- Email: [email protected]
Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa
Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa Zoë Wilsona*, Bill Pfaffb a
Pollution Research Group/School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa, 4001 2917 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Cambridge, USA Tel. +27 (031) 260 2917; email: [email protected], [email protected] b eThekwini Water and Sanitation, Durban South Africa, 4001 Received 7 June 2007; Accepted 30 July 2007
Abstract Durban is South Africa’s second most populous city and home adherents of many faiths, as well as a wide variety of political, cultural, religious, ethnic and environmental groups who might hold deep philosophical objections to wastewater reuse. It is also widely known that where wastewater recycling has been considered, public concerns have been intense, sometimes leading to the abandonment of initiatives. Project objectives were to determine if there are groups in Durban with — specifically — religious or philosophical objections to the potable reuse of wastewater. The goal was to gain knowledge of the presence of related “show stopping” objections likely to emerge out of Durban’s diverse communities should eThekwini Municipality (formerly City of Durban) embark upon a more comprehensive feasibility study of wastewater recycling to potable standards. This study was conducted in four stages: 1) literature review, (2) email survey to international experts, (3) local qualitative interviews, and (4) focus group discussion. The main findings of the study are: (a) No fundamental religious objections to potable wastewater reuse appear to exist either internationally or locally. (b) Concerns among local groups around the environment, global warming, water scarcity and pollution are present. (c) People are willing to think creatively about sustainability. (d) Key concerns, in Durban, are emotional (the “yuk” factor) and/or related to concerns about flagging technical competency. (e) Initiatives would be prone to politicization around equity/justice issues. In general, people are not comfortable with the idea of potable water recycling. People interviewed expressed that potable reuse was something they could consider with more information, understanding, and satisfactory quality assurance. By contrast, in a mixed focus group setting, a small and diverse group gravitated towards concerns that potable reuse shifted the burdens of inequitable and unjust water allocation patterns (residual from apartheid) to those who least benefited from the current system. Most people expressed a willingness to reject potable water reuse on the grounds that other interventions were possible that had better equity implications. This is echoed in the broader acceptability literature, which suggests that people feel that water reuse initiatives should start with big users and industry before households. Consensus converged around potable reuse as a last resort, indicating that potable reuse was “thinkable”, but not to maintain existing patterns of allocation and use. Keywords: Recycling; Acceptability; Wastewater disposal; South Africa *Corresponding author. 0011-9164/08/$– See front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.07.022
2
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
1. Context A new democratic system of municipal authority for the City of Durban and surrounding areas was ushered in by the December 5, 2000, local government elections. In 1994, South Africa held its first democratic multi-racial elections and in 1996, the country began a broad nation-wide transformation of the municipal system. The goal was to create a wall-to-wall de-centralized system out of the fragmentary and authoritarian apartheid spatial legacy. eThekwini municipality emerged from this process in 2000 from a series of boundary re-demarcations and transitional governance arrangements. The new boundaries reflect both Durban’s dominant economic and political position in the sub-region, as well as the functional interdependencies between the region’s economic core and previously marginalized areas under apartheid. It also reflects an effort to re-distribute resources from the relatively affluent core to the under-serviced and economically dependent peripheries. A key feature of this re-demarcation is the inclusion of a sizeable tract of rural and sparsely settled former Traditional Lands, increasing the land mass by 68%, while adding 9% to the population. The municipality now covers an area of 2297 km2 [1]. The population of Durban is approximately 3 million, the majority of which are African, mainly of Zulu decent. The 2000 census identified 63% of the population as African, 22% Asian, 3% Coloured and 11% white. eThekwini is currently working to eliminate a water service backlog of 73,500 households and sanitation backlog of 187,000 households. Massive expansion in water demand in the area means that ‘system demand already exceeds capacity’ and new dams are under immediate consideration [2]. This study pertained to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Tongati Estuary [3], identified as a possible outflow for additional wastewaters generated by new developments in the northern part of the municipality — including
a new airport and trade port. Potable re-use is also under consideration as a means to alleviate resource scarcity. Thus, the primary driver for considering reuse was environmental, in terms of identifying a more sustainable wastewater option, with an eye to deferring new dams. This preliminary social feasibility study was conducted to determine if deep religious or philosophical objections were present and intractable, such that wastewater recycling could not be considered as an environmental initiative at this time. It is emphasized that while factors other than environmental sensibilities, religious conviction or philosophical beliefs may, ultimately, be more important in determining people’s attitudes towards potable reuse, this study pertains only to these factors.
2. Methodology The use of multiple data collection strategies reflects an attempt to compare different types and sources of information against others as a best means to comprehensively cover a broad, varied, and rapidly changing field (triangulation). Further, early on it was concluded that no local studies could be identified. To fill this gap, the research strategy sought to compare international best practice around public perceptions with beliefs and values held by local groups. Thus, the study is based on literature review supplemented by an email survey to regional and international experts, qualitative interviews with local religious councils, environmental groups, and finally, a mixed focus group.
3. Literature review: key factors affecting social acceptability The literature review indicates that planned and unplanned potable recycling are on the increase, driven mainly by water scarcity (where this causes reliance on imported sources) and, to
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
a much lesser extent, by attempts to manage the quality of wastewater by downstream users [4–6]. Marks has also noted that “in the USA and Australia, an earlier goal is still relevant today, and that is to eliminate costly improvements to sewage treatment infrastructure by substituting effluent reuse for environmental discharges and also to capitalize on the value of the higher quality effluent imposed by regulatory authorities” [7]. This latter rationale was applicable in this case, with an added emphasis on environmental protection and deferring major capital expansion. Public perceptions around wastewater reuse are among the most intractable implementation barriers. A large number of initiatives have been terminated over the years. Marks, examining eight well known cases, notes, “[d]espite assurance of safety, in all cases except Orange County, the proposals met with public opposition and were either shelved or withdrawn.” Marks argues further that “a lack of transparency at the earliest planning stages, and limited community outreach, characterizes the public consultation efforts at each of these sites.” Even where public outreach was significant, as in the Denver case, consensus was sought too early with “emphasis…placed on marketing the proposal, rather than keeping the public fully informed and offering deliberative consultation.” Further, Marks notes, there was an “obvious” effort not to educate the public about other water reuse schemes. “Therefore the opportunity to establish transparency and public familiarity with existing potable reuse processes was missed” [7]. Po et al., by contrast, attribute failure in the Denver case to the scheme’s politicization [8]: “Despite a strong support from a wide variety of community organizations, the project became entangled in political campaigns which eventually caused the whole project to be halted. The campaigns claimed the city intended to take wastewater from affluent communities to distribute to as drinking water to those less affluent, and
3
health dangers from the project were specifically highlighted.” Early strategic errors may have laid the groundwork for easy politicization, as widespread groups felt ill-informed, disgruntled or manipulated, and therefore were amenable to supporting and being persuaded by political processes that would halt implementation. Early indications also suggested that adherents to the Islamic faith may hold religious beliefs antithetical to wastewater reuse. This was of particular interest in that Durban is home to many adherents of the Islamic faith. As Faruqui et al. note, “it is common to hear Muslims declare that waste-water reuse is undesirable, or even haraam [unlawful according to Islam]” [9]. Yet, overall, the literature review failed to support this. While no Islamic country is currently practicing potable reuse, some practice non-potable reuse and desalination is also increasingly practiced. The seminal edited volume Water Management in Islam notes: “[R]eusing wastewater is not haraam, provided that it will not cause harm. After a detailed study, in consultation with scientists and engineers, the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars (CLIS) in Saudi Arabia concluded in a special fatwa in 1978 that treated wastewater can theoretically be used even for wudu and drinking, provided that it presents no health risk (CLIS 1978)” [9]. While a fatwa, by nature, is local and referenced to a specific situation, this fatwa could provide guidance to other Islamic groups confronting similar issues. Instead of religious objections, the literature points to 10 key factors influencing the acceptability of wastewater recycling [8]: C Disgust or “yuk” factor C Perceptions of risk C Uses of recycled water C Sources of recycled water C Perceptions of choice C Trust in authorities and scientific knowledge
4
C C C C
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
Attitudes towards the environment Justice/fairness Cost/benefit Socio-demographic factors
In sum, to date, published case studies suggest that people are most likely to accept potable wastewater recycling where there is a compelling and well-known water scarcity crisis or water security driver. People are unlikely to approve if water demand-management (especially for large users) and equity issues are not squared [8,10, 11]. However, all ten key perception issues are relevant to acceptance. In particular, issues of trust and risk must be thoroughly addressed and concerns around operation, maintenance and regulatory frameworks as well as other risks such as health will be paramount. It is important to note however, that perceptions of risk and trust are bound up in other issues. Po et al., for example, note that perception of benefit affects perception of risk. If the benefits perceived are low or negligible, then risks are perceived as higher [8].
4. Email survey An email survey was sent out to approximately 50 international experts identified through the literature review. The introduction to the survey defined the purpose as scholarly exchange in a rapidly changing field. Reponses are not taken to be representative or accurate. Rather, responses are a supplement to several other data collection strategies in an effort to tap the cutting edge and personal knowledge of key people working in the field. In particular, we sought to surface any knowledge of specific cultural, religious or philosophical objections to wastewater recycling — even if anecdotal — as yet unpublished or otherwise not widely known. We also hoped to surface news of any instances of direct potable reuse on the horizon.
This exercise confirmed that there was a sense among some experts that adherents to Islam may be more likely to reject recycled potable reuse than other groups. One respondent, however, surfaced comprehensive research refuting this belief, which ultimately squared with both the broader literature review and local qualitative interviews with Islamic organizations. Responses also highlighted a range of “emotional” issues that were unrelated to religion, philosophy or conscience but which may be intractable. For example, as one respondent notes: “I believe many people might be willing to drink from untreated, contaminated well water that is considered ‘natural’, but would not trust direct reuse water.” Qualitative interviews and focus group discussion also flagged social justice as an important potential rejection trigger, and several respondents also indentified these issues. The response rate was approximately 25%.
5. Qualitative interviews Unstructured and open-ended qualitative interviews were conducted with representatives of eight local faith and environmentalist groups to explore what, if any, are their respective faith/ conscience-based objections to potable water reuse. This was a preliminary rapid assessment to surface evidence of immune response to the idea of potable reuse among these groups. The goal of the interviews was to identify preexisting judgements and/or gut reactions. Thus, the project introduction was brief so as not to sway or influence perceptions. The introduction included project drivers (wastewater management, environmental integrity of Tongati Estuary), technological feasibility, and international cases. It was clarified that recycled water meant household and possibly industrial wastewater treated to potable water standards. Participants were asked to talk about any conscience-based or religious objections they or their organization
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
may have bearing on the potable use of recycled water. 5.1. Islamic perspectives Key findings were that no theological, religious or ethical “show stopping” objections to wastewater recycling were raised. Representatives from the Islamic Propagation Centre International and Council of Muslim Theologians noted that the Koran makes reference to water quality on a number of occasions and concerns arise around purity and impurity. Urine and faeces are “totally impure” or “absolute impurity”. However, the Koran allows that impurity can be diluted. For example, bodies of water larger than 10 m2 can tolerate a small amount of contamination. Recycling also raised the question: can something that is impure, become pure again? Islam takes into account that things can change their form, complete metamorphosis [12]. The Koran also speaks to the colour, taste and smell of water and the representative of the Council, in particular, noted that Muslims can be highly sensitive to slight variations in taste, which is taken as a key indication of contamination. Representatives from the Dawah Movement, however, suspected that Durban already recycled water, and presented a philosophical stance that human waste should be utilized to the benefit of humanity and concluded that “from the Islamic point of view there is no problem with recycled water”. 5.2. Environmental sympathies Sympathy for perceived positive environmental outcomes was strong among some groups, especially the Dawah Movement, Buddhist Centre and Hindu Temple. The former two, for example, expressed strong aversion to “environmental destruction” and believed in “nonharmfulness and protection of the environment and all living things”. The Hindu Temple noted
5
that god lives through five elements, sky, wind, fire, earth and water. The human and natural worlds are seen in symbolic sympathy and concerns for health of the environment strongly expressed. Concerns about polluted and impure water were also high, and the representative suggested that many people do not eat fish in Durban due to concerns about the levels of pollution in the ocean. 5.3. Process and compromise Both the Buddhist Centre and the International Propagation Centre, in particular, also offered that according to the practice of their faith, solutions were expected to be the result of the best possible compromise. Solutions were never pristine or perfect. In this sense, the process followed to reach compromise — an open, honest and fair process — was critically important. 5.4. Risk and trust Despite the narrow focus of the subject of the interview, most participants mentioned their personal concerns about consultative processes and municipal competence. The Baptist Church representative, for example, noted that wastewater recycling was not a spiritual issue for Christians, later also confirmed by the focus group representative for the Diakonia Christian Council. Rather, it was a “practical issue.” The minister expressed his “personal reservations.” “How certain can we be about the quality?” Further, he was concerned about the long-term prognosis of municipal capacity, pointing to recent power outages and decaying infrastructure as incidences contributing to the erosion of trust. The Buddhist Centre participant also expressed personal concerns about standards and procedures being maintained over time. “How will the plant run in thirty years time?” An Earthlife representative also expressed concerns about “breakdowns over time.”
6
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
In sum, issues raised tend to cluster around “risk perception” and “perceived outcomes”, with a strong identification with positive environmental outcomes balanced against perceptions of risk rooted in concerns about municipal competence, especially over time. The lack of spontaneous discussion around the other issues might correlate to an overall unfamiliarity with the topic. People interviewed have not, as yet, formulated more comprehensive opinions or developed entrenched positions. This in itself was an important finding. 6. Focus group The objectives of the focus group were: Bring together diverse points of knowledge and awareness; bring a diversity of perspectives into dialogue, and; explore how the consumption of recycled water fits with “bedrock” principles associated with different ways of seeing and being in the world. Four people present were part of the initial qualitative interview phase. Six further participants were invited to represent diverse points of knowledge from the area, including people active in local political and environmental debates, as well as overlapping categories of diversity, such as faith, ethnicity, race, gender, and socioeconomic status and education level attained [13]. Two further people present were part of the eThekwini Water and Sanitation project team. Again, a short introduction to “the situation” was provided. Participants were also introduced to the ten key factors influencing acceptability. After some early discussion and points of clarification, where two members of the group expressed high levels of concern about the equity and environmental justice issues associated with water management in the catchment in general, good discussion followed around four questions: 1. From your religious, philosophical or organizational perspective, what are the key issues around potable water reuse?
2. From an ethical or justice perspective what are the key issues? 3. From your personal experience of water and sanitation services in Durban, what are the key issues? 4. From an economic or cost/benefit perspective, what are the key issues? The focus group did not surface any religious or faith-based objections to wastewater recycling. Issues of justice and equity were discussed at length. In general, people present were amenable to seeing the question of wastewater recycling in the context of historical inequities and inherited misallocation of resources/subsidies. Further, despite efforts to steer discussion back to issues of wastewater management, discussion gravitated towards water scarcity. As a water scarcity issue, two key justice/ equity themes emerged. First, wastewater recycling was easily understood as a cost levied on those who benefit least from the existing allocation of resources and subsidies. That is, water scarcity is the result of apartheid era inequities still embedded in water use patterns and thus “the situation” is amenable to pro-poor and ecologically-minded demand-management initiatives. Intervention, then, was not required at the end-ofthe-pipe, but elsewhere in catchment management to offset existing “cross-subsidization from the poor to the rich”. This applied at multiple scales, from swimming pools and personal gardens to industrial pollution and unmonitored agricultural use. Second, most agreed that the population was not enabled and empowered through education and information to make decisions about demand management or moreover to make informed decisions about where in the system an intervention is best made [14]. Participants also brought a range of personal experiences to the table. One participant noted that in her area, the level of knowledge about municipal water systems in general was low. Voters were easily swayed by political campaigns
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
promising free and unlimited tap water. Election results swing back and forth between African National Congress (ANC) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) councillors, each in turn promising free unlimited water and losing subsequent elections after having failed to deliver. Another participant made reference to water shortages in the 1980s where the city was able to successfully restrict households to 400 L/d as evidence that demand management was possible. Others brought more systems-level knowledge, with a specific emphasis on inadequacies of catchment management. For example, concerns were expressed about the lack of monitoring of boreholes, illegal dams and over-abstraction by historically advantaged users. Also, cost/benefit concerns existed around the amount of energy required to recycle water versus the fossil fuel outputs from coal burning energy plants and the equity propositions of existing subsidy and pricing models.
7
In sum, the focus group confirmed that there is good reason to believe that there are no religious, faith or conscious-based objectives to recycled water likely to interfere with the implementation of wastewater recycling. Factors affecting acceptability are most likely to hinge on the ability of the scheme to answer its critics on equity and justice terms and avoid politicization [15]. 7. Related studies eThekwini Water and Sanitation (EWS), in partnership with University of KwaZulu Natal and Department for International Development (DFID), recently embarked upon a process to build standing consultative groups in three pilot areas. A further seven areas are underway. The goal of this project is to better understand customer perceptions across a range of themes in eThekwini’s highly differentiated communities
Table 1 Results from three area survey (in %) Agree
Disagree
Don’t know
No answer
50 75 57
33 19 36
15 6 8
2
88 93 90
8 4 8
4 4 2
79 79 65
21 21 32
3
52 59 50
38 36 24
10 2 26
Recycled water that EWS has treated with professional high-quality treatment and is scientifically proven safe for drinking is okay for drinking: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East I am concerned about the environment: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East I conserve and recycle water when possible: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East Water is a scarce resource: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East
4
8
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
munities and create a mechanism for sustainable two way dialogue [14]. In the initial phases of this project, a questionnaire was administered to a selected sample of people living and working in the areas who have a professional stake in community health and well-being, such as clinic workers, teachers, crèche caregivers, small business owners, as well as non-governmental organizations and political representatives. Four questions in that survey are of interest here in terms of perceptions around environmental sustainability and potable reuse (Table 1). 8. Key findings/recommendations C No evidence was found to support the proposition that adherents to Islam reject potable reuse on religious grounds. No other groups were found to have religious or consciencebased restrictions on the consumption of recycled water. C Potable recycling appears amenable to politicization in Durban. In particular, the terrain of debate shifts easily to water scarcity and from there to allocative injustice. C The wastewater management case for potable reuse may require a different approach than cases with immediate water scarcity drivers. Early precedent exists in Fairfax, Virginia (1978) and more recently in Essex, England (1997). More study of these cases may be useful. C Justice and equity concerns appear to be high in Durban. The best possible compromise will clearly appear to improve the distribution of resources and the quality of service for the poor. C Costs must be borne by those who benefit. The effects of potable reuse cannot be seen to be borne disproportionately by the poor or disadvantaged. C Environmental concerns appear to be high. Sustainability would be a cornerstone of the best possible compromise.
C Strong concerns exist around technological competence and operation and maintenance over time. Power outages and decay in municipal services in some areas may be contributing to erosion of trust. C People appear to be more comfortable with unplanned reuse than planned reuse. Globally, humanity is labouring under a host of flawed assumptions about natural resources that we have inherited from a less informed past. These are difficult to change. C People, in general, have not formed comprehensive opinions or entrenched positions. To avoid politicization a foundation of comprehensive knowledge in the community must be built. Do not seek consensus too early.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge Chris Buckley, John Harrison and Sofie Lindegaarde for invaluable contributions to this study, as well as for comments by anonymous reviewers. The research assistance of Eleanor Hazell, Wiseman Luthuli, Scebi Mkhize and Jason Musyoka is acknowledged for the Related Studies portion of this paper.
References [1] eThekwini Water and Sanitation Unit, Water Services Development Plan, Vol. 2, 2004. [2] D. Christianson, Mkomazi dam scheme revisited, Water Sewage Effluent, 27(2) (2007) 41. [3] Environmental impact assessment for the proposed expansion of wastewater treatment capacity in the northern area of the municipality, 2007 (prepared by: Kwezi V3 engineers). [4] V. Aravinthan, Reclaimed wastewater as resource for sustainable water management, Southern Engineering Conference—Managing Resources for a Sustainable Future, Toowoomba, Australia, 2005. [5] D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, J. De Koning, D. Joksimovic,
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
D. Savic, T. Wintgens and T. Melin, Waste water reuse in Europe, Desalination, (2006) 89–101. US Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Water Reuse, Chapter 8, Water reuse outside the US, US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 2004. J. Marks, Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non potable reuse, Desalination, 187 (2005) 137–147. M. Po, J. Kaercher and B.E. Nancarrow, Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse, Australian Research Centre for Water in Society CSIRO Land and Water, 2004. N. Faruqui, A.K. Biswas and M.J. Bino, Water Management in Islam, United Nations University, Tokyo, 2001. P. du Pisani, Direct reclamation of potable water at Windhoek Goreangab reclamation plant, Desalination, 188 (2006) 79–88.
9
[11] Cf. in Australian case: http://www.theage.com.au/ news/national/bracks-backs-away-from-effluentplan/2007/01/29/1169919245340.html, accessed February 15, 2007. [12] Concern was raised about whether it can be shown that in recycled water all of the components of urine and feces are gone. This is not straightforward, as basic components of these substances are also present in a wide variety of compounds, the basic components of which may be natural and healthy elements in clean water. [13] Focus group members were not a ‘representative’ sample of the demographics of the area. [14] Cf. Z. Wilson, M. Malakoana and T. Gounden, Participatory dialogue for creative problem-solving in municipal water services: Background to a three area pilot in South Africa, Water SA, submitted for publication.
Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa Zoë Wilsona*, Bill Pfaffb a
Pollution Research Group/School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa, 4001 2917 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Cambridge, USA Tel. +27 (031) 260 2917; email: [email protected], [email protected] b eThekwini Water and Sanitation, Durban South Africa, 4001 Received 7 June 2007; Accepted 30 July 2007
Abstract Durban is South Africa’s second most populous city and home adherents of many faiths, as well as a wide variety of political, cultural, religious, ethnic and environmental groups who might hold deep philosophical objections to wastewater reuse. It is also widely known that where wastewater recycling has been considered, public concerns have been intense, sometimes leading to the abandonment of initiatives. Project objectives were to determine if there are groups in Durban with — specifically — religious or philosophical objections to the potable reuse of wastewater. The goal was to gain knowledge of the presence of related “show stopping” objections likely to emerge out of Durban’s diverse communities should eThekwini Municipality (formerly City of Durban) embark upon a more comprehensive feasibility study of wastewater recycling to potable standards. This study was conducted in four stages: 1) literature review, (2) email survey to international experts, (3) local qualitative interviews, and (4) focus group discussion. The main findings of the study are: (a) No fundamental religious objections to potable wastewater reuse appear to exist either internationally or locally. (b) Concerns among local groups around the environment, global warming, water scarcity and pollution are present. (c) People are willing to think creatively about sustainability. (d) Key concerns, in Durban, are emotional (the “yuk” factor) and/or related to concerns about flagging technical competency. (e) Initiatives would be prone to politicization around equity/justice issues. In general, people are not comfortable with the idea of potable water recycling. People interviewed expressed that potable reuse was something they could consider with more information, understanding, and satisfactory quality assurance. By contrast, in a mixed focus group setting, a small and diverse group gravitated towards concerns that potable reuse shifted the burdens of inequitable and unjust water allocation patterns (residual from apartheid) to those who least benefited from the current system. Most people expressed a willingness to reject potable water reuse on the grounds that other interventions were possible that had better equity implications. This is echoed in the broader acceptability literature, which suggests that people feel that water reuse initiatives should start with big users and industry before households. Consensus converged around potable reuse as a last resort, indicating that potable reuse was “thinkable”, but not to maintain existing patterns of allocation and use. Keywords: Recycling; Acceptability; Wastewater disposal; South Africa *Corresponding author. 0011-9164/08/$– See front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.07.022
2
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
1. Context A new democratic system of municipal authority for the City of Durban and surrounding areas was ushered in by the December 5, 2000, local government elections. In 1994, South Africa held its first democratic multi-racial elections and in 1996, the country began a broad nation-wide transformation of the municipal system. The goal was to create a wall-to-wall de-centralized system out of the fragmentary and authoritarian apartheid spatial legacy. eThekwini municipality emerged from this process in 2000 from a series of boundary re-demarcations and transitional governance arrangements. The new boundaries reflect both Durban’s dominant economic and political position in the sub-region, as well as the functional interdependencies between the region’s economic core and previously marginalized areas under apartheid. It also reflects an effort to re-distribute resources from the relatively affluent core to the under-serviced and economically dependent peripheries. A key feature of this re-demarcation is the inclusion of a sizeable tract of rural and sparsely settled former Traditional Lands, increasing the land mass by 68%, while adding 9% to the population. The municipality now covers an area of 2297 km2 [1]. The population of Durban is approximately 3 million, the majority of which are African, mainly of Zulu decent. The 2000 census identified 63% of the population as African, 22% Asian, 3% Coloured and 11% white. eThekwini is currently working to eliminate a water service backlog of 73,500 households and sanitation backlog of 187,000 households. Massive expansion in water demand in the area means that ‘system demand already exceeds capacity’ and new dams are under immediate consideration [2]. This study pertained to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Tongati Estuary [3], identified as a possible outflow for additional wastewaters generated by new developments in the northern part of the municipality — including
a new airport and trade port. Potable re-use is also under consideration as a means to alleviate resource scarcity. Thus, the primary driver for considering reuse was environmental, in terms of identifying a more sustainable wastewater option, with an eye to deferring new dams. This preliminary social feasibility study was conducted to determine if deep religious or philosophical objections were present and intractable, such that wastewater recycling could not be considered as an environmental initiative at this time. It is emphasized that while factors other than environmental sensibilities, religious conviction or philosophical beliefs may, ultimately, be more important in determining people’s attitudes towards potable reuse, this study pertains only to these factors.
2. Methodology The use of multiple data collection strategies reflects an attempt to compare different types and sources of information against others as a best means to comprehensively cover a broad, varied, and rapidly changing field (triangulation). Further, early on it was concluded that no local studies could be identified. To fill this gap, the research strategy sought to compare international best practice around public perceptions with beliefs and values held by local groups. Thus, the study is based on literature review supplemented by an email survey to regional and international experts, qualitative interviews with local religious councils, environmental groups, and finally, a mixed focus group.
3. Literature review: key factors affecting social acceptability The literature review indicates that planned and unplanned potable recycling are on the increase, driven mainly by water scarcity (where this causes reliance on imported sources) and, to
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
a much lesser extent, by attempts to manage the quality of wastewater by downstream users [4–6]. Marks has also noted that “in the USA and Australia, an earlier goal is still relevant today, and that is to eliminate costly improvements to sewage treatment infrastructure by substituting effluent reuse for environmental discharges and also to capitalize on the value of the higher quality effluent imposed by regulatory authorities” [7]. This latter rationale was applicable in this case, with an added emphasis on environmental protection and deferring major capital expansion. Public perceptions around wastewater reuse are among the most intractable implementation barriers. A large number of initiatives have been terminated over the years. Marks, examining eight well known cases, notes, “[d]espite assurance of safety, in all cases except Orange County, the proposals met with public opposition and were either shelved or withdrawn.” Marks argues further that “a lack of transparency at the earliest planning stages, and limited community outreach, characterizes the public consultation efforts at each of these sites.” Even where public outreach was significant, as in the Denver case, consensus was sought too early with “emphasis…placed on marketing the proposal, rather than keeping the public fully informed and offering deliberative consultation.” Further, Marks notes, there was an “obvious” effort not to educate the public about other water reuse schemes. “Therefore the opportunity to establish transparency and public familiarity with existing potable reuse processes was missed” [7]. Po et al., by contrast, attribute failure in the Denver case to the scheme’s politicization [8]: “Despite a strong support from a wide variety of community organizations, the project became entangled in political campaigns which eventually caused the whole project to be halted. The campaigns claimed the city intended to take wastewater from affluent communities to distribute to as drinking water to those less affluent, and
3
health dangers from the project were specifically highlighted.” Early strategic errors may have laid the groundwork for easy politicization, as widespread groups felt ill-informed, disgruntled or manipulated, and therefore were amenable to supporting and being persuaded by political processes that would halt implementation. Early indications also suggested that adherents to the Islamic faith may hold religious beliefs antithetical to wastewater reuse. This was of particular interest in that Durban is home to many adherents of the Islamic faith. As Faruqui et al. note, “it is common to hear Muslims declare that waste-water reuse is undesirable, or even haraam [unlawful according to Islam]” [9]. Yet, overall, the literature review failed to support this. While no Islamic country is currently practicing potable reuse, some practice non-potable reuse and desalination is also increasingly practiced. The seminal edited volume Water Management in Islam notes: “[R]eusing wastewater is not haraam, provided that it will not cause harm. After a detailed study, in consultation with scientists and engineers, the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars (CLIS) in Saudi Arabia concluded in a special fatwa in 1978 that treated wastewater can theoretically be used even for wudu and drinking, provided that it presents no health risk (CLIS 1978)” [9]. While a fatwa, by nature, is local and referenced to a specific situation, this fatwa could provide guidance to other Islamic groups confronting similar issues. Instead of religious objections, the literature points to 10 key factors influencing the acceptability of wastewater recycling [8]: C Disgust or “yuk” factor C Perceptions of risk C Uses of recycled water C Sources of recycled water C Perceptions of choice C Trust in authorities and scientific knowledge
4
C C C C
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
Attitudes towards the environment Justice/fairness Cost/benefit Socio-demographic factors
In sum, to date, published case studies suggest that people are most likely to accept potable wastewater recycling where there is a compelling and well-known water scarcity crisis or water security driver. People are unlikely to approve if water demand-management (especially for large users) and equity issues are not squared [8,10, 11]. However, all ten key perception issues are relevant to acceptance. In particular, issues of trust and risk must be thoroughly addressed and concerns around operation, maintenance and regulatory frameworks as well as other risks such as health will be paramount. It is important to note however, that perceptions of risk and trust are bound up in other issues. Po et al., for example, note that perception of benefit affects perception of risk. If the benefits perceived are low or negligible, then risks are perceived as higher [8].
4. Email survey An email survey was sent out to approximately 50 international experts identified through the literature review. The introduction to the survey defined the purpose as scholarly exchange in a rapidly changing field. Reponses are not taken to be representative or accurate. Rather, responses are a supplement to several other data collection strategies in an effort to tap the cutting edge and personal knowledge of key people working in the field. In particular, we sought to surface any knowledge of specific cultural, religious or philosophical objections to wastewater recycling — even if anecdotal — as yet unpublished or otherwise not widely known. We also hoped to surface news of any instances of direct potable reuse on the horizon.
This exercise confirmed that there was a sense among some experts that adherents to Islam may be more likely to reject recycled potable reuse than other groups. One respondent, however, surfaced comprehensive research refuting this belief, which ultimately squared with both the broader literature review and local qualitative interviews with Islamic organizations. Responses also highlighted a range of “emotional” issues that were unrelated to religion, philosophy or conscience but which may be intractable. For example, as one respondent notes: “I believe many people might be willing to drink from untreated, contaminated well water that is considered ‘natural’, but would not trust direct reuse water.” Qualitative interviews and focus group discussion also flagged social justice as an important potential rejection trigger, and several respondents also indentified these issues. The response rate was approximately 25%.
5. Qualitative interviews Unstructured and open-ended qualitative interviews were conducted with representatives of eight local faith and environmentalist groups to explore what, if any, are their respective faith/ conscience-based objections to potable water reuse. This was a preliminary rapid assessment to surface evidence of immune response to the idea of potable reuse among these groups. The goal of the interviews was to identify preexisting judgements and/or gut reactions. Thus, the project introduction was brief so as not to sway or influence perceptions. The introduction included project drivers (wastewater management, environmental integrity of Tongati Estuary), technological feasibility, and international cases. It was clarified that recycled water meant household and possibly industrial wastewater treated to potable water standards. Participants were asked to talk about any conscience-based or religious objections they or their organization
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
may have bearing on the potable use of recycled water. 5.1. Islamic perspectives Key findings were that no theological, religious or ethical “show stopping” objections to wastewater recycling were raised. Representatives from the Islamic Propagation Centre International and Council of Muslim Theologians noted that the Koran makes reference to water quality on a number of occasions and concerns arise around purity and impurity. Urine and faeces are “totally impure” or “absolute impurity”. However, the Koran allows that impurity can be diluted. For example, bodies of water larger than 10 m2 can tolerate a small amount of contamination. Recycling also raised the question: can something that is impure, become pure again? Islam takes into account that things can change their form, complete metamorphosis [12]. The Koran also speaks to the colour, taste and smell of water and the representative of the Council, in particular, noted that Muslims can be highly sensitive to slight variations in taste, which is taken as a key indication of contamination. Representatives from the Dawah Movement, however, suspected that Durban already recycled water, and presented a philosophical stance that human waste should be utilized to the benefit of humanity and concluded that “from the Islamic point of view there is no problem with recycled water”. 5.2. Environmental sympathies Sympathy for perceived positive environmental outcomes was strong among some groups, especially the Dawah Movement, Buddhist Centre and Hindu Temple. The former two, for example, expressed strong aversion to “environmental destruction” and believed in “nonharmfulness and protection of the environment and all living things”. The Hindu Temple noted
5
that god lives through five elements, sky, wind, fire, earth and water. The human and natural worlds are seen in symbolic sympathy and concerns for health of the environment strongly expressed. Concerns about polluted and impure water were also high, and the representative suggested that many people do not eat fish in Durban due to concerns about the levels of pollution in the ocean. 5.3. Process and compromise Both the Buddhist Centre and the International Propagation Centre, in particular, also offered that according to the practice of their faith, solutions were expected to be the result of the best possible compromise. Solutions were never pristine or perfect. In this sense, the process followed to reach compromise — an open, honest and fair process — was critically important. 5.4. Risk and trust Despite the narrow focus of the subject of the interview, most participants mentioned their personal concerns about consultative processes and municipal competence. The Baptist Church representative, for example, noted that wastewater recycling was not a spiritual issue for Christians, later also confirmed by the focus group representative for the Diakonia Christian Council. Rather, it was a “practical issue.” The minister expressed his “personal reservations.” “How certain can we be about the quality?” Further, he was concerned about the long-term prognosis of municipal capacity, pointing to recent power outages and decaying infrastructure as incidences contributing to the erosion of trust. The Buddhist Centre participant also expressed personal concerns about standards and procedures being maintained over time. “How will the plant run in thirty years time?” An Earthlife representative also expressed concerns about “breakdowns over time.”
6
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
In sum, issues raised tend to cluster around “risk perception” and “perceived outcomes”, with a strong identification with positive environmental outcomes balanced against perceptions of risk rooted in concerns about municipal competence, especially over time. The lack of spontaneous discussion around the other issues might correlate to an overall unfamiliarity with the topic. People interviewed have not, as yet, formulated more comprehensive opinions or developed entrenched positions. This in itself was an important finding. 6. Focus group The objectives of the focus group were: Bring together diverse points of knowledge and awareness; bring a diversity of perspectives into dialogue, and; explore how the consumption of recycled water fits with “bedrock” principles associated with different ways of seeing and being in the world. Four people present were part of the initial qualitative interview phase. Six further participants were invited to represent diverse points of knowledge from the area, including people active in local political and environmental debates, as well as overlapping categories of diversity, such as faith, ethnicity, race, gender, and socioeconomic status and education level attained [13]. Two further people present were part of the eThekwini Water and Sanitation project team. Again, a short introduction to “the situation” was provided. Participants were also introduced to the ten key factors influencing acceptability. After some early discussion and points of clarification, where two members of the group expressed high levels of concern about the equity and environmental justice issues associated with water management in the catchment in general, good discussion followed around four questions: 1. From your religious, philosophical or organizational perspective, what are the key issues around potable water reuse?
2. From an ethical or justice perspective what are the key issues? 3. From your personal experience of water and sanitation services in Durban, what are the key issues? 4. From an economic or cost/benefit perspective, what are the key issues? The focus group did not surface any religious or faith-based objections to wastewater recycling. Issues of justice and equity were discussed at length. In general, people present were amenable to seeing the question of wastewater recycling in the context of historical inequities and inherited misallocation of resources/subsidies. Further, despite efforts to steer discussion back to issues of wastewater management, discussion gravitated towards water scarcity. As a water scarcity issue, two key justice/ equity themes emerged. First, wastewater recycling was easily understood as a cost levied on those who benefit least from the existing allocation of resources and subsidies. That is, water scarcity is the result of apartheid era inequities still embedded in water use patterns and thus “the situation” is amenable to pro-poor and ecologically-minded demand-management initiatives. Intervention, then, was not required at the end-ofthe-pipe, but elsewhere in catchment management to offset existing “cross-subsidization from the poor to the rich”. This applied at multiple scales, from swimming pools and personal gardens to industrial pollution and unmonitored agricultural use. Second, most agreed that the population was not enabled and empowered through education and information to make decisions about demand management or moreover to make informed decisions about where in the system an intervention is best made [14]. Participants also brought a range of personal experiences to the table. One participant noted that in her area, the level of knowledge about municipal water systems in general was low. Voters were easily swayed by political campaigns
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
promising free and unlimited tap water. Election results swing back and forth between African National Congress (ANC) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) councillors, each in turn promising free unlimited water and losing subsequent elections after having failed to deliver. Another participant made reference to water shortages in the 1980s where the city was able to successfully restrict households to 400 L/d as evidence that demand management was possible. Others brought more systems-level knowledge, with a specific emphasis on inadequacies of catchment management. For example, concerns were expressed about the lack of monitoring of boreholes, illegal dams and over-abstraction by historically advantaged users. Also, cost/benefit concerns existed around the amount of energy required to recycle water versus the fossil fuel outputs from coal burning energy plants and the equity propositions of existing subsidy and pricing models.
7
In sum, the focus group confirmed that there is good reason to believe that there are no religious, faith or conscious-based objectives to recycled water likely to interfere with the implementation of wastewater recycling. Factors affecting acceptability are most likely to hinge on the ability of the scheme to answer its critics on equity and justice terms and avoid politicization [15]. 7. Related studies eThekwini Water and Sanitation (EWS), in partnership with University of KwaZulu Natal and Department for International Development (DFID), recently embarked upon a process to build standing consultative groups in three pilot areas. A further seven areas are underway. The goal of this project is to better understand customer perceptions across a range of themes in eThekwini’s highly differentiated communities
Table 1 Results from three area survey (in %) Agree
Disagree
Don’t know
No answer
50 75 57
33 19 36
15 6 8
2
88 93 90
8 4 8
4 4 2
79 79 65
21 21 32
3
52 59 50
38 36 24
10 2 26
Recycled water that EWS has treated with professional high-quality treatment and is scientifically proven safe for drinking is okay for drinking: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East I am concerned about the environment: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East I conserve and recycle water when possible: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East Water is a scarce resource: Mlazi KwaMashu Newlands East
4
8
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
munities and create a mechanism for sustainable two way dialogue [14]. In the initial phases of this project, a questionnaire was administered to a selected sample of people living and working in the areas who have a professional stake in community health and well-being, such as clinic workers, teachers, crèche caregivers, small business owners, as well as non-governmental organizations and political representatives. Four questions in that survey are of interest here in terms of perceptions around environmental sustainability and potable reuse (Table 1). 8. Key findings/recommendations C No evidence was found to support the proposition that adherents to Islam reject potable reuse on religious grounds. No other groups were found to have religious or consciencebased restrictions on the consumption of recycled water. C Potable recycling appears amenable to politicization in Durban. In particular, the terrain of debate shifts easily to water scarcity and from there to allocative injustice. C The wastewater management case for potable reuse may require a different approach than cases with immediate water scarcity drivers. Early precedent exists in Fairfax, Virginia (1978) and more recently in Essex, England (1997). More study of these cases may be useful. C Justice and equity concerns appear to be high in Durban. The best possible compromise will clearly appear to improve the distribution of resources and the quality of service for the poor. C Costs must be borne by those who benefit. The effects of potable reuse cannot be seen to be borne disproportionately by the poor or disadvantaged. C Environmental concerns appear to be high. Sustainability would be a cornerstone of the best possible compromise.
C Strong concerns exist around technological competence and operation and maintenance over time. Power outages and decay in municipal services in some areas may be contributing to erosion of trust. C People appear to be more comfortable with unplanned reuse than planned reuse. Globally, humanity is labouring under a host of flawed assumptions about natural resources that we have inherited from a less informed past. These are difficult to change. C People, in general, have not formed comprehensive opinions or entrenched positions. To avoid politicization a foundation of comprehensive knowledge in the community must be built. Do not seek consensus too early.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge Chris Buckley, John Harrison and Sofie Lindegaarde for invaluable contributions to this study, as well as for comments by anonymous reviewers. The research assistance of Eleanor Hazell, Wiseman Luthuli, Scebi Mkhize and Jason Musyoka is acknowledged for the Related Studies portion of this paper.
References [1] eThekwini Water and Sanitation Unit, Water Services Development Plan, Vol. 2, 2004. [2] D. Christianson, Mkomazi dam scheme revisited, Water Sewage Effluent, 27(2) (2007) 41. [3] Environmental impact assessment for the proposed expansion of wastewater treatment capacity in the northern area of the municipality, 2007 (prepared by: Kwezi V3 engineers). [4] V. Aravinthan, Reclaimed wastewater as resource for sustainable water management, Southern Engineering Conference—Managing Resources for a Sustainable Future, Toowoomba, Australia, 2005. [5] D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, J. De Koning, D. Joksimovic,
Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
D. Savic, T. Wintgens and T. Melin, Waste water reuse in Europe, Desalination, (2006) 89–101. US Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Water Reuse, Chapter 8, Water reuse outside the US, US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 2004. J. Marks, Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non potable reuse, Desalination, 187 (2005) 137–147. M. Po, J. Kaercher and B.E. Nancarrow, Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse, Australian Research Centre for Water in Society CSIRO Land and Water, 2004. N. Faruqui, A.K. Biswas and M.J. Bino, Water Management in Islam, United Nations University, Tokyo, 2001. P. du Pisani, Direct reclamation of potable water at Windhoek Goreangab reclamation plant, Desalination, 188 (2006) 79–88.
9
[11] Cf. in Australian case: http://www.theage.com.au/ news/national/bracks-backs-away-from-effluentplan/2007/01/29/1169919245340.html, accessed February 15, 2007. [12] Concern was raised about whether it can be shown that in recycled water all of the components of urine and feces are gone. This is not straightforward, as basic components of these substances are also present in a wide variety of compounds, the basic components of which may be natural and healthy elements in clean water. [13] Focus group members were not a ‘representative’ sample of the demographics of the area. [14] Cf. Z. Wilson, M. Malakoana and T. Gounden, Participatory dialogue for creative problem-solving in municipal water services: Background to a three area pilot in South Africa, Water SA, submitted for publication.