payment or microfinance
Users	Average of 40 users per toilet
Maintenance	Toilet is cleaned by owner but maintenance and waste removal are provided by Sanergy
Estimated construction cost per toilet ($)	$500
Approximate number of toilets in 2015	600
Daily collection of faeces (m3 tonnes)	4.5
Daily collection of urine (tonnes)	2.5

Once waste is collected, Sanergy turns it into an organic fertilizer, adding enzymes to the reactor to speed up the process. Since 2015, Kenyan authorities allow Sanergy to sell their fertilizer. The sale provides a source of revenue, which can cover the NGO’s costs of waste collection service and the construction of facilities that subsequently produce the organic fertilizer.  

There are many advantages of this approach. First, through external NGO help, the costs laid upon the community are fairly low. Second, the fact that a localentrepreneur buys and manages the toilet makes it a community-based approach, which can essentially be more mindful of slum dwellers’ needs. Third, one major benefit of these toilets is that they do not require water for flushing, given that Sanergy collects the faecal matter. This can save the community water that may be used for crop growth, reducing food insecurity in poorer urban settlements. In addition, the transformation of human waste into fertilizer may also reduce food scarcity of the area. Previously uncultivated or unproductive fields can be enriched with the fertilizer, increasing the likelihood for greater crop yields. Overall, such changes may not only result in decreased food scarcity, but also alleviate poverty levels in the long term. 

So why might one not want to adopt Sanergy’s approach? One point that comes to mind is that people who do have flushing toilets in Nairobi could be sceptic of the problem. Their familiarity with an improved sewage system may cause them to oppose the fact that waste is turned into fertiliser which would later be used to grow their food. Therefore, one can say that waste collection only succeeds in communities who’s cultural norms allow for such a ‘closed-loop ecosystem approach’ (O’Keefe et al.2015; Jewitt 2011). 

Fertilizer from faeces: yes or no?

All in all, I believe turning waste into fertiliser is a strategy that must be considered in urban settlements that struggle with lacking sanitation facilities. Turning faecal matter into food may not only reduce poverty levels, but can give communities security in having regular access to food. This, of course, also heavily depends on wider political processes and levels of corruption. Nevertheless Sanergy has made a step in the right direction by establishing an approach that directly involves the community and relieves them of the shame and risks associated with open defaecation.