Is the singular focus on toilet construction creating newer waste disposal problems for Indian cities? asks Sukrit Nagpal, who was involved in supporting local communities to undertake participatory settlement enumeration and sanitation surveys through PRIA’s Engaged Cities Responsive City initiative.
On October 2nd, 2018 the Swacch Bharat Mission (SBM) completed its fourth year. A host of cities raced to declare themselves as open defecation free (ODF), and some states claimed to be constructing more than 4,000 toilets a day. The Prime Minister recently stated that more than 90% households in India now have toilets, and while some raise doubts about this figure, there are few who would disagree about the momentum the mission has generated and the fact that toilet coverage has greatly increased in India.
Toilets are prerequisites for safety, dignity, and hygiene, especially for women. This explains SBM’s mission-oriented, singular focus on asset (toilet) creation, and while praising the attempt to bring toilets within the reach of each household, it is worth examining the problems this approach creates. In the context of the SBM, the failure to look beyond toilet provisioning has been discussed in abundance. Based on aspects like a lack of focus on water supply for toilets, critics have argued that the SBM should have taken up a more holistic approach. Water supply, however, is a visible problem, that can be corrected at an eventual stage. The focus of this post is on fecal sludge management (FSM), as a component of the scheme.
What happens when you flush your toilet? If you live in the posh planned localities of certain tier 1 cities such as Delhi, chances are that a centralised sewerage system whisks away toilet waste via large underground pipes to a sewerage treatment plant (STP) where it is treated. Many Indian cities however, do not have provisions for centralised sewerage systems. Sewerage systems are difficult to maintain and exceedingly expensive to construct, especially when introduced to larger cities. In such situations, alternatives in the form of on-site sanitation systems (known as FSM) are utilised. These decentralised systems include septic tanks, soak pits, and pit latrines. They are localised and installed underground for single or multiple household use. Sewage is collected, allowed to decompose, and eventually emptied when the tank fills up.
Delving into the state of three tier 2 cities of India where sewerage is not available, FSM systems are bringing forth newer problems. We will soon require a parallel, separate mission to solve these issues. I make these arguments based on data from citywide household surveys conducted by Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA).
In the cities of Ajmer (Rajasthan), Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh), and Muzaffarpur (Bihar), reliance on septic tanks is upwards of 85%, extending to 98% in Muzaffarpur. Under the SBM, neither is there any dissemination of knowledge on the management of FSM, nor have municipalities invested in safe waste transportation and treatment. Across the three cities, more than 51% of households responded saying their septic tanks had never been cleaned, suggesting the likelihood of tanks overflowing and contaminating groundwater. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of monitoring at the stage of toilet construction. The SBM subsidy is a meagre amount that cannot fulfil the cost of toilet and septic tank construction. Consequently, households and contractors innovate methods to reduce costs. Most septic tanks are thus not built as per norms, and to prevent them from filling up quickly, are connected to open drain systems creating unhygienic conditions for the city.
In the case of households that had got septic tanks cleaned, an approximate 60% utilised private services. Anecdotal evidence suggests that households turn to private players as they offer cheaper services. In the absence of enforcements, toilet waste is eventually dumped in water bodies and on empty plots, leading to large scale contamination. Unfortunately, mere regulations will not fix the problem as municipalities too do not have the required infrastructural capacities in the form of trucks and STPs. Even if they desired, the ability to provide septic tank management services to the entire city is beyond current capacities.
The SBM paints an astonishing contrast. On one end, massive visible change is being witnessed in our villages and cities and, on the other, a brazen invisible disregard for the environment, on the hope that what is hidden will not make itself seen soon enough. It begs the dangerous question: Is SBM solving the problem of open defecation, or just creating larger open ‘dumps’ for another mission to take up later?
