Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban,...

Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9

Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives onpotable wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa

Zoë Wilsona*, Bill Pfaffb

aPollution 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, USATel. +27 (031) 260 2917; email: [email protected], [email protected]

beThekwini 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 ofpolitical, cultural, religious, ethnic and environmental groups who might hold deep philosophical objections to wastewaterreuse. 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 Durbanwith — specifically — religious or philosophical objections to the potable reuse of wastewater. The goal was to gainknowledge of the presence of related “show stopping” objections likely to emerge out of Durban’s diverse communitiesshould eThekwini Municipality (formerly City of Durban) embark upon a more comprehensive feasibility study ofwastewater recycling to potable standards. This study was conducted in four stages: 1) literature review, (2) email surveyto international experts, (3) local qualitative interviews, and (4) focus group discussion. The main findings of the studyare: (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 aroundequity/justice issues. In general, people are not comfortable with the idea of potable water recycling. People interviewedexpressed that potable reuse was something they could consider with more information, understanding, and satisfactoryquality assurance. By contrast, in a mixed focus group setting, a small and diverse group gravitated towards concerns thatpotable reuse shifted the burdens of inequitable and unjust water allocation patterns (residual from apartheid) to those wholeast benefited from the current system. Most people expressed a willingness to reject potable water reuse on the groundsthat other interventions were possible that had better equity implications. This is echoed in the broader acceptabilityliterature, which suggests that people feel that water reuse initiatives should start with big users and industry beforehouseholds. Consensus converged around potable reuse as a last resort, indicating that potable reuse was “thinkable”, butnot to maintain existing patterns of allocation and use.

Keywords: Recycling; Acceptability; Wastewater disposal; South Africa

*Corresponding author.

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.07.0220011-9164/08/$– See front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–92

1. Context

A new democratic system of municipalauthority for the City of Durban and surroundingareas was ushered in by the December 5, 2000,local government elections. In 1994, South Africaheld its first democratic multi-racial elections andin 1996, the country began a broad nation-widetransformation of the municipal system. The goalwas to create a wall-to-wall de-centralized systemout of the fragmentary and authoritarian apartheidspatial legacy. eThekwini municipality emergedfrom this process in 2000 from a series of boun-dary re-demarcations and transitional governancearrangements. The new boundaries reflect bothDurban’s dominant economic and political posi-tion in the sub-region, as well as the functionalinterdependencies between the region’s economiccore and previously marginalized areas underapartheid. It also reflects an effort to re-distributeresources from the relatively affluent core to theunder-serviced and economically dependent peri-pheries. A key feature of this re-demarcation isthe inclusion of a sizeable tract of rural andsparsely settled former Traditional Lands, in-creasing the land mass by 68%, while adding 9%to the population. The municipality now coversan area of 2297 km2 [1]. The population ofDurban is approximately 3 million, the majorityof which are African, mainly of Zulu decent. The2000 census identified 63% of the population asAfrican, 22% Asian, 3% Coloured and 11%white. eThekwini is currently working to elimi-nate a water service backlog of 73,500 house-holds and sanitation backlog of 187,000 house-holds. Massive expansion in water demand in thearea means that ‘system demand already exceedscapacity’ and new dams are under immediateconsideration [2].

This study pertained to the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment for the Tongati Estuary [3],identified as a possible outflow for additionalwastewaters generated by new developments inthe northern part of the municipality — including

a new airport and trade port. Potable re-use isalso under consideration as a means to alleviateresource scarcity. Thus, the primary driver forconsidering reuse was environmental, in terms ofidentifying a more sustainable wastewater option,with an eye to deferring new dams.

This preliminary social feasibility study wasconducted to determine if deep religious or philo-sophical objections were present and intractable,such that wastewater recycling could not be con-sidered as an environmental initiative at this time.It is emphasized that while factors other thanenvironmental sensibilities, religious convictionor philosophical beliefs may, ultimately, be moreimportant in determining people’s attitudestowards potable reuse, this study pertains only tothese factors.

2. Methodology

The use of multiple data collection strategiesreflects an attempt to compare different types andsources of information against others as a bestmeans to comprehensively cover a broad, varied,and rapidly changing field (triangulation). Fur-ther, early on it was concluded that no localstudies could be identified. To fill this gap, theresearch strategy sought to compare internationalbest practice around public perceptions withbeliefs and values held by local groups. Thus, thestudy is based on literature review supplementedby an email survey to regional and internationalexperts, qualitative interviews with local religiouscouncils, environmental groups, and finally, amixed focus group.

3. Literature review: key factors affectingsocial acceptability

The literature review indicates that plannedand unplanned potable recycling are on theincrease, driven mainly by water scarcity (wherethis causes reliance on imported sources) and, to

Z. Wilson, B. Pfaff / Desalination 228 (2008) 1–9 3

a much lesser extent, by attempts to manage thequality of wastewater by downstream users [4–6].Marks has also noted that “in the USA andAustralia, an earlier goal is still relevant today,and that is to eliminate costly improvements tosewage treatment infrastructure by substitutingeffluent reuse for environmental discharges andalso to capitalize on the value of the higherquality effluent imposed by regulatory authori-ties” [7]. This latter rationale was applicable inthis case, with an added emphasis on environ-mental protection and deferring major capitalexpansion.

Public perceptions around wastewater reuseare among the most intractable implementationbarriers. A large number of initiatives have beenterminated over the years. Marks, examiningeight well known cases, notes, “[d]espite assur-ance of safety, in all cases except Orange County,the proposals met with public opposition andwere either shelved or withdrawn.” Marks arguesfurther that “a lack of transparency at the earliestplanning stages, and limited community outreach,characterizes the public consultation efforts ateach of these sites.” Even where public outreachwas significant, as in the Denver case, consensuswas sought too early with “emphasis…placed onmarketing the proposal, rather than keeping thepublic fully informed and offering deliberativeconsultation.” Further, Marks notes, there was an“obvious” effort not to educate the public aboutother water reuse schemes. “Therefore the oppor-tunity to establish transparency and public fami-liarity with existing potable reuse processes wasmissed” [7].

Po et al., by contrast, attribute failure in theDenver case to the scheme’s politicization [8]:“Despite a strong support from a wide variety ofcommunity organizations, the project became en-tangled in political campaigns which eventuallycaused the whole project to be halted. The cam-paigns claimed the city intended to take waste-water from affluent communities to distribute toas drinking water to those less affluent, and

health dangers from the project were specificallyhighlighted.”

Early strategic errors may have laid thegroundwork for easy politicization, as widespreadgroups felt ill-informed, disgruntled or mani-pulated, and therefore were amenable to support-ing and being persuaded by political processesthat would halt implementation.

Early indications also suggested that adherentsto the Islamic faith may hold religious beliefsantithetical to wastewater reuse. This was ofparticular interest in that Durban is home to manyadherents of the Islamic faith. As Faruqui et al.note, “it is common to hear Muslims declare thatwaste-water reuse is undesirable, or even haraam[unlawful according to Islam]” [9]. Yet, overall,the literature review failed to support this. Whileno Islamic country is currently practicing potablereuse, some practice non-potable reuse anddesalination is also increasingly practiced. Theseminal edited volume Water Management inIslam notes:

“[R]eusing wastewater is not haraam, pro-vided that it will not cause harm. After a detailedstudy, in consultation with scientists and engi-neers, the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars(CLIS) in Saudi Arabia concluded in a specialfatwa in 1978 that treated wastewater can theo-retically be used even for wudu and drinking,provided that it presents no health risk (CLIS1978)” [9].

While a fatwa, by nature, is local and refer-enced to a specific situation, this fatwa couldprovide guidance to other Islamic groups con-fronting similar issues.

Instead of religious objections, the literaturepoints to 10 key factors influencing the accept-ability of wastewater recycling [8]:C Disgust or “yuk” factorC Perceptions of riskC Uses of recycled waterC Sources of recycled waterC Perceptions of choiceC Trust in authorities and scientific knowledge


C Attitudes towards the environmentC Justice/fairnessC Cost/benefitC Socio-demographic factors

In sum, to date, published case studies suggestthat people are most likely to accept potablewastewater recycling where there is a compellingand well-known water scarcity crisis or watersecurity driver. People are unlikely to approve ifwater demand-management (especially for largeusers) and equity issues are not squared [8,10,11]. However, all ten key perception issues arerelevant to acceptance. In particular, issues oftrust and risk must be thoroughly addressed andconcerns around operation, maintenance andregulatory frameworks as well as other risks suchas health will be paramount. It is important tonote however, that perceptions of risk and trustare bound up in other issues. Po et al., forexample, note that perception of benefit affectsperception of risk. If the benefits perceived arelow or negligible, then risks are perceived ashigher [8].

4. Email survey

An email survey was sent out to approxi-mately 50 international experts identified throughthe literature review. The introduction to thesurvey defined the purpose as scholarly exchangein a rapidly changing field. Reponses are nottaken to be representative or accurate. Rather,responses are a supplement to several other datacollection strategies in an effort to tap the cuttingedge and personal knowledge of key peopleworking in the field. In particular, we sought tosurface any knowledge of specific cultural,religious or philosophical objections to waste-water recycling — even if anecdotal — as yetunpublished or otherwise not widely known. Wealso hoped to surface news of any instances ofdirect potable reuse on the horizon.

This exercise confirmed that there was a senseamong some experts that adherents to Islam maybe more likely to reject recycled potable reusethan other groups. One respondent, however, sur-faced comprehensive research refuting this belief,which ultimately squared with both the broaderliterature review and local qualitative interviewswith Islamic organizations.

Responses also highlighted a range of“emotional” issues that were unrelated to religion,philosophy or conscience but which may beintractable. For example, as one respondent notes:“I believe many people might be willing to drinkfrom untreated, contaminated well water that isconsidered ‘natural’, but would not trust directreuse water.” Qualitative interviews and focusgroup discussion also flagged social justice as animportant potential rejection trigger, and severalrespondents also indentified these issues. Theresponse rate was approximately 25%.

5. Qualitative interviews

Unstructured and open-ended qualitative inter-views were conducted with representatives ofeight local faith and environmentalist groups toexplore what, if any, are their respective faith/conscience-based objections to potable water re-use. This was a preliminary rapid assessment tosurface evidence of immune response to the ideaof potable reuse among these groups.

The goal of the interviews was to identify pre-existing judgements and/or gut reactions. Thus,the project introduction was brief so as not tosway or influence perceptions. The introductionincluded project drivers (wastewater manage-ment, environmental integrity of Tongati Estu-ary), technological feasibility, and internationalcases. It was clarified that recycled water meanthousehold and possibly industrial wastewatertreated to potable water standards. Participantswere asked to talk about any conscience-based orreligious objections they or their organization


may have bearing on the potable use of recycledwater.

5.1. Islamic perspectives

Key findings were that no theological, reli-gious or ethical “show stopping” objections towastewater recycling were raised. Representa-tives from the Islamic Propagation Centre Inter-national and Council of Muslim Theologiansnoted that the Koran makes reference to waterquality on a number of occasions and concernsarise around purity and impurity. Urine andfaeces are “totally impure” or “absolute im-purity”. However, the Koran allows that impuritycan be diluted. For example, bodies of waterlarger than 10 m2 can tolerate a small amount ofcontamination. Recycling also raised the ques-tion: can something that is impure, become pureagain? Islam takes into account that things canchange their form, complete metamorphosis [12].The Koran also speaks to the colour, taste andsmell of water and the representative of theCouncil, in particular, noted that Muslims can behighly sensitive to slight variations in taste, whichis taken as a key indication of contamination.Representatives from the Dawah Movement,however, suspected that Durban already recycledwater, and presented a philosophical stance thathuman waste should be utilized to the benefit ofhumanity and concluded that “from the Islamicpoint of view there is no problem with recycledwater”.

5.2. Environmental sympathies

Sympathy for perceived positive environ-mental outcomes was strong among some groups,especially the Dawah Movement, BuddhistCentre and Hindu Temple. The former two, forexample, expressed strong aversion to “environ-mental destruction” and believed in “non-harmfulness and protection of the environmentand all living things”. The Hindu Temple noted

that god lives through five elements, sky, wind,fire, earth and water. The human and naturalworlds are seen in symbolic sympathy and con-cerns for health of the environment stronglyexpressed. Concerns about polluted and impurewater were also high, and the representativesuggested that many people do not eat fish inDurban due to concerns about the levels ofpollution in the ocean.

5.3. Process and compromise

Both the Buddhist Centre and the InternationalPropagation Centre, in particular, also offeredthat according to the practice of their faith,solutions were expected to be the result of thebest possible compromise. Solutions were neverpristine or perfect. In this sense, the processfollowed to reach compromise — an open, honestand fair process — was critically important.

5.4. Risk and trust

Despite the narrow focus of the subject of theinterview, most participants mentioned their per-sonal concerns about consultative processes andmunicipal competence. The Baptist Church repre-sentative, for example, noted that wastewaterrecycling was not a spiritual issue for Christians,later also confirmed by the focus group represen-tative for the Diakonia Christian Council. Rather,it was a “practical issue.” The minister expressedhis “personal reservations.” “How certain can webe about the quality?” Further, he was concernedabout the long-term prognosis of municipal capa-city, pointing to recent power outages and decay-ing infrastructure as incidences contributing tothe erosion of trust. The Buddhist Centre parti-cipant also expressed personal concerns aboutstandards and procedures being maintained overtime. “How will the plant run in thirty yearstime?” An Earthlife representative also expressedconcerns about “breakdowns over time.”


In sum, issues raised tend to cluster around“risk perception” and “perceived outcomes”, witha strong identification with positive environ-mental outcomes balanced against perceptions ofrisk rooted in concerns about municipal compe-tence, especially over time. The lack of spon-taneous discussion around the other issues mightcorrelate to an overall unfamiliarity with thetopic. People interviewed have not, as yet, formu-lated more comprehensive opinions or developedentrenched positions. This in itself was an impor-tant finding.

6. Focus group

The objectives of the focus group were: Bringtogether diverse points of knowledge and aware-ness; bring a diversity of perspectives into dia-logue, and; explore how the consumption ofrecycled water fits with “bedrock” principlesassociated with different ways of seeing andbeing in the world.

Four people present were part of the initialqualitative interview phase. Six further partici-pants were invited to represent diverse points ofknowledge from the area, including people activein local political and environmental debates, aswell as overlapping categories of diversity, suchas faith, ethnicity, race, gender, and socio-economic status and education level attained [13].Two further people present were part of theeThekwini Water and Sanitation project team.

Again, a short introduction to “the situation”was provided. Participants were also introducedto the ten key factors influencing acceptability.After some early discussion and points of clari-fication, where two members of the groupexpressed high levels of concern about the equityand environmental justice issues associated withwater management in the catchment in general,good discussion followed around four questions:

1. From your religious, philosophical ororganizational perspective, what are the keyissues around potable water reuse?

2. From an ethical or justice perspective whatare the key issues?

3. From your personal experience of waterand sanitation services in Durban, what are thekey issues?

4. From an economic or cost/benefit perspec-tive, what are the key issues?

The focus group did not surface any religiousor faith-based objections to wastewater recycling.Issues of justice and equity were discussed atlength. In general, people present were amenableto seeing the question of wastewater recycling inthe context of historical inequities and inheritedmisallocation of resources/subsidies. Further,despite efforts to steer discussion back to issuesof wastewater management, discussion gravitatedtowards water scarcity.

As a water scarcity issue, two key justice/equity themes emerged. First, wastewater recy-cling was easily understood as a cost levied onthose who benefit least from the existing alloca-tion of resources and subsidies. That is, waterscarcity is the result of apartheid era inequitiesstill embedded in water use patterns and thus “thesituation” is amenable to pro-poor and ecologi-cally-minded demand-management initiatives.Intervention, then, was not required at the end-of-the-pipe, but elsewhere in catchment managementto offset existing “cross-subsidization from thepoor to the rich”. This applied at multiple scales,from swimming pools and personal gardens toindustrial pollution and unmonitored agriculturaluse. Second, most agreed that the population wasnot enabled and empowered through educationand information to make decisions about demandmanagement or moreover to make informed deci-sions about where in the system an intervention isbest made [14].

Participants also brought a range of personalexperiences to the table. One participant notedthat in her area, the level of knowledge aboutmunicipal water systems in general was low.Voters were easily swayed by political campaigns


promising free and unlimited tap water. Electionresults swing back and forth between AfricanNational Congress (ANC) and Inkatha FreedomParty (IFP) councillors, each in turn promisingfree unlimited water and losing subsequent elec-tions after having failed to deliver. Anotherparticipant made reference to water shortages inthe 1980s where the city was able to successfullyrestrict households to 400 L/d as evidence thatdemand management was possible. Othersbrought more systems-level knowledge, with aspecific emphasis on inadequacies of catchmentmanagement. For example, concerns were ex-pressed about the lack of monitoring of bore-holes, illegal dams and over-abstraction by his-torically advantaged users. Also, cost/benefitconcerns existed around the amount of energyrequired to recycle water versus the fossil fueloutputs from coal burning energy plants and theequity propositions of existing subsidy andpricing models.

In sum, the focus group confirmed that thereis good reason to believe that there are no reli-gious, faith or conscious-based objectives torecycled water likely to interfere with the imple-mentation of wastewater recycling. Factorsaffecting acceptability are most likely to hinge onthe ability of the scheme to answer its critics onequity and justice terms and avoid politicization[15].

7. Related studies

eThekwini Water and Sanitation (EWS), inpartnership with University of KwaZulu Nataland Department for International Development(DFID), recently embarked upon a process tobuild standing consultative groups in three pilotareas. A further seven areas are underway. Thegoal of this project is to better understand custo-mer perceptions across a range of themes ineThekwini’s highly differentiated communities

Table 1Results from three area survey (in %)

Agree Disagree Don’t know No answer

Recycled water that EWS has treated with professionalhigh-quality treatment and is scientifically proven safefor drinking is okay for drinking:

Mlazi 50 33 15 2 KwaMashu 75 19 6 Newlands East 57 36 8 I am concerned about the environment: Mlazi 88 8 4 KwaMashu 93 4 4 Newlands East 90 8 2 I conserve and recycle water when possible: Mlazi 79 21 KwaMashu 79 21 Newlands East 65 32 3 Water is a scarce resource: Mlazi 52 38 10 KwaMashu 59 36 2 4 Newlands East 50 24 26


munities and create a mechanism for sustainabletwo way dialogue [14]. In the initial phases ofthis project, a questionnaire was administered toa selected sample of people living and working inthe areas who have a professional stake in com-munity health and well-being, such as clinicworkers, teachers, crèche caregivers, small busi-ness owners, as well as non-governmental organi-zations and political representatives. Four ques-tions in that survey are of interest here in terms ofperceptions around environmental sustainabilityand potable reuse (Table 1).

8. Key findings/recommendations

C No evidence was found to support the propo-sition that adherents to Islam reject potablereuse on religious grounds. No other groupswere found to have religious or conscience-based restrictions on the consumption ofrecycled water.

C Potable recycling appears amenable to poli-ticization in Durban. In particular, the terrainof debate shifts easily to water scarcity andfrom there to allocative injustice.

C The wastewater management case for potablereuse may require a different approach thancases 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 beuseful.

C Justice and equity concerns appear to be highin Durban. The best possible compromise willclearly appear to improve the distribution ofresources and the quality of service for thepoor.

C Costs must be borne by those who benefit.The effects of potable reuse cannot be seen tobe borne disproportionately by the poor ordisadvantaged.

C Environmental concerns appear to be high.Sustainability would be a cornerstone of thebest possible compromise.

C Strong concerns exist around technologicalcompetence and operation and maintenanceover time. Power outages and decay in muni-cipal services in some areas may be contri-buting to erosion of trust.

C People appear to be more comfortable withunplanned reuse than planned reuse. Globally,humanity is labouring under a host of flawedassumptions about natural resources that wehave inherited from a less informed past.These are difficult to change.

C People, in general, have not formed compre-hensive opinions or entrenched positions. Toavoid politicization a foundation of compre-hensive knowledge in the community must bebuilt. Do not seek consensus too early.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge ChrisBuckley, John Harrison and Sofie Lindegaardefor invaluable contributions to this study, as wellas for comments by anonymous reviewers.

The research assistance of Eleanor Hazell,Wiseman Luthuli, Scebi Mkhize and JasonMusyoka is acknowledged for the Related Studiesportion of this paper.

References

[1] eThekwini Water and Sanitation Unit, Water Ser-vices 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 proposedexpansion of wastewater treatment capacity in thenorthern area of the municipality, 2007 (prepared by:Kwezi V3 engineers).

[4] V. Aravinthan, Reclaimed wastewater as resource forsustainable water management, Southern Engineer-ing Conference—Managing Resources for a Sustain-able Future, Toowoomba, Australia, 2005.

[5] D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, J. De Koning, D. Joksimovic,


D. Savic, T. Wintgens and T. Melin, Waste waterreuse in Europe, Desalination, (2006) 89–101.

[6] US Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines forWater Reuse, Chapter 8, Water reuse outside the US,US Agency for International Development, Wash-ington, DC, 2004.

[7] J. Marks, Taking the public seriously: The case ofpotable and non potable reuse, Desalination, 187(2005) 137–147.

[8] M. Po, J. Kaercher and B.E. Nancarrow, Literaturereview of factors influencing public perceptions ofwater reuse, Australian Research Centre for Water inSociety CSIRO Land and Water, 2004.

[9] N. Faruqui, A.K. Biswas and M.J. Bino, WaterManagement in Islam, United Nations University,Tokyo, 2001.

[10] P. du Pisani, Direct reclamation of potable water atWindhoek Goreangab reclamation plant, Desali-nation, 188 (2006) 79–88.

[11] Cf. in Australian case: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bracks-backs-away-from-effluent-plan/2007/01/29/1169919245340.html, accessedFebruary 15, 2007.

[12] Concern was raised about whether it can be shownthat in recycled water all of the components of urineand feces are gone. This is not straightforward, asbasic components of these substances are also pre-sent in a wide variety of compounds, the basiccomponents of which may be natural and healthyelements 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-solvingin municipal water services: Background to a threearea pilot in South Africa, Water SA, submitted forpublication.

Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban,...

Documents

Transcript of Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable wastewater reuse in Durban,...