Assessing equity: a way to improve sanitation service delivery in South African informal settlements

This paper discusses the need to incorporate equity assessment into the planning and monitoring of sanitation service delivery to South African informal settlements. Equity assessment criteria were drawn from literature and a study of sanitation service delivery to informal settlements in three South African municipalities (Cape Town, Johannesburg and eThekwini) over the period 2012-2015. Three key dimensions of equity - resource allocation, access and stakeholder perceptions - were identified. These had eight associated criteria: (1) funds allocated for basic sanitation, (2) number of staff allocated to informal settlements, (3) disparities in access, (4) proportion of functioning sanitation facilities, (5) menstrual hygiene management (MHM) inclusion, (6) access to information, (7) meets users' notions of dignity, and (8) integration of the perspectives of key stakeholders. Key findings of the study indicate that the current focus on reducing service backlogs largely ignores equity and there is a need to better address this through the incorporation of: equity assessments, improving access to information, and the inclusion of marginalised communities in the planning of sanitation services.


INTRODUCTION
The aim to achieve universal sanitation access in South Africa provides a unique opportunity to set positive regional precedents in sub-Saharan Africa. As one of the wealthiest countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Briceño-garmendia et al. ; World Bank ) it has an advantage over many neighbouring countries. The country, however, also faces major challenges as it is one of the world's most unequal in terms of income distribution (van der Berg ; UN-HABITAT ) and access to services. This paper describes the outcome of a study into how to incorporate equity assessment into sanitation service delivery to South African informal settlements and provides an example of potential applications to improve sanitation services. The working definition of equity used here refers to the ethical concepts relating to notions of social justice, fairness and human rights based on need as a foundation for the distribution of resources (Scott et al. ) and power (Oden ).
The South African government is committed to providing a baseline level of 'free basic services' (water, sanitation, refuse removal and electricity) to all indigent households (DME ; DWAF ; Muller ), a substantial proportion of whom live in informal settlements.
Sanitation as a way of promoting dignity, which has been connected to concepts of urban citizenship, and modernity (Morales et al. : p. 2816;Robins ) has been used to advocate a 'rights-based' argument for governmentfunded sanitation service improvements in informal settlements using the logic that having to use 'unhygienic, inadequate toilet facilities impairs dignity' (Tissington ).
Thus, inadequate access to sanitation contradicts the constitutional right to have 'dignity respected and protected' (Section 10 of the Bill of Rights (RSA )). Consequently, the national government adopted a Free Basic Sanitation (FBSan) implementation strategy in 2008 (DWAF) which is funded through a combination of national grants and municipal revenue. The FBSan policy supports municipalities in the provision of subsidised basic sanitation services to qualified beneficiaries where a basic service is defined as: 'The provision of a basic sanitation facility which is easily accessible to a household, the sustainable operation of the facility, including the safe removal of human waste and wastewater from the premises where this is appropriate and necessary, and the communication of good sanitation, hygiene and related practices' (DWAF ).
Despite this policy, however, South Africa was unable to meet the Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of the population without access to improved sanitation (WHO & UNICEF ). Furthermore, services are often unevenly distributed between different population groups and regions. This has resulted in high levels of dissatisfaction evidenced by wide-spread 'service delivery protests' (Zille ; Robins ), many of which took place in informal settlements. The connection between the challenge of meeting service delivery backlogs, uneven distribution of services and dissatisfaction with sanitation services in informal settlements warrants a deeper exploration of equity, as set out in this paper.

METHODS
The most significant criteria to consider in evaluating the equity of sanitation services were drawn from literature These three municipalities are the most populous in the country and have a significant proportion of informal households, ∼1 in 5 (Stats SA ). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Cape Town's Engineering and Built Environment ethics committee to conduct research using human subjects by demonstrating minimal risk to participants and gaining informed consent. Unstructured interviews were conducted to get a better understanding of the knowledge, opinions and perspectives of stakeholders in different sectors involved with decisionmaking and steering the development of sanitation services.
A 'snowball sampling' method (Morgan ) was employed to expand the network of interviewees from initial contacts.
In total, 46 people participated: 2 from provincial government, 29 from municipal (local) government, 1 from national government, 1 from academia, 10 from nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and 3 from the private sector. In addition to the unstructured interviews, informal conversations with residents of informal settlements, including two group discussions facilitated by local NGOs, and field observations in 17 informal settlements in Cape Town (7), eThekwini (4) and Johannesburg (6) between 2012 and 2015, were also used to inform the equity assessment. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and then coded according to three 'dimensions' (resource allocation, access and 'perceptions') covering eight criteria that were identified from the interviews assisted by the literature (Table 1).
Quantitative data were collected using available records including the national census data and national treasury reports and unpublished reports. Some of the data sought after, such as the location of water and sanitation facilities in informal settlements, could not be obtained for EM due to concerns over information being misused for political agendas, and, in the case of CJ, because the information was not available.

Resource allocation
Even though the study was focused on the largestand arguably the best resourcedmunicipalities in the country, there was limited disaggregated data publicly available to adequately assess all of the equity indicators (Table 1)

Access
In terms of access to basic sanitation services across different demographic groups, the assessment was conducted at a national scale; while the principal author intended to compare access across the selected municipalities, municipalities used different categories of sanitation facilities which made this difficult. Although national census statistics on sanitation did not include the condition of the sanitation facility, they did indicate some of the disparities that need to be considered, which often correlated to race, gender and where a person lived. Johannesburg had the highest percentage of households overall with access to a 'functioning      (2014) and Stats SA (2014; data from Johannesburg Water covering water and sanitation in informal settlements from 2013 to 2014. a Chemical, container and bucket toilets were not considered to meet standards for 'basic sanitation' by the author since they did not hygienically separate users from excreta.  need more assistance than others to improve access to sanitation services. Another issue that needs to be addressed is MHM (Criteria 3 under Access in Table 1). Part of the issue is that MHM overlaps with solid waste management, which is typically managed separately from water and sanitation services.
There is also a need to 'sensitise engineers, planners and water managers regarding infrastructural design that sup- is also a reluctance to share data for fear of political backlash and biased analysis for personal or political agendas, which makes collaboration between different stakeholder groups difficult. The failure to publish reports related to sanitation infrastructure, or lengthy delays in publishing, is an issue that needs to be addressed if service delivery is to improve (Muller ). Insufficient public access to information can also be considered as a general equity concern, which was noted by non-government stakeholders.

Perceptions
Of the three equity dimensions described in this research -    (2010), Roma et al. (2013) andSAHRC (2014). In addition to these sources, the author's fieldwork, interviews and focus group discussions were used to evaluate perceptions.
shortcomings (or apathy) and social issues that could be addressed through sanitation services. Unsurprisingly, sanitation-related 'social entrepreneurs' focused on ways to expand the sanitation market and acknowledged the need to promote equity, but implied that that was primarily a government responsibility. Finally, perhaps the most telling in terms of perceptions of (in)equity, were conversations with informal settlement residents who emphasised a basic desire not to be ignored and, crucially, to be treated like everyone else. Finding a way to incorporate and address concerns demonstrated by these various perspectives, particularly those of informal settlement residents, in the design of sanitation service delivery programmes will be critical to improving equity and supporting the improvement of sanitation services in informal settlements.
Common perceptions of inequity observed across all three municipalities included the following: (i) dry sanitation is perceived as inferior to waterborne sanitation by many informal settlement users; waterborne systems would be preferred if given the option; (ii) decision-makers who may never have used alternatives to waterborne sanitation systems before are insensitive to the lived reality of informal settlement residents; (iii) providing different sanitation systems in the same or neighbouring settlements can lead to tension between residents and can be perceived as preferential treatment.
These various perceptions should inform future sanitation programme planning to help address areas of concern, to clarify misunderstandings and to build common ground between different stakeholder groups. In South Africa, due to government subsidisation of sanitation services through policies like FBSan, local government tends to be the most authoritative decision-maker compared to other stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, contractors, residents).
Residents may be consulted to choose from a generally predetermined set of sanitation options or to locate facilities, but they are not typically the final decision-makers.

Limitations and obstacles encountered in the research
The data that this research draws from should only be considered as a 'snapshot' of an extremely dynamic situation.
Additionally, although the author reached out to study participants after concluding the field research and interviews to check for consistency and to report preliminary findings, no responses were received. Among multiple obstacles encountered in carrying out this research, two in particular stood out: (i) the difficulty of disaggregating financial information between water and sanitation projects or formal and informal areas; (ii) government officials restricting access to information for fear of negative political repercussions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper describes how considerations of equity could be used to improve sanitation service delivery in South African informal settlements. Three key dimensionsresource allocation, access and stakeholder perceptionsbreaking down into eight criteria of equity were identified through which demands an assessment of equity into the planning and implementation of sanitation systems to vulnerable groups. Equity requires that consideration be given to the quality of services, access to information, which helps ensure that people are treated openly and fairly particularly as it pertains to decision-making (Haughton ), and explicit consideration of the needs of vulnerable groups within a defined spatial unit, e.g., within a municipality or a province.
While it may not be possible or necessary for every municipality to measure all of the criteria identified in this research, key criteria could be selected to highlight areas of inequity within a municipality or between different subunits, e.g., as part of municipal Key Performance Indicators for service delivery or the Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (SALGA & WRC ).
'Some for all, forever' (DWAF ; RSA ) is a core tenet of water and sanitation service policy in South Africa, but the 'some' (as in the level of service) also needs to match local resources and needs to meet criteria for equity, some of which are proposed in this paper. There should also be a vision to increase the service levels for 'all', with priority for national and local government to bring those lower down up to the level of those higher up rather than perpetuating differentiated levels of service indefinitely. A primary goal of sanitation services across the municipality should be to reduce inequity between residents living in informal and formal areas and different demographic groups in the dimensions of equity described. This research is intended to help generate discussion, to provide a tool for describing inequity and sanitation and to catalyse action rather than to prescriptively recommend indicators to use for measuring inequity. Finally, as the analysis of different stakeholders' perceptions of equity indicated, local governments need to find more ways to engage marginalised communities throughout the process of service delivery, for example, through meaningful and inclusive public participation without limiting solutions to predetermined technologies, and to avoid treating informal settlements and their inhabitants as anomalies in a 'formal' city.