2. Results and Discussion
2.9 Provide education, training and awareness programmes
Water use and hygiene awareness education has become an important part of water and sanitation programmes, especially in developing countries. Itis through education, training and awareness programmes that the technical and social objectives of a project are transferred to individuals. According to Nel (2001), such training enables people to make a project self- sustaining and viable over time. Atkins and Milne (1995) state that education, training and awareness programmes must be not only be directed at community leaders and community representatives within committees, but more importantly the community themselves. Ward,Hall and Clacherty (2000) add further that education programmes of this nature must include participatory strategies if they are to contribute to sustainability.
Service proVISIOn III most former black areas has been poor and administered by under- resourced and inadequately managed municipalities. Infrastructure has been inadequately maintained both by the authorities and the users. According to Louw (2003) some of the main causes of poor water and sanitation servicesare:
• Poorly maintained systems by the responsible service provider
• Incorrect usage of VIPs, such as the use of newspaper instead of toilet paper, the use of the pit as a solid waste disposal system and the incorrect use of chemicals in the pit such as j eyes fluid
• The misuse and abuse of water supply systems such as the trickle-feed system
• Lack of knowledge on how to repair household water and sanitation problems
• Lack of knowledge on where to report problems
• Lack of understanding of the cost implications in supplying water and sanitation services
Training forms the basis for adequate maintenance. Atkins et al. (1995: 26) argue that "damage that can be prevented is more cost effective than what has to be redone to remedy a situation deteriorated beyond normal repair". Education, training and awareness programmes are thus vitally important to:
• Raise awareness on water and sanitation systems and the correct use of these systems
• Raise hygiene awareness
• Raise conservation awareness
• Reduce vandalism of water supply systems
Crabtree (2003 Appendix Apers.comm.) states that all training on how to use the water system and how best to use VIPs was provided by the developer and the Municipality to the members of the Development Committee at the monthly committee meetings. Both the developer and the Municipality are of the opinion that it was the Development Committee's responsibility to make sure that the information provided to them filtered through to the rest of the community. He states further that there was a period during the development phase where the Development Committee wanted to be shown the low-pressure system in operation. He arranged a trip to Cato Manor in Durban for the committee members and the councilor to see such a system in operation. The committee was shown the ground tank system as well as the roof tank system.
After observing and receiving training on the operation of the two systems, the committee decided to elect the ground tank system.
Bharath (2003 Appendix A: 36pers.comm.) maintains that:
"When I saw that the system was going down I went on the site and I told them how the system works. Andrew Pascoe, Emerald Mbatha and myself went there on the 12/10/2000 and met with the Development Committee, 9 of them, and we spoke to them on the low-pressure water system, VIPs. storm-water servitudes etc etc and we gave these people a full explanation ofhow everything works. "
When questioned further on whether or not he thought this information was filtered down to the community, he responded that it was unlikely that it happened. A BPD report (2000: 24) to the BPD Steering Committee reveals, "Newtown residents complained about a lack of consultation and explanation prior to the implementation of the tank system. In particular,people felt that they had not been informed as to how the trickle-feed tanks worked and how this system would benefit the community. " Findings from the household survey carried out by UWP (2000) show that the overwhelming majority of residents (84%) were consulted, with 93% of these people consulted by the Development Committee. It is clearly naive to think that the consultation process carried out by the Development Committee could in any way be considered as a training
and awareness campaign to the level required for the installation of VIPs and a trickle-feed water supply system.
There are conflicting views between Bharath (2003 Appendix A
pers.comm.)and Crabtree (2003 Appendix
Apers.comm.)as to who is responsible to ensure that the community is trained on the use of the services provided
.Neither the developer nor the Municipality was willing to accept the responsibility for training the community. Since the Municipality is the service provider and has a long-term interest in ensuring the successful use of the services by the community, it seems logical that it should have ensured that capacity building and empowerment programmes were implemented. Had the Municipality (with the assistance of the developer) been more proactive in putting in place such programmes at the planning and design stage, the chances of a sustainable trickle-feed and VIP system would have been far greater, thus saving on social and economic costs, which the Municipality now faces.
It