In South Africa the move towards universal access has improved since 1994, but the census showed that 5.2% of households still do not have access. And a deeper reading into the statistics shows that a further 21% do not have access to an acceptable level of toilets.
The Water Services Act states that, "everyone has a right of access to basic water supply and basic sanitation". After several court cases and departmental pronouncements, this basic sanitation has been defined as to either be in the form of a flush toilet or a ventilated toilet.
In its headline pronouncements about sanitation, government says that 13% of people do not have any access to any kind of toilet. And a further 2.1% are using the bucket system. This makes sanitation the one millenium development goal that the country is having a hard time meeting.
Last year we saw the municipal election turn into the saga of open toilets. As a result the department of human settlements, which runs sanitation, asked a task team to tour the country and find out more about the situation. When he presented this report, Tokyo Sexwale, its minister, was adamant that sanitation would take centre stage in future infrastructure rollouts.
"It's a critical basic need, the first line of dignity of any human being that we take for granted as we open taps in our houses and as you flush toilets," he said. The report found that the backlog sits at 2.5-million toilets.
Census 2011 showed that progress has been made to giving universal sanitation. About 57% of households have access to a flush toilet that is connected to the sewage system; 3% to a toilet with a septic tank; 2.5% to a chemical toilet; and 8.8% to a pit toilet with ventilation.
This is nearly 69% of the population, and the number stood at 58.6% when the last census was done in 2001.
But 19% have access to a pit toilet without ventilation. In the statistics this is seen as having been served. But these toilets are a huge problem. The ventilation pipe at the back allows for air to circulate, this helps break down the sludge inside the toilet, stops flies from picking up and spreading disease, and importantly removes the smell. Without this, most nongovernmental organisations say that people do not use the toilets.
A further 2.1% have to use the notorious bucket system, which government had promised to eradicate over a decade ago.
When sanitation was still under water affairs, one of the taglines for the service was, "It should never be forgotten that 'Sanitation is Dignity' and dignity is a basic human right."
The problem with these toilets, and flush toilets that block and also do not provide proper access, is evident throughout the country. And the statistics are constantly questioned. In the case of Khayelitsha, Cape Town, the number of people who have "access" to a toilet is relatively high. But access just means that people have a toilet that has been provided in their area. It does not take into account that the toilets can break or fill up or that one toilet can serve up to 50 people.
Gavin Silber, coordinator of the Khayelitsha-based Social Justice Coalition, said in a recent visit that what is deemed to be access and the reality are very different. "On paper they say they have reached their targets and given an acceptable level of service. But you come here and you can see that many of these toilets just don't work and you have dozens of people using one toilet. There is a big discrepancy," he said.
Jack Sim, founder of the World Toilet Organisation, which will be hosting the World Toilet Summit in Durban next month has said initiatives to tackle people's lack of access to proper sanitation were not enough.
"The reasons for such neglect are numerous. Part of it has to do with the fact that sanitation is considered a taboo subject; other reasons rest on demographic and population shifts; and others still rest on the fact that little investment has reached those who need it most due to mismanagement," he said.
A report published earlier this year for the Human Rights Commission, done after the open toilet saga by the department of performance monitoring and evaluation, found that service delivery was not fast enough. While 300 000 toilets were being delivered per annum, this rate would not achieve the target of universal access by 2014, it said.
The report laid heavy blame on the fragmentation of sanitation services – it now formally resides in human settlements, but there are parts in water affairs and other parts in education and local government. "The challenge of institutional fragmentation needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency," it said. And it recommended a single unit be established to oversee policy formulation, oversight and regulation. This should be based in water affairs, it said.
2011年5月15日星期日
Omaha man uses billboards in fight to keep solar panels
The Omaha resident has turned a dispute with his neighborhood association into a public battle, putting up billboards, launching a website and taking to social media to publicize a lawsuit filed against him over the installation of solar panels on the roof of his home near Lake Zorinsky.
"It's not about money," Adams, 49, said. "It's about sticking up for principles. If it's about spending tens of thousands of dollars educating people, I will do it."
Adams, an orthodontist who lives in the upscale home with his wife and their eight children, said he didn't know he needed permission from the South Shore Heights Homeowners Association before putting up the $39,000 panels last fall. He made the decision, in part, because he wanted to switch to renewable energy and save money on his electricity bills. Adams said the panels are generating more than enough electricity to power his home and he's saving enough on energy bills to have his investment returned in 10 to 12 years.
That's if he's allowed to keep them.
The homeowners association that governs 226 homes asked Adams to take them down. He's refused, so the association got permission from its membership to take him to court. A lawsuit was filed in late March in Douglas County District Court.
Adams violated the association's rules — or covenants — that requires its permission before exterior home improvements or additions.
Al Williams, president of the homeowners association, declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but said residents are given copies of the neighborhood rules each year in their handbook, so they should know what they can and can't do. The rules were last renewed in 2006 and govern house size, improvements such as swimming pools, dog houses and flag poles, and storage of boats, campers and lawn mowers, among other things, in an attempt to protect home values.
Adams has pleaded ignorance of the rules. He's sought to drum up support to keep the solar panels and draw attention to the lawsuit through a barrage of letters to his neighbors, billboards posted at high-traffic intersections in Omaha and an online campaign that includes a website, Facebook page and Twitter account.
"This is a problem throughout the nation, where people want to put up solar panels but someone says they're ugly," Adams said.
Williams said there are homeowners in the association on both sides of the issue, and it's causing some friction.
"I don't wish this on any neighborhood," he said.
The Nebraska Energy Office does not keep track of the number of homes that generate solar power. Spokesman Jerry Loos said there is no permit process and homeowners aren't required to notify the state.
Loos said he wasn't aware of any specific disputes between Nebraska homeowners and their neighborhood associations over solar energy devices but noted such disputes aren't uncommon elsewhere.
Almost half of states have laws protecting homeowners' rights to install and operate solar energy devices, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Nebraska is not among them, but it does have a law allowing for easements and zoning variances to accommodate solar projects.
A handful of U.S. cities, including Madison, Wis., have passed local ordinances protecting homeowners' rights to solar access. Omaha's planning department is updating the city's master plan, and among the suggested changes is revising city codes to protect solar access. Adams' media blitz asks supporters to contact Omaha officials and push for such an ordinance.
Some of Adams' neighbors don't think solar panels are the real issue in his dispute with the homeowners association. They said it's really about being a good neighbor.
Wayne Gill, whose house faces Adams' solar panels, said: "Unfortunately, this has turned into an issue about solar power, when it's really about your neighbors and taking them into account before doing something."
He said he doesn't mind the solar panels and "when I first saw them up, I said, 'That's cool.'" But, he added, Adams didn't get permission to put them up and he never apologized for doing so.
Another neighbor, Jonathan McIntosh, said he doesn't think the association would have approved the solar panels had Adams sought permission. He said the rules are in place to protect the integrity and value of the neighborhood, and Adams is compromising that.
"It damages the neighborhood," he said. "If you don't have those covenants in place, you get a free-for-all. I don't want that. We have a great neighborhood."
Adams agreed that the dispute isn't really about installing solar panels without permission. He said he feels his homeowners association has been lax in enforcing its rules in the past but it is compelled to fight him after receiving a written complaint from another homeowner.
"It's about using this as a platform to reassert their authority," Adams said. "They're taking on the wrong case. Go after someone who's not cutting their grass or (is) putting up faulty siding."
"It's not about money," Adams, 49, said. "It's about sticking up for principles. If it's about spending tens of thousands of dollars educating people, I will do it."
Adams, an orthodontist who lives in the upscale home with his wife and their eight children, said he didn't know he needed permission from the South Shore Heights Homeowners Association before putting up the $39,000 panels last fall. He made the decision, in part, because he wanted to switch to renewable energy and save money on his electricity bills. Adams said the panels are generating more than enough electricity to power his home and he's saving enough on energy bills to have his investment returned in 10 to 12 years.
That's if he's allowed to keep them.
The homeowners association that governs 226 homes asked Adams to take them down. He's refused, so the association got permission from its membership to take him to court. A lawsuit was filed in late March in Douglas County District Court.
Adams violated the association's rules — or covenants — that requires its permission before exterior home improvements or additions.
Al Williams, president of the homeowners association, declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but said residents are given copies of the neighborhood rules each year in their handbook, so they should know what they can and can't do. The rules were last renewed in 2006 and govern house size, improvements such as swimming pools, dog houses and flag poles, and storage of boats, campers and lawn mowers, among other things, in an attempt to protect home values.
Adams has pleaded ignorance of the rules. He's sought to drum up support to keep the solar panels and draw attention to the lawsuit through a barrage of letters to his neighbors, billboards posted at high-traffic intersections in Omaha and an online campaign that includes a website, Facebook page and Twitter account.
"This is a problem throughout the nation, where people want to put up solar panels but someone says they're ugly," Adams said.
Williams said there are homeowners in the association on both sides of the issue, and it's causing some friction.
"I don't wish this on any neighborhood," he said.
The Nebraska Energy Office does not keep track of the number of homes that generate solar power. Spokesman Jerry Loos said there is no permit process and homeowners aren't required to notify the state.
Loos said he wasn't aware of any specific disputes between Nebraska homeowners and their neighborhood associations over solar energy devices but noted such disputes aren't uncommon elsewhere.
Almost half of states have laws protecting homeowners' rights to install and operate solar energy devices, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Nebraska is not among them, but it does have a law allowing for easements and zoning variances to accommodate solar projects.
A handful of U.S. cities, including Madison, Wis., have passed local ordinances protecting homeowners' rights to solar access. Omaha's planning department is updating the city's master plan, and among the suggested changes is revising city codes to protect solar access. Adams' media blitz asks supporters to contact Omaha officials and push for such an ordinance.
Some of Adams' neighbors don't think solar panels are the real issue in his dispute with the homeowners association. They said it's really about being a good neighbor.
Wayne Gill, whose house faces Adams' solar panels, said: "Unfortunately, this has turned into an issue about solar power, when it's really about your neighbors and taking them into account before doing something."
He said he doesn't mind the solar panels and "when I first saw them up, I said, 'That's cool.'" But, he added, Adams didn't get permission to put them up and he never apologized for doing so.
Another neighbor, Jonathan McIntosh, said he doesn't think the association would have approved the solar panels had Adams sought permission. He said the rules are in place to protect the integrity and value of the neighborhood, and Adams is compromising that.
"It damages the neighborhood," he said. "If you don't have those covenants in place, you get a free-for-all. I don't want that. We have a great neighborhood."
Adams agreed that the dispute isn't really about installing solar panels without permission. He said he feels his homeowners association has been lax in enforcing its rules in the past but it is compelled to fight him after receiving a written complaint from another homeowner.
"It's about using this as a platform to reassert their authority," Adams said. "They're taking on the wrong case. Go after someone who's not cutting their grass or (is) putting up faulty siding."
订阅：
博文 (Atom)