Who pays for your toilet? : a study on the distribution of costs and benefits through sanitation infrastructures in Lilongwe City

(1)

Who pays for your toilet?

A study on the distribution of costs and benefits through

sanitation infrastructures in Lilongwe City

Master`s Thesis

Student: Thomas Langkau

Student number: 11126248

Supervisor: C. Alda-Vidal

Second Reader: dr. M.A. Hordijk

(2)

ii

Abstract

The role of urban infrastructures regarding the distribution of sanitation related costs and benefits is widely acknowledged. While water infrastructures have been studied extensively from an urban political ecology perspective, the role of sanitation infrastructure remained understudied from this view. This study maps the sanitation infrastructure layout in Lilongwe, Malawi. Furthermore, it discloses underlying processes and explains how politics and elite interests shape the configuration of the sanitation infrastructure landscape and influence the distribution of benefits (financial, health, environmental and social) within between and within areas of the city. A mixed-method case-study design has been applied to uncover reasons and consequences for the infrastructure layout and related cost/benefit distribution. Semi-structured interviews, GPS tracking, focus group discussions, group interviews, observations and a survey have been conducted among residents, officials and NGO/CSO members to create a holistic picture of the sanitation landscape. The study revealed that the sewerage system and septic tanks, as high-benefit/low-cost infrastructures, are located in planned areas which can be found in the central parts of Lilongwe. Informal settlements and unplanned areas mostly use high-cost/low-benefit facilities like pit latrine. As result, the poorest have to bear the highest costs. Those inequalities are created and maintained by urban planning regulation and a lack of political interest in informal settlements and unplanned areas. This study argues that not only the lack of regulation but a deliberate deregulation of unplanned areas is a tool to exercise and accumulate resources and power. By helping to close the knowledge gap regarding the role relationship between sanitation infrastructure and inequalities, this research contributes to the field of urban political ecology. It leads to a more differentiated understanding of the sanitation sector and related inequalities in cities of the Global South.

Keywords: Sanitation, urban infrastructure, sewerage, on-site sanitation facilities, urban political ecology, environmental justice, costs and benefits, inequality, Lilongwe

(3)

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the people that helped and supported me during my time in Malawi and the Netherlands.

First, I want to thank my supervisor Cecilia Alda-Vidal for all her time and efforts during the last month. Thank you very much for your constant support, valuable ideas and great guidance throughout the whole process. Furthermore, I would like to thank Michaela Hordijk and Maria Rusca for their advice, ideas and inspirations that always helped me to improve my work.

I also want to thank my local supervisor Evance Kanyengambala who helped me to come in contact with interviewees and assisted me whenever needed. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my interviewees in Lilongwe for their time and willingness to answer my questions.

Furthermore, I want to thank my co-researchers and friends Nienke Kral, Femke Maurits and David Caspers for making the time in Lilongwe to such a pleasant adventure and experience.

Finally, I want to thank my family for everything they do for me. Without you all this would not have been possible.

(4)

iv

Abbreviations

CCODE Center for Community Organization and Development CICOD Circle of Integrated Community Development

DoPD Department of Planning and Development DoES Department of Engineering Services

DoHSWS Department of Health and Social Welfare Services DEHO District Environmental Health Officer

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GoM Government of Malawi

HIA High Income Area

HSA Health Surveillance Assistant

INHAbIT Investigating Natural, Historical and Institutional Transformations ITP Industrial Treatment Plant

JMP Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation

LCC Lilongwe City Council

LIA Low Income Area

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MIA Middle Income Area

NSO National Statistical Office

PE Political Ecology

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

STP Sewage treatment Plant

TP Treatment Plant

TSP Training Support for Partners (NGO) UDMP Urban Development Master Plan

UNHIDE Uncovering Hidden Dynamics in Slum Environments

UPE Urban Political Ecology

(8)

viii

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual Scheme 11

Figure 2. Map of Lilongwe showing the three different zones 20 Figure 3. Map of Lilongwe showing current and future areas 21

Figure 4. Location of STPs operated by LCC 25

Figure 5. Kauma STP 26

Figure 6. Different on-site technologies in a section of Area 56 28

Figure 7. Traditional pit latrine 29

Figure 8. Urine diverting system of SkyLoo in Area 56 30

Figure 9. Superstructure of SkyLoo in Area 56 31

Figure 10. Closed vaults on the back of a SkyLoo in Area 56 31

Figure 11. Public toilet in Area 56 32

Figure 12. Inside view of public toilet in Area 56 32

Figure 13. Area 24 (satellite) 35

Figure 14. Road network of Area 24 36

Figure 15. Blocked pipe after Kauma STP 49

Figure 16. People walking between ponds at Kauma STP 52

Figure 17. Poorly maintained pond with solid parts on the surface at Kauma STP 53

Table 1. Classification of sanitation infrastructures 12

(9)

1

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization can have negative effects on sustainable development when infrastructures and policies do not aim at an equitable distribution of benefits for the whole city (UN, 2014). Urban infrastructure is one topic that is related to urbanization and sustainable development. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2014) states that water and sanitation infrastructure need to be expanded to enable sustainable urbanization. While in 2010 the global Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target for drinking water was met, the MDG for Sanitation was not reached (UNICEF & WHO, 2015). Sanitation has also found its way into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations, 2015, p. 20).

In Malawi, the water and sanitation MDGs were officially (Ministry of Finance, Economic planning and Development, 2014). However, research within the framework of UNHIDE-INHAbIT1_{demonstrated that}

meeting the MDG “says nothing about inequalities” (Velzeboer, 2015, p. 1). While the water sector of Lilongwe was researched quite extensively through UNHIDE-INHAbIT, less is known about sanitation. Therefore, my study 2_{is part of a wider research project that tries to reveal insights into the sanitation sector}

of Lilongwe. Lilongwe was chosen again to add insights about sanitation to the existing studies on water. Since water and sanitation are intertwined, linking those sectors could help to get a better understanding of both.

Studies on sanitation in other locations already showed the existence of differentiated sanitation infrastructures in the Global South (Bakker & Hemson, 2000; Zérah, 2008). Those inequalities are also at the core of my study. Although recent water research in Lilongwe (Tiwale, 2015) as well as the mentioned studies on sanitation argue that inequalities regarding infrastructure are an outcome of politics and elite interests, the topic still remains understudied regarding sanitation. Therefore, a better understanding of how unequal sanitation landscapes are produced is needed. I tried to create this understanding by exploring sanitation infrastructure developments of Lilongwe. Although officially a universal sanitation system is envisioned by the government of Lilongwe (JICA, 2010) I expected that potential inequalities within the sanitation sector and a differentiated sanitation infrastructure landscape are a result of political decisions. The social and practical relevance of this study is rooted in the uncovering of inequalities regarding sanitation, underlying processes and the related implications for different groups and the environment in order to provide

information for potential improvements. Thereby, this study tries to increase the understanding of processes

1_{UNHIDE (Uncovering Hidden Dynamics in Slum Environments); INHAbIT Cities (Investigating Natural,}

Historical and Institutional Transformations in Cities)

2_{This research has been undertaken in the framework of the collaboration}

between the UNHIDE and INHAbIT Cities. UNHIDE is sponsored by the Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation (DGIS) and is implemented under the MoU between University of Amsterdam and UNESCO-IHE. INHAbIT Cities is sponsored by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 656738 and is implemented by King's College London.

(10)

2

that create an unequal sanitation landscape. Those qualitative insights regarding inequalities could

complement large quantitative data, provided by MDG reports. It gives more insight in what is behind MDG statistics in terms of processes. The study does not replace data on MDGs but provides a more in-depth view on the same topic. For the future, this view, with its focus on underlying processes, leads to a more reflected holding towards the ambitious SDGs, while providing helpful insights that can contribute to their

achievement.

Purpose of this study is to explore the sanitation infrastructure landscape of Lilongwe and discribe related implications for the cost/benefit distribution within the city. An (urban) political ecology (U)PE framework is used to understand past and current developments within the sanitation sector (Morales, 2015). While PE was often used as framework for studies on urban infrastructures like water or electricity, only few utilized it to study the sanitation sector. The neglect of sanitation within PE led to a knowledge gap. Deriving for this perspective can uncover the unknown role of sanitation infrastructures regarding the creation and maintenance of inequalities. At the same time it is a way to disclose underlying processes and factors that directly and indirectly shape the configuration of the sanitation landscape in cities of the Global South. Applying the PE perspective is therefore an interesting attempt to shine light on sanitation, urban infrastructure and related interests, decisions, inequalities and implications while it helps to close the knowledge gap. Furthermore, it is not only a new way to approach sanitation infrastructure but can also confirm or disprove findings from studies on other urban infrastructures.

(11)

3

2. Theoretical background

This section presents theories, ideas and previous findings underlying my research. First, the sanitation situation in the Global South is introduced. Afterwards, PE, UPE and Environmental Justice (EJ) as my theoretical framework are discussed. Finally, the role of sanitation as political infrastructure is introduced. After the evolution of sanitation infrastructure is explained, implications of differentiated services and networks are discussed.

2.1 Sanitation in the Global South

A lack of sanitation infrastructure and service provision is common in cities of the Global South. “Only half of the large cities operate a sewerage network at all, and only Nambia, South Africa, and the exceptional case of Senegal do some of the utilities covering the largest cities provide universal sewerage coverage” (Banerjee & Morella, 2011, p. 14). Furthermore, only around half of the population in developing countries has access to safe sanitation while the coverage in developed countries is almost universal (Khatri & Vairavamoorthy, 2007; Nhapi, 2015, p. 91). An increasing urbanization and the related need for infrastructures is a challenge; especially for those living in slums and informal settlements (Khatri & Vairavamoorthy, 2007; Trémolet, Cardone & Fonseca, 2013; Nhapi, 2015). To address those problems, master plans are developed that propose investments in a piped sewerage network which “either fail to be implemented due to financial and

institutional constraints, or provide an inequitable service, once implemented

” (

Khatri & Vairavamoorthy, 2007, p. 7)

.

Lack of funding or inadequate investments towards the sanitation sector are often mentioned to explain differentiated services (Trémolet, Cardone & Fonseca, 2013; Fry, Mihelcic & Watkins, 2008). Additionally, “weak governance; graft and corruption; inadequate technical solutions; and inadequate human resources” (Trémolet et al., 2013, p. 149) are challenges for adequate sanitation infrastructure and service provision. However, a lot of studies regarding sanitation stay neutral, apolitical and do not take power relations into account. My research tries to fill this gap by deriving from a PE perspective which is explained in the next section.

2.2 Political Ecology

There is no universal definition of PE. Definitions differ in how far they stress certain aspects (Forsyth, 2004; Robbins, 2014). Some may focus more on the political-economic side while others emphasize the

environmental change aspects (Robbins, 2011). Goldman, Nadasy and Turner (2011) describe PE as a cross-disciplinary field which deals with politics related to the control of natural resources, environmental change and its representations. Thereby, PE focuses on power relations as well as political-economic processes that are linked to knowledge about natural resources and their use (Goldman et al., 2011). The social and political conditions surrounding environmental problems and their management are at the heart of the debate (Forsyth, 2004). Environmental change and ecological circumstances have to be understood as a result of political processes (Robbins, 2011). Existing environments, environmental problems and ecology are therefore not seen as given by nature but as “phenomenological interaction of biophysical processes, human needs and wider political systems” (Forsyth, 2004: 3). Bryant and Bailey (1997) mentioned three arguments underlying

(12)

4

PE-research. First, costs and benefits of environmental changes are distributed unequally. A certain change has different impacts for different actors. Second, inequalities are affected through this uneven distribution of benefits social and economic inequalities are increased, reduced or maintained. Third, this in turn influences power relations and therefore political structures. Those ideas come back my study and therefore approach sanitation in a political way, while previous research often stayed apolitical.

2.3 Urban Political Ecology

UPE shares most of the ideas of PE but focuses on cities as a specific form of nature (Heynen, 2013;

Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003). It recognizes that nature, social relations and urbanizations are connected and intertwined. Together, environment and urbanization bring up certain social relations, through ecological transformations. These “socioenvironmental changes result in the continuous production of new ‘natures’, of new urban social and physical environmental conditions” (Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003). This all is influenced by surrounding power structures “in which social actors strive to defend and create their own environments in a context of class, ethnic, radicalized and/or gender conflicts and power struggles” (Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003, p. 900). Cities are therefore seen as dynamic and changing environments with processes creating unequal cost and benefit distributions and uneven access to resources (Lawhon, Ernstson & Silver, 2014). Looking at gains and losses for different groups, multiple power relations that produce or maintain unequal socio-environmental conditions have to be taken into account (Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003).

Therefore, “UPE is concerned with the processes of the urbanization of nature, or the social, cultural, and political relations through which material and biophysical entities become transformed in the making of often unequal cities” (Lawhon et al., 2014, p. 500). Water is one entity that helps to understand the processes leading to inequality (Swyngedouw, 1996). Therefore, a lot of UPE studies focused on water flows within cities (Graham & Marvin, 2001; Kooy & Bakker, 2008; McFarlane, 2008). Contractor (2012) and McFarlane (2012) for example state that formal extension of the water network is less likely in areas where religious minorities live. Another example comes from Mumbai, where the connection to the official water network was legally denied to informal settlements that were established after a cut-off date (Murthy, 2012).

Therefore, certain groups are politically excluded from official water sources. Furthermore, having access to piped water does not necessarily mean that there is no inequality. Within the same city, the type of

technology, the materials and the quality of water can differ (Bakker & Hemson, 2000; Velzeboer, 2015; Tiwale, 2015).

While the role of water networks for the distribution of benefits and the exercise of power has been studied extensively, the role of sanitation infrastructures remains understudied in UPE. However, sanitation infrastructure with its link to hygiene is both affected by power relations and has the capacity to maintain or transform power relations as well. The influence of power, shaping sanitation infrastructure can be seen in the fragmented sewerage networks of colonial and post-colonial Bombay/Mumbai (McFarlane, 2008). Morales

(13)

5

(2015) further states that a connection to a sewerage system signals state recognition while a lack of connection make disparities regarding political power and citizenship visible and are a sign for exclusion. Therefore, using the UPE perspective in order to analyze the sanitation sector can be useful as an entry point to discover inequalities within society. A related perspective that is introduced in the following section is EJ.

2.4 Environmental Justice

UPE shows how power relations influence the production of different urban environments for different groups with different impact on them (Lawhon, Ernstson & Silver, 2014). EJ is related to this approach since it focuses on processes underlying cost/benefit distributions regarding natural resource use and environmental degradation (Walker & Bulkeley, 2006; Urkidi and Walter, 2011; Schlosberg, 2013). With a focus on underlying processes, UPE and EJ have proven to be useful to understand power dynamics and politics regarding an unequal use of natural resources and related cost/benefit distributions. In EJ, environment is not only nature but the place “where we live, where we work, and where we play” (Dana Alston; quoted in Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012, p. 1963). It is different from UPE since it is less theoretical and developed more empirically (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012; Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, 2006). Furthermore, UPE focuses more broadly on the production of urban inequalities and pays less attention to local

environmental injustices than EJ (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012). Adding a EJ perspective to my UPE framework is useful since “UPE can draw upon the insights provided by EJ studies of the experiences and patterns of environmental injustice to highlight empirically the inequality produced through urban

metabolism”(Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012, p. 1967). Furthermore, “EJ has indirectly taken interest in

sanitation as a component of environmental justice, recognising the unevenly distributed risks associated with living in hazardous environments” (Rusca et al., 2016: chapter 2, paragraph 4). Unequal access to sanitation infrastructure results in uneven distributions of environmental bads/goods with different impacts across social groups (Wall, 2015). Therefore, EJ would focus, among other dimension, on the environmental cost/benefit dimension of sanitation infrastructure (Rusca et al., 2016). While UPE helps to understand how certain infrastructure configurations are produced, EJ helps to understand related environmental injustices. As for UPE research focused most EJ studies on water. Sanitation received less attention although the idea of a mutual dependency between water and sanitation is, at least indirectly, acknowledged (Rusca et al., 2016). Therefore, my study tries to utilize an UPE and EJ perspective to created a more holistic understanding of the sanitation sector.

2.5 Sanitation and political infrastructure

The development of urban infrastructure is a political issue and at the same time influences politics and power structures. In the following section, the role of sanitation infrastructure within this political sphere is

(14)

6 2.5.1 Historical evolution of sanitation infrastructure

The rise of a waterborne sewerage system began in Europe and North America in the mid 19th_century

(Morales, 2015). It was motivated by urban growth and rising industrialization. Sewerage networks and flush toilets became “the golden standard” (Morales, 2015, p. 3). Furthermore, those ideas got exported to the colonial Global South (Chaplin, 1999; McFarlane, 2008; Chaplin, 2011). However, in many cities of the Global South, networks were never completed, only serve a minority (often elite) and create public health challenges until today (McFarlane, 2008; Morales 2015). Besides colonialism, western sanitation and infrastructure ideals also influenced other non-western countries. In China for example, the use of human waste as fertilizer became unacceptable and the use of a bucket instead of a flush toilet became socially degrading through the adoption of western sanitation ideas (Iossifova, 2015).

While sewerage coverage became universal in western countries, it remains limited and fragmented in many cities of the Global South (Bakker & Hemson, 2000; Gandy; 2004; McFarlane & Rutherford, 2008; McBanerjee & Morella, 2011; Morales, 2015).Different studies focused on reasons and consequences of splintered urban infrastructures and differentiated services (Bakker & Hemson, 2000; Gandy, 2004;

McFarlane, 2008). Studies from the water sector revealed that the distribution of water and the splintering of networks are socially and politically influenced. Those studies showed that neoliberalization and privatization (Graham & Marvin, 2001), colonialism and discriminating politics (Kooy & Bakker, 2008; McFarlane, 2008; McFarlane & Rutherford, 2008) and class and race based urban planning (Tiwale, 2015) can play a role. Therefore, urban infrastructure developments should always be seen as highly political issues although they are often presented apolitically and hidden behind technical terms (McFarlane & Rutherford, 2008; Filion & Keil, 2016). Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003) further mention the influence of social groups that act in a self-defending and self-favoring way. Examples regarding the consequences of discriminating politics and influencing elite interest on urban infrastructures are the splintered water networks of Jakarta (Kooy & Bakker, 2008) and Bombay/Mumbai (McFarlane, 2008; Zérah, 2008) that first served colonial elite and later post-colonial elite; the water networks of Lilongwe (Tiwale, 2015) serving the elite with better networks and services; and the fragmented water and sewerage services of apartheid South Africa (Bakker & Hemson, 2000) that exclude black communities.

The same processes underlying splintered water networks could apply for the sewerage networks and sanitation services in the Global South. As water networks, are the sewerage systems a tool to exercise power and shape social structures (Morales, 2015). Therefore, a deliberate splintering of the sanitation infrastructure can be utilized by the elite to serve their interests while discriminating other groups.

The limited and fragmented character of sewerage networks in the Global South also entails that some groups or areas have to rely on other facilities like septic tanks, pit latrines, buckets or defecate openly. Therefore, different technologies often exist in parallel; each with its own costs and benefits. Sewerage networks and other sanitation services that minimize health risks for the user are often absent in informal settlements and unplanned areas (Letema, van Vliet & van Lier, 2014). Even though also safe on-site

(15)

7

technologies exist, unplanned areas usually rely on technologies that contain high risks regarding health and environmental pollution as pit latrines (Morales, 2015). This means that sanitation infrastructures and related costs are unevenly distributed across cities in the Global South. As a splintered network, can an unequal infrastructure landscape be rooted in political processes and regulations of certain areas. Exclusively planning, regulating and improving Kampala`s elite areas for example resulted in significant infrastructure differences between planned and unplanned areas (Letema, van Vliet & van Lier, 2014). The consequences of certain politics and regulations that may lead to inequalities are often at the focus of (U)PE research. However, not only the regulations but also a lack of regulation or ‘deregulation’ can be seen as a tool to influence the distribution of costs, benefits and power (Roy, 2005). The planned deregulation of certain areas by the government is a “logic of resource allocation, accumulation, and authority” (Roy, 2009, p. 83). A deliberate deregulation may also apply for and impact the sanitation sector. Regulating sanitation infrastructures only in certain parts of the city may increase the differentiation and splintering of networks and services.

Consequentially, costs and benefits are distributed unequally. 2.5.2 Consequences of differentiated sanitation infrastructures

2.5.2.1 Financial, health and environment costs and benefits

Sanitation infrastructures differ in terms of financial, health and environmental related costs and benefits. Each infrastructure has individual costs attached. For example, a centralized sewerage system comes with health benefits since human excreta are removed by simply flushing the toilet (Morales, 2015). Since the physical contact with excreta is minimized, it reduces the risk of infections with several diseases; when the system is managed properly. In comparison, non-sewerage on-site systems can generate a mix of liquid and solid waste (fecal sludge) which contains potential risks for health and environment when it is not managed correctly (Blackett, Hawkins & Heymans, 2014). Fecal sludge could “accumulate in poorly designed pits, is discharged into storm drains and open water, or is dumped into waterways, wasteland, and unsanitary dumping sites” (Blackett, Hawkins & Heymans, 2014, p. 1). On the other hand, the construction and

maintenance of a waterborne sewerage system is expensive compared to other facilities. Moreover, it comes with higher costs in terms of resource use and environmental pollution if untreated sewage enters streams. Ecosan facilities in turn would come with the benefit that excreta could be used as ecological fertilizer which for example reduces financial and environmental costs. Those examples demonstrate how costs and benefits differ between sanitation infrastructures.

Costs do not only differ between but also within a certain type of urban infrastructure. Evidence regarding within-system inequalities comes from UNHIDE-INHAbIT research on water networks in Lilongwe. Within the piped water network, pipes and reservoirs are smaller and less maintained in low income areas (LIA) (Tiwale, 2015; Alda-Vidal, Kooy & Rusca, 2016). Differences regarding materials and their maintenance in turn regularly lead to a lack of water in those areas (Tiwale, 2015; Velzeboer, 2015). This means that the expected benefits of the water system (like a constant access to fresh water) are not ensured for some groups. Therefore, unequal distributions of costs and benefits can be rooted in within-system

(16)

8

differences. Those findings also apply for the sanitation sector. Smaller sewerage pipes could for example result in frequent blockages. Also differences within on-site infrastructures could exist. Fecal sludge from septic tanks and latrines could be collected more often in certain locations, or materials for pit latrine construction could vary in terms of durability. Therefore, this study also focuses on within-infrastructure differences that lead to unequal distribution of costs and benefits. Social costs are the fourth type of costs which are discussed in the following.

2.5.2.2 Social implications and state recognition

Historically, sanitation infrastructures, like a centralized waterborne sewerage system, affected the moral and physical hygiene practices of people as well as they were used to create and justify different classes and discrimination (Iossifova, 2015; Morales, 2015). During the 19th_{century, sewerage connections became}

socially and politically important in North America and Europe since it “became a symbol of class and citizenship, a signal of economic wealth and political recognition, and a means of both justifying class discrepancies, and promoting social reform among working classes and populations subjected to colonial agendas” (Morales, 2015, p. 1). In this case, citizenship is not seen as something fixed but created and

demonstrated through participation in certain practices (Holston & Appadurai, as cited in Holston, 1999). The influence of infrastructures on social norms and expected behaviors is also acknowledged by Iossifova (2015) or Filion and Keil (2016).

Using a certain kind of sanitation infrastructure and demonstrating related hygiene practices are markers that influence social structures (Iossifova, 2015; Morales, Harris & Ãberg, 2014; Morales, 2015). On the one hand, people can become and/or remain excluded when they are associated with human waste or certain practices (Sibley, 1995; Iossifova, 2015). For example, the use of buckets instead of flush toilets can be socially down-grading (Iossifova, 2015). On the other hand, participating in common practices (e.g. using flush toilets) comes with the benefit of increased recognition in society (Morales, 2015). However, whether people can participate in certain hygiene practices depends on the availability of and access to certain sanitation facilities (Filion and Keil, 2016). When the use of flush toilets is a socially expected standard, a lack of this infrastructure prevents people to join these practices. This in turn could be used as a reason to justify exclusion. To put it in other words, different sanitation infrastructures come with certain social costs and benefits in terms of social up- or down-grading.

2.6 Conclusion

Big differences exist between the sanitation sector in the Global North and South. While access to safe sanitation is almost universal in the North is this not true for the South. Networks in the Global South are fragmented and services differentiated. PE, UPE and EJ studied urban water flows to understand processes and consequences in terms of differentiated water infrastructures and related cost/benefit distributions. However, they are also potentially useful to analyze the sanitation sector. Those approaches can help to

(17)

9

analyze the distribution of financial, health, environmental and social costs and benefits that are unequally distributed through differentiated sanitation infrastructures.

(18)

10

3. Research questions

To investigate the sanitation infrastructure of Lilongwe including related consequences and processes, a main research question and three sub-questions have been formulated. The main research question is:

How are costs and benefits of different types of sanitation infrastructure distributed in Lilongwe?

This question not only focuses on the pure distribution of costs and benefits but also incorporates underlying processes. In order to answer the main research question three sub-questions have been formulated.

SQ 1: How does the sanitation infrastructure landscape of Lilongwe looks like and how did it develop historically?

SQ 2: How and why do infrastructures differ between and within areas of Lilongwe?

SQ 3: Which costs and benefits are attached to each sanitation infrastructure and why are groups affected unequally?

To give an answer to the proposed research question, the different sanitation infrastructures are at the core of my research. Since I want to know how costs and benefits attached to those infrastructures are distributed, the sanitation infrastructures are my unit of analysis.

(19)

11

4. Conceptual scheme

The next section describes my underlying conceptual scheme and operationalizes key concepts.

4.1 Description of concepts

The main assumption represented in this scheme is that certain decisions influence the availability of different types of sanitation infrastructure and within-system differences, which in turn determine related costs/benefit distributions. The two main concepts are ‘sanitation infrastructure’ (red) and ‘costs and benefits’ (blue). On the left side of the conceptual scheme, different factors are presented that influence decisions regarding the sanitation infrastructure in Lilongwe (green). Those factors are derived from my theoretical framework.

Figure 1. Conceptual Scheme; created by author, 2016

Before operationalizing different concepts, the meaning of sanitation has to be defined. According to UNwater (2008) the term sanitation covers a range of aspects. Sanitation refers in my study to the following aspect: “collection, storage, treatment and disposal/re-use/recycling of human excreta (feces and urine)” (UNwater, 2008). Sanitation infrastructure therefore includes all physical and organizational structures that are related to the mentioned activities. Due to the limited time in the field, other aspects of sanitation, like the management of solid waste or household water, were excluded from my research.

In my study, the two main types of sanitation infrastructure are the sewerage system and on-site infrastructures. According to Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) of

(20)

12

(JMP, 2015). Although, less attention is paid to the improved/unimproved division, a combined categorization is displayed in table 1. In my research, composting toilets are also regarded as ecological-sanitation/ecosan toilets.

Table 1

Classification of sanitation infrastructures

Besides the type of infrastructure, within-system differences could also be the result of conscious decisions. First, differences could exist regarding the materials used for construction (e.g. pit latrine

superstructure made of sticks or burned bricks). Material is defined as “the matter from which a thing is or can be made” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). Size, diameter and volume of parts are also included in within-system differences regarding material since they could have implications for the use of the facilities. Smaller pipes could for example be blocked more often which influences the functioning of the system.

Besides material, maintenance could differ. Maintenance can be defined as “the process of preserving a condition or situation […]” (Oxford Dictionaries², 2016). Maintenance therefore include all activities necessary to preserve the functioning of infrastructures; replacing broken pipes, emptying septic tanks and latrines, clearing blockages, removing waste from ecosan toilets etc.. Since the types of infrastructures are quite different from a technical perspective, related maintenance activities differ.

Different infrastructures come with certain costs and benefits for users and non-users. Costs and benefits are at the same time influenced by within-system differences as shown regarding the water networks in Lilongwe (Tiwale, 2015). Furthermore, since my research compares costs and benefits of infrastructures

(21)

13

relative to each other, costs and benefits are taken together as one concept; as ‘two sides of the same coin’. Low construction cost cannot only be seen as low financial cost but also as financial benefit when compared with more expensive facilities.

They can be divided in financial, social, health and environmental related costs and benefits. Financial costs are all payments users have to make to construct, maintain or use a facility. UPE showed that the use or maintenance of certain facilities can lead to social up- or downgrading (Iossifova, 2015; Morales, 2015). Social implications leading to up- or downgrading through the use and maintenance activities are therefore defined as social costs and benefits. Furthermore, different sanitation infrastructures can reduce or increase the risk to get infected with certain diseases and can therefore affect public health (McFarlane, 2008; Morales, 2015). Increased or decreased risks of infection are therefore defined as health costs/benefits. Environmental justice talks about impacts of infrastructures to the environment as environmental bads/goods (Schlosberg, 2013). Therefore, environmental costs and benefits (bads/goods) of sanitation infrastructures are all positive or negative consequences for the environment attached to a facility. Besides the mentioned costs and benefits for users, the impact of each dimension on non-users is included. A sewerage system could for example reduce health risks for users while its potential pollution of rivers exposes non-users to risks.

4.2 Summary

In this chapter I described my underlying conceptual scheme. Different factors influenced the configuration of the sanitation infrastructure directly by affecting sanitation related decisions. Those factors and decisions determine how different types of infrastructures are spread across the city, including within-system

differences. Differences in type, material and maintenance determine financial, social, health related and environmental costs and benefits for users and non-users.

(22)

14

5. Methodology

In the following part, epistemology, research design, methods of data collection and type of data analysis are presented.

5.1 Epistemology

My research derives from a PE and UPE perspective. In PE, social nature is intertwined and dynamic with various factors influencing each other. The working of power relations and interactions within this social nature are central to (U)PE research (Goldman, et al., 2011) as well as the role of material aspects of urban infrastructure influencing nature (Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003). I gathered data on social as well as material aspects since all seem to influence urban infrastructure and therefore also apply for the sanitation sector (e.g. Morales, 2015; Tiwale, 2015).

5.2 Research Design and Triangulation

This research is designed as a mixed methods study. The mixed methods approach can be defined as “research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or program of inquiry” (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p. 4). Combing different methods “frequently results in superior research” (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.14). Data from different methods should be integrated to benefit from the use of mixed methods (Bryman, 2008). By integrating findings, a more complete picture is provided. The use of multiple methods brings furthermore the advantage that weaknesses of one method can be compensated. Moreover, data can be triangulated. Triangulation means that researchers check whether findings from different methods are convergent (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Similar results from different methods lead to an increased validity of the research (Guion, Diehl & McDonald, 2011).

While quantitative methods like questionnaires are useful to include large samples (Lewis, Saunders & Thornhill, 2009), qualitative methods are more appropriate to get in-depth information (Baarda, de Goede & Teunissen, 2005). In my research, most methods were qualitative while some quantitative data collection was conducted as well. Since, quantitative data was mainly be used in order to provide general background information and triangulating data, my research can be considered as a qualitative dominant mixed methods research (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

5.3 Sampling

5.3.1 Research location

The case study of Lilongwe was used to get a general understanding of sanitation. Since I tried to investigate the cost/benefit distribution across a city, whole Lilongwe City was chosen as case-study area. Lilongwe was suitable since the sanitation sector remained uncovered. Furthermore, it was convenient for practical reasons. Recent UNHIDE-INHAbIT research on water took place in Lilongwe which was an advantage in terms of available information and already established contacts in the field. Those studies further offered the advantage

(23)

15

to link insights from the water sector to my findings. While researching on-site sanitation facilities I focused mainly on Area 56. It was chosen since its status as unplanned LIA offered a variety of facilities within one area. Furthermore, it has been the focus of recent UNHIDE-INHAbIT studies and therefore comes with the same practical advantages as mentioned before. However, attention was also paid to other areas. Therefore, Area 56 was not classified as own case-study area.

5.3.2 Respondents in different areas

To find respondents in Area 56, a mix of convenience sampling, purposive sampling and snowballing was used. First, residents were approached randomly while walking through the area. This was done since I had no established contacts to residents and it was the easiest way to find interviewees. After each interview,

interviewees were asked for other potential respondents with certain characteristics (being landlord, using a certain infrastructure, or having a certain occupation (e.g. pit-emptier). This helped to identify specific interviewees. Therefore, the sampling strategy changed from convenience sampling to a purposive sampling while making use of snowballing (Bryman, 2008). In other locations, mainly purposive sampling was used when interviewees were approached since I looked again for interviewees with certain characteristics (e.g. residents living close to a newly constructed sewer line in Area 47 or farmers cultivating next to a treatment

plant (TP)).

5.3.3 Key informants

Stakeholders and key actors in the sanitation sector were approached through purposive sampling and snowballing. Key actors that were identified before (e.g. LCC members, TP staff, certain NGOs) were asked for interviews. If they were willing to give an interview, they were asked to name other important actors in the sanitation sector that could provide useful information for my research. Therefore, some key informants have been discovered during the conduction of interviews. Purposive sampling was chosen to approach people with specific profession and knowledge that seemed to be crucial to my research. Through snowballing, I hoped to get in contact with people who can provide important information but who would have been overseen

otherwise.

5.3.4 UNHIDE-INHAbIT Survey Lilongwe 2016

A household level survey was conducted in six areas: 3, 24, 25, 47, 49 and 56. A total of 497 respondents were selected, using stratified sampling. Respondents were selected as a subset of the population sharing a common characteristic (Bryman 2008). We selected respondents based on their living area. Six different areas of the city were selected to represent the urban setting of Lilongwe. They were selected on basis of economic status, available water infrastructure, and urban planning status (planned, unplanned or traditional housing area). With this selection the survey aimed to capture different aspects of the city and the people who inhabit those areas.

(24)

16

5.4 Methods

In line with the mixed methods approach, qualitative, quantitative as well as participatory and spatial research methods were used. First, methods conducted in different residential areas of Lilongwe are discussed. Second, methods are presented that were used for key informants. Third, the conducted survey is described. At the end, additional data sources are discussed. It should be mentioned that the current UNHIDE-INHAbIT team made use of each other’s findings.

5.4.1 Residential areas

In total 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted in residential areas, with a main focus on Area 56. Thereby, I aimed to gather information about the advantages and disadvantages of different facilities. The topic list for those interviews can be found in the Annex 3. Whether a topic was covered depended on the type of interviewee. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended to cover core topics while space was

provided for additional topics to come up during interviews (Bryman, 2008). Although questions were framed similar, they were not asked literally since it interrupted the flow of the conversation and could create an uncomfortable atmosphere. Since similar answers were received, it should not be seen as a significant threat to reliability. Moreover, some answers were triangulated through focus group discussions (FGDs) and a group interview. During each interview in Area 56, GPS coordinates were collected with the mobile application GEOtracker (version 3.2.3.1255) regarding the type of toilet used by the respective household.

Furthermore, a group interview with local health workers and three FGDs with respectively 11, 10 and 12 women from Area 56 were conducted. Aim of FGDs was to get different perspectives and perception on the same topic (Hennink, 2013) like the social implications of certain facilities. The group interview was used for triangulation as well as exploration of some topics (Frey & Fontana, 1991). The topic lists of FGDs and the group interview are available in Annex 3.

All those methods were conducted with a translator since most people do not speak English fluently. Only in Area 47, people preferred to respond in English although the translator was available. Furthermore, six informal conversations were included in the data collection since those spontaneous conversations contained information I considered as relevant for my research.

5.4.2 Key informants

Data from key informants was collected through 20 semi-structured interviews in order to get specific

information while staying open for unexpected information (Bryman, 2008). The topic list can be found in the Annex 3. Depending on the position of the interviewee, not all topics were always covered. Again, questions were formulated literally. Thereby, a friendlier and less intimidating atmosphere was created that resulted in an open and elaborated conversation. Sometimes I presented different maps of Lilongwe to ease the

understanding of questions and answers.

5.4.3 UNHIDE-INHAbIT Survey Lilongwe 2016

A collective survey was undertaken with the other members of the UNHIDE-INHAbIT team. This survey helped us to quantify and triangulate some of our data. The survey was based on the previous data collection,

(25)

17

with additional questions that had arisen being added as well. Three research assistants translated the survey into Chichewa. The survey was piloted in 21 households. The pilot was successful and only small changes were made afterwards. The survey included questions specific to my research, mostly regarding the use of different sanitation infrastructures, but it also included questions related to the thesis subjects of the other UNHIDE-INHAbIT team members. This provided a more complete data set and helped to create a more holistic view of the sanitation situation. Although the survey was conducted in six areas, only data from Area 56 (n=84) is used in my study to triangulate findings and provide some general information about this area; as example for a low-income unplanned area.

5.4.4 Other data sources

During the whole data collection process, I looked for secondary data to explore. Interviewees were asked for plans, policy documents, maps or other documents that could provide useful data. Last but not least, I always carried around a notebook to write down important observations.

5.5 Data analysis

All interviews and FGDs were recorded with an audio-recorder. The first interviews and interviews that seemed to be extremely important were transcribed literally. The rest was transcribed partially. FGDs and the group interview were also only transcribed partially. All qualitative data was analyzed with Atlas.ti. Some codes were developed beforehand (selective coding) on basis of the theoretical framework and research questions. However, during the process of coding, new codes were developed to cover unexpected but relevant information. The GPS data I collected with the program GEOtracker was imported into Microsoft Office Word 2010 (Microsoft Corporation) in order to create a map, displaying the different water and sanitation facilities in one part of Area 56.

5.6 Ethical considerations

In this section, I discuss some ethical consideration I had to keep in mind during my data collection and analysis. Data which is generated during my research could harm or benefit respondents` life. People could face negative social or job related consequences by providing sensitive information. Residents of LIAs on the other hand could potentially improve their situation by providing new insights about sanitation. Furthermore, sanitation can be seen as a sensitive topic. This means that questions on this topic could create feelings of shame by the respondents. Therefore, I always explained the purpose of my study and only collected data if informed consent was given. Moreover, people were not forced to give an answer if they refused or when it was obvious that they felt extremely uncomfortable with a question. For semi-structured interviews with residents, informed consent had to be given before the interview. Key informants were informed about the purpose of the study beforehand and were asked for their informed consent before or after the interview. If the researcher encounters useful information during everyday conversation or informal interviews, I asked

(26)

18

To protect privacy, no names of residents have been recorded and key informants were asked whether their names and/or their position can be used in the final report. Respondents that denied both have been handled entirely anonymous. Furthermore, no publication will take place without ratification. Confidentiality is especially a critical issue in FGDs since information has to be shared in a group. Therefore, the researcher made sure beforehand that all participants were aware of the lack of anonymity.

Furthermore, I encountered problems with participants` expectations of improvements. Some interviewees expected direct benefits through the presence and interaction with me. To avoid those expectations, I tried to make clear from beginning on that direct improvements are not the purpose of my study. According to Guillemin and Gillam (2004), it is an important ethical principle to explain the purpose of the research to make sure that participants act out of their own will without wrong expectations. Hunt and Godard (2013) further state that transparency regarding improvements is especially important in a poverty context. By sharing this report with different stakeholders in Lilongwe, I hope to contribute at least indirectly, even though it should not be seen as a compensation for the time interviewees` invested.

5.7 Methodological reflection

In the following I present challenges and limitations regarding my methods affecting the quality of my research

First, my research was conducted within a period of 2.5 month. This relatively short period in the field could have limited the amount of data collected. Some questions and issues that I encountered during the end of the research could not be addressed anymore.

Second, the use of a translator for some interviews could have influenced my results. Information could have been lost in translation or the interpretation and subjectivity of the translator which could have influenced my data. However, detailed explanations and follow-up questions minimized the impact of the translator. No translator was used for interviews with key informants.

Third, it is possible that some interviewees gave socially desirable answers since sanitation is a sensitive topic. Therefore, some sensitive questions were asked regarding neighbors instead of themselves. This gave respondents the chance to provide the asked data in a more comfortable way while reducing the risk of wrong answers.

Forth, since most interviewees with residents were conducted in Area 56, it is possible that some findings are very specific for this area and cannot be generalized to other unplanned areas or LIAs.

Fifth, my personal values, perception and expectations as a western researcher could have influenced the data collection as well as the interpretation of data.

(27)

19

5.8 Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to present the used sampling techniques (purposive sampling and snowballing), methods (semi-structured interviews, FGDs, group interviews, observations, GPS tracking, survey) and means of data analysis. Furthermore, ethical consideration and methodological limitation I encountered have been presented.

(28)

20

6. Research context: Malawi and Lilongwe

In 2014, Malawi had a national population of 17.7 million (World Bank, n.d.) with 867.000 living in the capital Lilongwe (UN-data, n.d.). Malawi is one of the world`s poorest countries with a poverty headcount ratio of 50.7% at the national poverty line (World Bank, n.d.). With a HDI of 0,445 in 2014, Malawi ranked on 173 out of 187 countries (UNDP, 2015). As the Government of Malawi (GoM) states, by 2025 universal access to safe water and improved sanitation should be achieved (Government of Malawi, 2014). Regarding sanitation, the National Sanitation Policy (2006) reports that City Assemblies “are failing to adequately maintain essential sanitation services including sewage systems […]” (National Sanitation Policy, p. 21). However, the MDG Report 2014 states that 92% of the population has access to safe drinking water and 95.1% access to basic sanitation (Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development, 2014). Since the terms ‘basic sanitation’ and ‘improved sanitation’ are not used consistently in this report, it is difficult to say how the sanitation sector looks like in reality.

Figure 2. Map of Lilongwe showing the three different zones. Tiwale, 2015

As former British colony, Malawi gained independence in 1964. 11 years later and under Malawi`s first president Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda, the capital got relocated from Zomba to Lilongwe. The relocation was motivated by the idea to stimulate the economic growth in central parts of the country and to get rid of the colonial history that was associated with Zomba (Potts, 1985; Tiwale, 2015). Before, Lilongwe was a small town with a population of 19.425 in 1966 (JICA, 2010). Furthermore, small villages existed on the land of the

(29)

21

current city that should be compensated and resettled3_{. During the planning, the city was divided into different}

zones. The city can roughly be divided in three zones; southern, central and northern zone (see Figure XY). Southern parts contain the Old Town while the City Center is located in the central zone. Capital Hill with the parliament and most governmental institutions, embassies, banks, hotels, elite residential areas and

commercial areas are located around the City Center (Tiwale, 2015). Northern parts include the airport as well as the main industrial area Kanengo. Zones can be further divided into 58 areas while it is planned to include four additional areas (see Firgure XY) (JICA, 2010).

Figure 3. Map of Lilongwe showing current and future areas. JICA, 2010

Besides land-use zones, different types of residential areas were planned and created, based on residents` socio-economic status (Potts, 1986). Consequentially, different social classes lived in specific areas which minimized their interaction (Potts, 1986). Furthermore, a ‘Garden City Design’ creates spatial distances between areas and reduces the mobility even more (Velzeboer, 2015). Due to a lack of spatial integration, areas remain isolated and the city stays fragmented.

(30)

22

7. Sanitation in Lilongwe

This chapter provides an overview of the sanitation sector of Lilongwe which remained widely unknown before. First, responsibilities within this sector are discussed and coverage data regarding different sanitation facilities are presented. Second, the different types of sanitation infrastructures that can be found in Lilongwe and related developments are described.

7.1. Responsibilities and sanitation coverage

According to the Local Government Act (1998) and Decentralization policy (1996), the Lilongwe City Council (LCC) is responsible to provide basic sanitation services in Lilongwe (Urban landmark, 2013). Furthermore, the LCC is in charge for the sewerage system and gets its authority from the National Health Act (1969) while the Water Works Act (1995) names the Lilongwe Water Board (LWB) as the responsible body for water and sewerage (JICA, 2010). In 2006, also the National Sanitation Policy advised to shift the responsibility for sewerage services to the Water Boards. However, this shift never took place. While the LWB does not want to take over an old and bad functioning system, the LCC wants to recover some of their investments4_{. The LCC also doubts the capability of the LWB to manage the sewerage and sanitation services}

since they already have problems to provide water services5_{. On the other hand, the LWB is seen as more}

capable to collect tariffs and fees due to their organizational structure6_{. Right now a joint taskforce regarding}

sewerage and sanitation should be set up which consists of LWB and LCC members7_{. Therefore, it remains}

unclear whether the responsibility will be transferred. .

Within the LCC, the responsibility for sanitation is divided between the Department of Engineering Services (DoES) and the Department of Health and Social Welfare Services (DoHSWS). The DoES holds the responsibility for the sewerage system and operates four waste water treatment plants (JICA, 2010; Lilongwe City Council, n.d). Activities regarding the sewerage system that are handled by this department are for example the clearing of blockages, construction and rehabilitation of sewer lines, cleaning of treatment ponds and monitoring of discharged water values8_{(Lilongwe City Council, n.d.; JICA, 2010). While the DoES only}

focus on the sewerage system, is the DoHSWS responsible for all other health related sanitation issues. This department deals for example with the provision of public toilets at markets and schools, the promotion of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) and sanitation marketing approaches and different WASH related activities (Kral, 2016). Since the LCC often fails to provide sanitation services (Caspers, 2016), NGOs and CSOs try to compensate and take over responsibilities regarding sanitation promotion, training, design of facilities etc. (Maurits, 2016).

4_{T-10, 29.02.2016} 5_{T-19, 10.03.2016} 6_{T-19, 10.03.2016} 7_{T-19, 10.03.2016} 8_{T-2, 12.03.2016}

(31)

23

While in my study sanitation infrastructures are divided into sewerage system/on-site facilities, the Urban development Master Plan (UDMP) for Lilongwe talks about safe/unsafe sanitation (JICA, 2010). However, since only very little coverage data is available, some information from the UDMP is presented in the following. It is important to mention that even for ‘safe sanitation’ there is no fixed definition, which reduces the reliability of the provided data (JICA, 2010). For example, latrines with a roof were considered as safe sanitation in reports by the National Statistical Office (NSO) while the World Health Organization (WHO) does not classify a latrine as safe only because it has a roof (JICA, 2010). According to the NSO, 83% of the population of Lilongwe access to safe sanitation while only 29.5% would fall into the same category regarding the WHO (JICA, 2010). This means that most of the citizens would rely on unsafe sanitation facilities.

Only about 9% of the population is connected to the sewerage system while 20% use septic tanks9

(JICA, 2010). Septic tank or sewer connections are required for permanent settlement (JICA, 2010). Within the tanks a toxic sludge accumulates and it is the household’s responsibility to remove it. While there are different sewage treatment plants (STP), only the Kauma STP is supposed to receive sludge10_{. Estimations}

that include the received amount of sludge and the number of households with a septic tank show that tanks are not properly maintained, which can result in overflows during rainy season (JICA, 2010). JICA report on the UDMP stated already in 2010 that all TPs showed bad performance due to a lack of maintenance. The bad condition of Kauma STP and Lumbadzi STP was confirmed through own interviews and observation11_.

While 29% use previously mentioned infrastructures, relies the majority on different latrine technologies. These facilities are not allowed within planned areas of Lilongwe and can only be found in unplanned areas and informal settlements12_.

7.2 Sanitation infrastructures of Lilongwe

In the following the different infrastructures are presented. First, the sewerage system is discussed before on-site technologies are described.

7.2.1 The sewerage system

The first sewerage networks were constructed around the capital relocation in 1975. Until 1990s, several areas had their own sewerage network that was connected to an own on-site treatment plant/pond13_{. Those networks}

were designed together with the initial planning of the city and are located in the central parts and industrial areas. The biggest change that the sewerage network faced since its initial construction is the shift from those separated networks to a centralized network in the 1990s. Main collector trunks were built to connect the separated networks. Along those developments, several on-site STPs got decommissioned and combined to the new constructed Kauma STP. Thus, a joint network was created that channels all sewage to the Kauma

9_{T-7, 22.02.2016} 10_{T-2, 12.02.2016}

11_{T-7, 22.02.2016 + T-18, 10.03.2016 + own observations Kauma STP, 12 .02.2016} 12_{T-6, 19.02.2016 + T-7, 22.02.2016}

(32)

24

STP. Those developments demonstrate the last big upgrade of the system until today although most areas of Lilongwe are still not connected.

Nowadays, the sewerage network is still quite limited compared to the size of the city. No records regarding the number of households connected are available while a lot connected illegally14_{. The LCC holds}

only information about connected areas and the location of the network. The following areas are connected to the system: 1, 2, 4 (partial), 6 (partial), 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 30, 32 (partial), 33, 35, 52 and 53 (JICA, 2010). This means only 16 out of 58 formal areas have access to the sewerage. However, coverage data is not updated. In 2010 for example, Shanti Constructions built a new sewer in Area 9 (JICA, 2010). Furthermore, a relatively new constructed line from the Crossroads Hotel (Area 46), and the new line of the Gateway Mall (Area 47) are not included15_{. It is important to mention that the connected areas are not necessarily residential,}

but a mix of commercial, institutional, residential and industrial areas. Moreover, most of those areas are centrally located; around old town or city center.

The LCC operates two domestic STPs; Kauma STP between Area 41 and 44, and Lumbadzi STP in Area 52/53. Furthermore, they are responsible for two industrial treatment plants (ITP); Kanengo ITP in Area 29 and Cold Storage TP in Area 46. The location of the TPs is shown in Figure 4. There are three additional small TPs in Lilongwe that are operated by the Military (Kamuzu Barracks), Kamuzu International Airport, and the Chipasula Secondary School. The following paragraphs introduce how the sewerage system operates. Furthermore, current and planned capacities of the Kauma STP and Lumbadzi STP are presented.

14_{T-2, 12.02.2016 + T-7, 22.02.2016} 15_{T-11, 01.03.2016}

(33)

25 Fi

Figure 4. Location of STPs operated by LCC. JICA (2010); modified by author

The current system in Lilongwe is a gravity sewer system16_{and therefore works without lifting}

pumps. Waste water is exclusively transported by velocity created by gravity. The system requires a certain amount of water to keep up its self-cleaning properties and functioning (JICA, 2010). To ensure the necessary amounts, this system system is inappropriate in low-density areas or areas without individual household connections to the water network (JICA, 2010).

The network transports the sewage to Kauma STP. It is a biological STP working with Waste Stabilization Ponds (no chemicals applied) and discharges treated water into the Lilongwe River (JICA, 2010). Kauma STP is the biggest plant and was constructed in 1997 (JICA, 2010). It has a total capacity of 6.100 m³/d while it currently receives 3780m³/d17_{. When the current capacity is reached the STP should be}

upgraded to 15.600m³/d 18_{(JICA, 2010). For 2030, there are plans to reach a capacity of 115.000m³/d (JICA,}

2030). The comparison of the actual capacity and the planned capacities show how limited the coverage of the current network is.

16_{T-7, 22.02.2016} 17_{T-18, 10.03.2016} 18_{T-18, 10.03.2016}

(34)

26

The LCC operates a second domestic STP; Lumbadzi STP. With a capacity of 1200 m³/d it is supposed to serve the staff housing area of the airport (Area 53). Due to a broken main collector pipe, Lumbadzi STP is not operating since 20 years and raw sewage is discharged into a river19_{. The supervisor of}

Kauma STP reported that the LCC plans to connect the airport housing area to the main network that goes to KaumaSTP20_{. However, the fact that nothing was done for two decades stems for a lack of political interest to}

rehabilitate the system and reduce related pollutions.

Figure 5. Kauma STP. Lilongwe City Council (n.d.)

It should be mentioned that the sewerage network is not functioning properly and blockages occur frequently21_{. Furthermore, the DoES is heavily understaffed}22_{. During my field study, 27 out of 78 positions}

were vacant23_{. Through a lack of resources, ponds are not maintained properly and the laboratory is not}

functioning which decreases the efficiency of the STP and cause negative environmental consequences24_{. For}

example, water is discharged into the river without being checked for harmful chemical concentrations. During my visit of the Kauma STP, the provision of some maintenance services were furthermore impossible since no fuel was available and workers for example could not drive out and clear blockages 25_{. Although a}

lack of resources is a common argument for failure, insufficient resource allocation also stems for a political lack of priority regarding the provision of a functioning sewerage system.

Officially, it is the responsibility of the LCC to extent the sewerage network. However, at the moment no new sewers are constructed by the LCC. The main argument is again a lack of resources. Nevertheless, 19_{T-7, 22.02.2016 + T-18, 10.03.2016} 20_{T-18, 10.03.2016} 21_{T-2, 12.02.2016 + T-10, 29.02.2016 + T-11, 01.03.2016} 22_{T-2, 12.02.2016 + T-7, 22.02.2016 + T-18, 10.02.2016} 23_{T-18, 10.02.2016} 24_{T-18, 10.02.2016} 25_{T-18, 10.02.2016}

Who pays for your toilet? : a study on the distribution of costs and benefits through sanitation infrastructures in Lilongwe City