199 zulu indigenous practices in water and sanitation - CiteSeerX

48 downloads 0 Views 68KB Size Report
According to Scarborough (2003: 19p), 'water management systems are much .... ground, with the first modern complex variant located at the castle of Good ...
199 ZULU INDIGENOUS PRACTICES IN WATER AND SANITATION: PRELIMINARY FIELD RESEARCH ON INDIGENOUS PRACTICES IN WATER AND SANITATION CONDUCTED AT ULUNDI. 1. Sandile Mbatha (MA-Housing); 2. Dr Zoë Wilson, PhD and 3. Prof. Chris

Buckley 1. Pollution Research Group/School of Architecture, Planning and Housing, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Cell: 0731731447: E-mail: [email protected] / mbathas [email protected] 2. Pollution Research Group/School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 3. Pollution Research Group/School of Chemical Engineering, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa Abstract Inadequate access to water and sanitation is increasingly recognized as a global challenge facing many developing countries.1.1 billion people do not have access to improved sources of water and 2.4 billion have no access to any form of improved sanitation services (Global Water and sanitation Assessment; 2000). Technologies that operate in highly complex conditions and can be deployed quickly and inexpensively are urgently needed. In rare cases, innovative new technologies have been developed, demonstrated and implemented at scale. However, they often face serious acceptability challenges. This poster depicts the findings from the preliminary field research on indigenous practices in water and sanitation conducted at Ulundi, conducted with an eye to better understanding acceptability challenges in Africa. Key words: indigenous knowledge; indigenous practices, socialization, evolution of water and sanitation related technologies. Introduction The paper presents the findings of the preliminary field research on indigenous practices in water and sanitation conducted at Ulundi. It presents the findings against the framework of the ANTINOMOS project. The findings validate the hypothesis presented by the ANTINOMOS project. The research was conducted mainly with community elders and local historians for Ulundi, the former capital of Zululand. The methodological approach was qualitative, based on group discussions. These were modeled on the traditional way of discussing issues in order to stimulate debate. One-on-one qualitative interviews were used with those participants who have an understanding of the subject and aware of the issues related to water and sanitation.

Research was conducted within the context of the EU F6 Coordinated Action Research Programme: A knowledge network for solving real-life water problems in Developing countries: Bridging contrasts (ANTINOMOS). The proposal document hypothesizes: Traditional rain water-based systems and indigenous technologies for water supply are now getting increasing recognition worldwide not only for their ability to provide drinking water even in adverse climatic conditions, but especially for their being the result of community-based strategies and local cooperative efforts and knowledge. Because of this, many researchers and organizations worldwide are now maintaining that if development of water resources has to be sustainable, equitable and community based, traditional systems have to be rejuvenated and developed, and the underlying knowledge has to be recovered. In this light, a comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to surface evidence from the historical record about pre-colonial South African water and sanitation technologies. This literature review revealed four generally agreed upon conclusions: 1. South Africa, during its prehistoric phases, is characterized by water management approaches relatively free of constituted water management decision-making authorities. 2. It is also characterized by multitasking culture - 'an independent economic orientation based on low population densities and the availability of land and water’ (Scarbourough; 2003; 204p). 3. Furtjer, incentives for technological developments associated with water capture or delivery were attenuated by high levels of overall mobility. Mobility coupled with a lack of conflict over water resources, and lack of population density pressures more generally meant that prehistoric inhabitants of South Africa had few reasons to invest in infrastructure technologies for either the delivery of water or evacuation of waste. 4. Haarhoff et al. (2007) note that there is no recorded toilet use in the South Africa area in the protohistorical record. Growth and Evolution of indigenous technologies According to Scarborough (2003: 19p), ‘water management systems are much more complex and textured than previously thought’. Their evolution reflects ‘a complex interdependence of social units across the landscape’ woven through language, culture, religion, politics, etc. Yet, it is widely accepted that water management systems can be characterized by whether they map onto a state-like political apparatus or whether there is no constituted authority over water decision making. This is a key distinction because political ‘centralization is a process by which resources and labour are economically concentrated, frequently influencing the degree of political and ideological control within and among constituent groups’ (11). Thus, centralization implies density and stratification, as well as greater potential for conflict. It also implies shared rules and norms for mediation of conflict, as well as general coordination. Centralized systems therefore give rise to water management systems with labour stratification and administrative density; autonomous systems do not. Centralized systems, in this instance refers both to strictly hierarchical systems and hierarchical systems where relatively equal country-side relations feed into more complex market nodes, with a systemic emphasis on interdependency and co-operation in service of resiliency (see Scarborough, 2003: 11-13, for further discussion beyond the scope here).

Scarborough also argues that cultures adopt one of three strategies for shaping the natural environment: labourtasking, technotasking and multitasking. 1. Labourtasking societies create ‘very differentiated, highly skilled labour force. With enough labourers, trained in the specific tasks necessary to transform and sustain a productive landscape, extremely complex land and water systems evolve’ (i.e. Asia). 2. Technotasking cultures occur in agricultural societies where land, but not labour is abundant. They focus on creating technological buffers to create economies of scale and change rapidly, outpacing the intergenerational and gender labour stratification systems. These systems tend to rapidly alter terrain and often face significant sustainability challenges – which can spur further technological innovation or systemic collapse (Diamond 2004) (i.e. Europe). 3. Multitasking cultures emphasize ‘the variety of tasks individuals can accomplish using a generalized knowledge of the environment. A society adopts a multitasking logic when survival depends on flexibility’ generally these systems use mobility as a buffer against both over-exploitation and conflict. (i.e. pre-colonial Southern Africa). South Africa during its prehistoric phases is characterized by water management approaches relatively free of constituted water management decision-making authorities, and by multitasking - ‘an independent economic orientation based on low population densities and the availability of land and water’ (37). African labour groups, at times, coordinated intensively leading, in some cases, to periods of labourtasking, which were typified by limited intensive exploitation and some slow cumulative investment in alteration of landscape. However, the incentives for technological developments associated with water capture or delivery was attenuated by high levels of overall mobility. Mobility coupled with a lack of conflict over water resources, and lack of population density pressures more generally meant that prehistoric inhabitants of South Africa had few reasons to invest in infrastructure technologies for either the delivery of water or evacuation of waste. Jacobs (1996: 240) notes in relation to precolonial times: ‘In keeping with the logic of extensive food production, development of water resources was rudimentary, consisting of cultivators clearing fields in wet spots and digging holes in river beds in dry seasons for humans and stock.’ Important technologies related mainly to the conveyance and transport of water. Reportedly, Ostrich eggshells were widely used by the San as a piece of personal property and up to 24 shells could be carried in net when fresh water supplies low. More generally, animal bladders and gourds were also used as common conveyance tools. The study at Ulundi embraces and validates the hypothesis provided above. Although the order of events and time frame may differ as far as growth and evolution of water and sanitation technology is concerned, there is however a strong sense of commonality. The paragraph below provides some of the specific elements on water and sanitation growth and evolution. Although water transportation technology that existed in the indigenous Zulu era does not fit into the predefined western principles of technology; it however existed in its unique form and character. Water was fetched using gourds and sometimes ostrich eggs. Woman had

mastered a skill of carrying large quantities of water using these instruments. Traditional clay pots were used to store water. These pots were handmade using clay soil. The clay gave the pots a distinct cooling mechanism. Their unique oval shape ensured that crawling insects were unable to enter the water. The pots were covered at all times to prevent water from being polluted by household insects and household dirt. Water holes also tended to be left at distance from the settlement, so as not to disturb game, upon which these groups depended. This physical distance may be at the root of African women’s traditional collective culture and child rearing activities that get expressed around water sources, as well the learned skill of carrying large quantities of water in conveyance devices of varying size and quality balanced on the top of the head. Yet it has also been noted that, among some tribes at least, water was not a significant consideration when selecting settlement sites, taking secondary importance to the presence of thorn trees for fencing stock (Jacobs 1996; 240). Historically, the Zulu nation used different water sources for different purposes. Rivers were used as sources of washing and bathing water. Water from the rivers was not considered to be clean for drinking because animals drank and swam in rivers thus making water unsafe for human consumption. Fountains and springs were solely used for drinking and cooking water. The Zulu people believed that water from fountains and springs was purified by the soil. This highlights the extent at which they were comfortable with water from natural sources. During pre-colonial stage, there was no need to use any chemicals to clean or purify drinking water. Interestingly, in the collective memory of the Zulu people there are no historical records of water borne diseases experienced. Evolution of sanitation practices Haarhoff et al. (2007) note that there is no recorded toilet use in SA in the protohistorical record of the people of southern Africa. The earliest toilets recorded – in association with early colonial urbanization and homesteading - consisted of little more than a hole in the ground, with the first modern complex variant located at the castle of Good Hope in Cape Town, which provided shelter and protection to soldiers and administrative staff of the Dutch East India Company. According to the Zulu elders at Ulundi, indigenous Zulu people would dig for their excreta and bury it. It was never exposed on the surface. During the 1800s communities were dispersed as the result of battles and by the arrival of white settlers further distorted their ways of living. The way in which sanitation was practiced ultimately changed. People started establishing designated areas for human excreta. Dongas and the bush were used for this purpose. Dongas are big gully usually caused by erosion and some are natural. They are usually dry. Solid waste was automatically separated from liquid waste. Solid human excreta would dry and blend with soil or be washed away into the nearby river. With fountains and springs running dry, people became more dependent on rivers as the ultimate source of water. This eventually changed the way traditional people practiced sanitation. They began digging pit toilets. The emphasis on top structure is very recent. In earlier times, people were comfortable with their pits and the half built walls. Relationship between water and sanitation There has always been an intimate relationship between water and sanitation within the Zulu nation. People would wash their hands after visiting the ‘toilet’. There was always a clay basin

that was kept by the door of the hut for washing hands. Water was changed every day for hygienic purposes and this was mainly a woman’s responsibility. Even today Zulu women in rural areas are still responsible for the health and wellbeing of the family. All water and hygienic issues are seen as a responsibility of women in a Zulu traditional household. Women serve as pillars of knowledge system within a Zulu household. If hygienic challenges in water and sanitation are to be combated, women can play a huge role in ensuring that this happens. Water and society Population densities and consumption patterns did not stress the natural environment except in isolated cases, as Scarborough notes: ‘Even small, dispersed population can overuse a region’s initially abundant resources’ from a delimited territory. In South Africa community mobility obviated the need for more complex water resource management strategies. Where water scarcity persisted, Jacobs (1996: 239) notes, in relation to the Ts wana-speaking tribes of the dry North, for example: ‘despite the high regard for water, the response to water shortage was to conserve rather to invest labour to enhance the supply….[and in the colonial record] several travellers remarked how little water they drank’. Traditional Zulu societies lived in separate groupings. Population densities per hector were always low. There is no recorded resultant stress on environment and natural resources caused by high population densities. In terms of consumption patterns, Zulu people depended on hunting and farming as the way of life. Hunting predominated farming as source of food. Although livestock farming was important, its function was mainly to be expanded into a social asset and investment and not particularly a tool for basic household survival. According to the hypothesis given earlier, Zulu culture could be classified as a multitasking culture. It was dependent on flexibility rather than rigid ways of survival. Zulu peoples’ generalized knowledge of the environmental changes allowed them to adopt a multitasking logic of survival. Migration during dry seasons was characterized by a shift in consumption patterns. Livestock became the source of food during these dry seasons when fields could not produce enough crops. As a result, there is no evidence that the Zulu nation established any sort of technology to ensure that water was available during these times. There was no labour investment into water management systems and transportation systems by the society. Consequently, this has affected the current social perceptions and attitudes towards paying for water. The value of water supply infrastructure is therefore not recognized as something worth paying for The Zulu nation’s migration behavior was informed by the belief that they lived in a land of scattered riches and infinite variety; a land of plenty. Water scarcity was merely seen as a temporary phenomenon induced by seasonal changes. The idea of water as a scarce resource was remote. Water was always seen as a limitless resource. These perceptions generally informed peoples’ water conservation behavior patterns as well. In terms of water management systems, the Zulu society had no specific laws and regulations to ensure sustainable management of water resources and neither were there any institutions. However, culture, religion and social discipline were core elements of water resource management systems. Certain proverbs and mythology were used to protect water sources from being polluted. The effectiveness of these methods was based on social discipline and culture. Children were taught these myths and proverbs at a very young age. It was carried through as a social value system.

There is a very strong relationship between water and the society. The attitudes and behaviors in the society are informed by the manner in they relate to particular things. These form a set of socialization patterns against which the society base its decision making in relation to water and sanitation. Critical issues such as water conservation and water management are deeply embedded to social behavior. The above paragraph has attempted to dissect the complex realities which exist between water and society. Water knowledge systems Over the past fourteen thousand years, water started becoming scarce in central Southern Africa as lakes intermittently started drying up and desertification set in where there had previously been reasonable supplies of water. At the same time, population densities in Southern Africa remained low. Tempelhoff (2005: 131) notes a paucity of evidence of conflict, competition, or commodification related to water in the pre-colonial era. ‘When dry season set in, communities would be drawn closer to places where sustained supplies were available. Once these were exhausted, they would disperse in nuclear groups in the direction of places where sufficient water-supplies were available.” It is reported that during relatively sedentary periods, communal water sources tended to fall under the care of individuals charged with the legitimacy to take a leadership role, but that nevertheless these sources were free for all to use. Key links between knowledge and water involved first and foremost in-depth knowledge of the annual hydrological cycle (Jacobs 1996). Haarhoff et al. (2007: 133) note: The early indigenous nomads of South Africa had no need to construct elaborate water supply systems. When the very dry areas of the Northern Cape Province had good rains and vegetation the nomads moved in, and left when the drier seasons arrived. Similarly, Richards (in Scarborough 2004: 37) notes that, in general, African water systems relied primarily on the natural flow of water and minimal alteration to topography: There is no need to invest in complex water control schemes if the annual hydrological cycle will do the work unaided. The trick in the African case is to understand the complexities of this cycle, and to have a relevant range of crops and institutions for labour mobilization capable for responding to opportunities. Jacobs notes that ‘irrigation was unknown’, and typical knowledge consisted of sophisticated understanding of water sources, water bearing plants and ideal locations for shallow wells. Among the Bantu peoples, and as ‘a result of a large amounts of water required for pastoral farming, and the fact that communities of people and their livestock tended to lead nomadic life, the technology of digging and maintaining wells became a refined activity...They dug deep wells in the beds of streams. These only flowed periodically and were covered to prevent evaporation (Tempelhoff 2005: 136). Early colonial records also show San were “rewarded for the application of skills in the acquisition of water. For example, travellers into the interior of Southern Africa would take Khoi San workers who were familiar with the environment and who knew how to locate water supplies for them” (ibid: 134). Historically, indigenous Zulu people had an in-depth understanding of weather changes and could thus foresee any abnormalities in the four seasons of the year. Their predictions were based on in-depth knowledge systems inherited from their ancestors. When elders predicted weather anomalies they reacted by organising and executing uNomkhubulwane (Zulu

‘Princess of Rain’) ceremony. People today believe that uNomkhubulwane reacted s wiftly and rectified the abnormalities. Traditionally it was believed that fountains and springs were run eternally. When they did occasionally run dry, the elders from the community would meet and appoint representatives to communicate with uNomkhubulwane as mentioned above. Consequently, they felt no need to invest in any sort of complex water control mechanisms if traditional religious beliefs could help rectify any water related abnormalities. Indigenous practices today The arrival of Jan Van Riebeek in the Cape in April 6th of 1652 marked the beginning of colonial rule. The Dutch East India Company at first just wanted to farm a small area of land to grow crops and to obtain supplies of meat by trading with Khoikhoi (Website 2). For many reasons, the Dutch gradually moved to the East of South Africa in such of rich land “When they arrived in Natal in 1836 fierce battles with the Zulus were on the daily agenda, Durban was also frequently threatened by attacks. (Website 1). From this day onwards, colonial administration took control of the fertile and productive land from the hands of the Zulus. In a way it marked the beginning of segregation and it meant a change of lifestyle for the Zulus. Their traditional practices were heavily distorted. During the 1800 Zulus were subjected to endless battles with the English and the Dutch Settlers. These battles disturbed the manner in which Zulu people practiced their water and sanitation. It shifted the rigid traditional ways into mobility orientated practices. The English brought with them their western culture which infiltrated the indigenous Zulu culture and religion. Traditional ceremonies like uNomkhubulwane were abandoned as a result of the arrival of western religion and culture. Traditional mythology, although still used today, its impact was affected by the adoption of western education. At the pick of colonization in South Africa, blacks became subjects of forced removals. The economy of colonial South Africa was dependent on agriculture and trade. This meant that fertile and well watered land had to be utilised for economic purposes by the colonial administration. As the rich pieces of land were unfortunately occupied and owned by the black people of South Africa the colonial rulers had to confiscate it. Colonial administration and its policies did not recognise blacks as citizens with rights to own land. In a way, this period marked the beginning of segregation laws based on race and ethnicity. Further, during the late colonial period… Jacobs notes: the fact that African land use was extensive made confiscation of choice lands and water supplies easier. Moreover the outcome of segregation was environmental. Removals and resettlements forced people to adapt to different environments, and these adjustments exacted a high price from the victims… [E]nvironmental segregation involved the state taking from blacks well-watered parcels and sources of water and granting them to white people (2003: 148). There is no evidence that water and sanitation technologies categorically distinct from modern technologies emerge among African groups at this time. There is, however, ample evidence of resistance to both modern technologies and commensurate lifestyle changes, as well as indigenous uptake of western technologies for agricultural and domestic needs. Indigenous management systems are also disrupted by the spatial segregation and the truncation of subsistence strategies reliant on extensive resource use. This was accomplished mainly

through the application customary law and indirect rule, which often used colonially, installed ‘traditional rulers’ to negotiate shifting of ‘communal tenure’, where the state could ‘deal bluntly with communities rather than individuals who held rights to negotiate for them. Thus, eviction of thousands of people was inestimably easier than it would have been with individual tenure’ (Jacobs 2003: 149). As a result, the ‘legitimacy of traditional leadership is controversial because of the historical allegiances to traditional leaders under the apartheid regimes’ (Malzbender et al. 2005: 9). Observation and Findings Although water and sanitation was part of the everyday lives of indigenous Zulu people, it was not conceptualized as an important subject matter. Therefore, the relationship between water and sanitation was never defined as significant. However, water formed an integral part of indigenous Zulu nation. Almost every activity required water. It was a respected resource. This translated into making efforts to ensure that water sources were protected. Health hazards related to water and sanitation were not well understood. The intimacy of the relationship between water and sanitation was not entirely respected. It remains a challenge to diffuse knowledge about proper hygiene and waste disposal practices, and their relationship to health. Traditional learning systems and beliefs systems were appropriate to the balance of people/nature in the pre-colonial period and water pollution and waterborne illnesses were rare. These beliefs can be adapted to modern conditions and these traditional knowledge systems could be used to increase the awareness about the importance of saving water. There was no infrastructure, per se, used for transportation of water. Women and girl children were responsible for fetching water using traditional water conveyance technologies, such as clay pots. Infrastructure is not a well understood concept in some rural areas. As a result, many people here find it difficult to understand why they pay for water. They don’t understand the value added by infrastructure installation and maintenance. There was no technology responsible for the transportation of solid and liquid human waste. Liquid human waste was not seen as harmful and disgusting as was solid human waste. There is a close relationship between the use of water and traditional practices. It was believed that water was of unlimited supply and it was against cultural norms to expect any kind of payment or exchange to occur around water. Further traditional practices and events required a lot of water. Hence, South Africa’s Free Basic Water, confined to 25 liters per person per day challenges traditional use and beliefs. For instance, what happens to a family who solely depends on 200 liters of water a day when they have a traditional ceremony? The research has highlighted the importance of social research in developing and implementing sustainable and appropriate technologies in water and sanitation. It encourages people responsible for water and sanitation technology development to introduce technologies that are much closer to the people and their indigenous cultural practices. Its findings could go a long way in addressing acceptability challenges facing these technologies. The findings will also provide a benchmark on how to develop and implement water and sanitation technologies that respond directly to peoples’ needs

In terms of water and sanitation awareness programs it identifies women as the key role players within the Zulu household. Women in a Zulu culture are good disseminators and enforcers of values. They have an ability to install positive attitudes. This will be necessary in the delivery of water conservation campaigns and sanitation awareness campaigns. And any other water and sanitation related campaigns . Conclusion The paper attempts to explain attitudes, behaviors and perceptions towards water and sanitation. It outlines socialization issues that drive these attitudes, behaviors and perceptions. It enforces a need for a relationship between social research and scientific intervention. If innovative technologies are to play any major role in dramatically meeting the challenges facing water supply and sanitation delivery, social acceptability is crucial. The preliminary field research at Ulundi validated the hypothesis provided by the ANTINOMOS project. With the same token, the latter provided a conceptual framework for Ulundi preliminary field research. Growth and evolution of indigenous technologies was explored in a broader perspective and substantiated through the Ulundi field research. The paragraph on evolution of sanitation practices gave a broader framework and then narrowed it down to a specific case of the Ulundi field research. Basically, the similar trend was employed throughout the whole paper. Finally, paragraph on observations and findings highlighted some main issues in water and sanitation that arose from the Ulundi field research. It also drew some attention to acceptability challenges facing water and sanitation technologies and implementation. References 1. Diamond, Jared (2004) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking, 592p 2. Jacobs, Nancy (1996). The Flowing Eye: Water Management in the Upper Kuruman Valley, South Africa, c. 1800-1962, The Journal of African History, Vol 37, No. 2 (1996), 237-260. 3. Jacobs, Nancy (2003). Environment, Power and Injustice: a South African History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 300p 4. Haarhoff, Johannes, Petri Juuti & Harri Mäki (2007) A Short Comparative History of Wells and 5. Toilets in South Africa and Finland, in Petri Juuti, Tapio Katko, Harri Mäki, Ezekiel Nyangeri 6. Nyanchaga, Sanna-Leena Rautanen and Heikki Vuorinen (eds). Governance in Water Sector – 7. Comparing development in Kenya, Nepal, South Africa and Finland, Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press, ePublications, pp. 128-148 8. Juuti Petri, Tapio Katko, Harri Mäki, Ezekiel Nyangeri Nyanchaga, Sanna-Leena Rautanen and Heikki Vuorinen (eds) (2007). Governance in Water Sector – Comparing

development in Kenya, Nepal, South Africa and Finland, Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press, ePublications, 191p 9. Malzbender, Daniel, Jaqui Goldin, Anthony Turton and Anton Earle (2005). Traditional Water Governance and South Africa’s “National Water Act” – Tension or Cooperation? International workshop on African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa, 26-28 January, Johannesburg, South Africa 10. Scarbourough, Vernon (2003). The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes. Sante Fe, New Mexico, USA: School of American Research, 204p 11. Tempelhoff, Johann (2005) The Commodification of Water in the Arid and Semi-Arid Parts of 12. South Africa: A Preliminary Historical Exploration, Historia, 50, 1, May, 123-146 13. Younger, Paul (2004). “Making Water”: the hydrogeological adventures of Britain’s early mining engineers, in JD Mather (ed), 200 years of British Hydrogeology, London: Geological Society, 121-157 Internet sources: 14. Website 1: http://www.southafrica-travel.net/history/eh_natal.htm 15. Website 2 : http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126261/early_colonial_period.htm