subsidisation and national tariff restructuring cannot form the basis of a viable alternative framework.
Sanitation is therefore an all encompassing waste issue, rather than that what was traditionally seen as being toilet building, sewer systems, collection and maintenance.
The Draft National Sanitation White Paper (1996) for the first time in the history of South Africa addressed the needs of all South Africans as it took into account people's aspirations and ofthe growing constraints on economic and environmental constraints (Mvula Trust, 200 1 b). In order to ensure that all South Africans are provided with access to adequate sanitation within the constraints of limited national resources, consideration is given to on site sanitation as compared with no sanitation coverage.
There are various sanitation systems commonly used in rural areas. Sanitation systems and programmes are designed to improve the basic conditions ofliving with health, hygiene and safety being at the forefront. Unfortunately, a toilet or a place for human excreta by itself does not improve household health, hygiene and safety. A toilet system is therefore seen as a mechanism to remove human excreta from the immediate environment and thus the common systems used in rural areas by poor rural communities are excretion in the bush where foliage is dense, bucket system, pit latrines. These systems are problematic as most ofthe systems have their soak-aways onto land which reaches the surface and groundwater table, thus contaminating the valuable water sources. They pose a health, hygiene and safety problem to the users and the community at large.
Septic tanks, pour-flush and chemical toilets have also been used in rural areas according to Mvula Trust (1997). In general these techno logies require secondary handling and treatment which makes it difficult to support with skills and backup in rural areas and it is also expensive rendering it uneconomical.
The most common rural sanitation system is the pit latrine where the urine and faeces are mixed and is slowly broken down where the pathogens (disease causing agents) are destroyed. The problem is emptying it out which is difficult and therefore second and third pit latrines are needed and built which requires contributions from households and which includes minimal costs. The pit latrines are also used by neighbours if they do not have one. What is generally problematic is the lack of any form of washing facilities for hands and toilet, the toilet smells ( attracting flies) and
are poorly constructed. Pits generally last three to five years and often collapse.
The Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP) has therefore been specifically developed to overcome the problems of odour and flybreeding that generally occurs with other types of soak-away pit latrines (Mvula Trust, 1997). According to the Mvula Trust (1997), as a general rule a VIP latrine should not be sited to far from the house, should be located downwind from the house, at a minimum distance of2 to 3 metres from the bottom of the pit to the groundwater table, it should be sheltered and have access for de-sludging if needed. VIPs have therefore been encouraged by the National Sanitation Programme in South Africa to be built as a minimum requirement for sanitation systems (Mvula Trust, 1999a). Although communities were supposed to be offered a choice of technologies, VIPs were the only options offered and these have led to problems being experienced, according to Holden and Austin (1999), especially in site specific areas where hard rocks strata are found, areas of high water tables and areas of collapsing sands renders the cost of a VIP an expensive option. This is further stressed by the Mvula Trust (1997: 9) that the widespread use of VIPs as in certain circumstances are not the most appropriate site specific option and therefore alternative sanitation options may be required if the following is experienced:
• high density settlements;
•
•
•
•
•
steep or unstable slopes;
high ground water table, especially if the groundwater is a source of supply;
soil types that allow free-draining which could pollute surface and subsurface water;
geology of hard rock types below the surface; and
where VIPs are socially, economically, environmentally and politically unacceptable.
Added to the list above is the question of the life expectancies of the VIPs and collapsing sands.
According to Holden and Austin (1999: 1), the question of emptying the pits are also problematic and as a result "In Zimbabwe the pits are full and there is no mechanism in place to empty them."
This leads to new technologies being sought after.
Local government must therefore consider a demand responsive approach whereby communities are largely consulted. According to the Mvula Trust (2000b: 1), water and sanitation projects which are controlled by local community members, based on the demand approach (DRA) have
demonstrated:
• greater sustainability;
• elevated cost recovery;
• health improvements;
• economic viability for women especially; and
• understanding and adherence to maintenance and repair strategies
Sanitation and Health Promotion is one ofthe most important functions facing local governments in rural areas. Local authorities must therefore ensure the following is addressed according to the Mvula Trust (2000c: 2):
• community involvement in drawing priorities to address sanitation, health and hygiene;
• using participatory methods for educating community;
• ensuring demand driven projects;
• ensuring the understanding of costs involved in sanitation options; and
• understanding issues to improve their quality of life and immediate environment, by understanding amongst others the following:
• hand washing;
• safe handling and disposal of infant faeces; and
• proper use and maintenance of water supply and sanitation systems.
Waterborne sewerage is possibly the best option for the safe disposal of human excreta, which provides flushed toilet services in homes, no contact with waste once flushed. Waterborne sewerage is only appropriate where there is sufficient supply of water, payments for services to recover service costs and the presence of institutional capacity. This is not the case in rural areas and therefore appropriate technologies need to be implemented to ensure health and hygiene improvements, sustainability and to ensure a safe environment.
According to the Mvula Trust (2000d: 2), sanitation appropriateness and sustainability is dependent on the following:
• what a household can afford to pay;
• what reliable and sustainable subsidies are available;
• what duties householders are prepared to take on;
• the availability of sufficient quantities of water if flush systems are envisaged; and
• financial and institutional capabilities of local government.
Therefore, appropriateness and sustainability of any sanitation system is only as good as the communities total involvement in the decision making of choosing an appropriate system, as much ofthe above is in the control of the members of the community.
Dehydration is an alternative system whereby the urine and faeces are separated and the dried faeces can be handled safely as a soil conditioner and the urine can be used as a fertilizer (Holden and Austin, 1999). The advantage is that the system can be built inside the house as there is no liquid in the pit, low maintenance and operational costs as the members of the household are required to regularly clean out the system and is only sustainable if the user is prepared to handle the dry faeces. According to Holden and Austin (1999), the CSIR and the Mvula Trust looked at the feasibility of urine diversion technology, which could provide an alternative to VIP. Of critical importance was to ensure cost effective solutions, overcoming social issues of handling dry faeces (use as night soil ), handling urine and education to men to sit during urination.