Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town

Innovative Sanitation

Case study: The MobiSan approach in informal
settlements of Cape Town
by

Aytor Naranjo

A research project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Science of Loughborough University

AUGUST 2009

Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Cotton

Water, Engineering and Development Centre

Department of Civil and Building Engineering

INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ACCESS FORM

Location: WEDC Resources Center, Loughborough University

Author: Aytor Naranjo

Title: Innovative Sanitation. Case study: The MobiSan approach in informal settlements of
Cape Town

Status of access: OPEN

Author’s declaration:

I agree with the following conditions:

This project report shall be made available within the
OPEN WEDC Resource Center to be borrowed by WEDC
staff and Students. Pages may be copied, subjected to
copyright regulations. For a period of five to ten years,
it may only be available outside WEDC strictly subject
to written permission from the author. After 10 years,
the project shall be subject to open access.

Author’s signature: Aytor Naranjo. Date: August 16th 2009

Conditions of access approved by:

(Supervisor’s name)

Supervisor’s signature: ........................................

iii

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that:

i. I am responsible for the work submitted in this report, and that the original work is my own,
except as specified below;

Aytor Naranjo

ii. I have not submitted this work to any other institution for the award of a degree;

iii. All laboratory work, field work and computed programming has been carried out by me, with no
outside assistance except as noted below; and

Aytor Naranjo

iv. All information (including diagrams and tables) or other information which is copied from, or
based on, the work of others has its source clearly acknowledged in the text at the place where
it appears.

Signed: ...........Aytor Naranjo..................................

Date: ............... REVISED VERSION JANUARY 2010.................................

iii

To my lovely partner Nuria,

who has always been by my side

v

Aknowledgements

I would like to address my most sincere thanks to David Castellano, whose support and
friendliness during the whole field work process has made this research so meaningful. I also wish
to express my appreciation to the Dutch Consortium members, in particular, Hans Kraaijvanger,
Marjo Lexmond, Adriaan Mels and Brendo Meulman for the great opportunity they have given me
by joining the MobiSan project in Cape Town from May to August 2009. I have to thank the WEDC
team for their support and great advices.

This research has been accomplished thanks to the collaboration of the City of Cape Town,
especially, the Water and Sanitation unit for informal settlements. In that respect I am very grateful
with Lawrence Grootboom and Jaco Muller for sharing their knowledge and understanding about
unplanned settlements. The finance analysis would have not been possible without the data
provided by Martinus Jooste.

I would also like to thank the researchers from the CSIR, particularly Jac Wilsenac whom I wish all
the best in his new career. My gratitude to the two caretakers of the MobiSan unit, Shawn Prince
and Willy Fontain for their long journeys working in Pook se Bos as well as the whole Pook se Bos
community who were so kind sharing their concerns during this study.

My recognition to Arne Singels and his family for their South African hospitality and finally, I wish to
thank my family for their support during my MSc year spent between the United Kingdom and
South Africa.

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

CWSS Community Water Supply & Sanitation Unit, Cape Peninsula University of Technology

ECOSAN Ecological Sanitation

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit

HCES Household Centered Environmental Sanitation

HH Household

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MOA Method of Analysis

NGO Non Governmental Organization

CBO Community Based Organization

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PHAST Participating Hygiene and Sanitation Transportation

SCOPE Society for Community Organisation and People’s Education

SPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers

UDDT Urine Diverting and Dehydrating Toilets

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WRC Water Research Commission

WSSCC Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

WSIS Department of Water and Sanitation for Informal Settlements unit. City of Cape Town

WTP Willingness to Pay

WWTW Waste Water Treatment Works

vii

TABLES OF CONTENT

TABLES OF CONTENT ................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. x
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................... 3
2.1. Main issues on sanitation ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Sustainable sanitation ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Urine-diverting toilets......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4. Communal sanitation........................................................................................................................ 17
3. CASE STUDY: MOBISAN IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN CAPE TOWN ..... 23
3.1. Water and sanitation in South Africa ................................................................................................ 23
3.2. Existing sanitation systems in informal settlements in Cape Town .................................................. 25
3.3. Decision support tool for the selection of adequate sanitation systems .......................................... 27
3.4. The Dutch Consortium ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.5. The MobiSan unit ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.6. Pook se Bos informal settlement ...................................................................................................... 31
3.7. Project Management and implementation........................................................................................ 32
3.8. MobiSan O&M .................................................................................................................................. 32
4. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 33
4.1. Household survey............................................................................................................................. 34
4.2. Observation ...................................................................................................................................... 35
4.3. Key informant interviews .................................................................................................................. 35
4.4. Analytical measurement data ........................................................................................................... 36
4.5. Triangulation of data ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.6. Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 37
5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 39
5.1. Managerial and O&M requisites for the MobiSan to be considered as a long term solution ........... 39
5.2. Survey findings in Pook se Bos ........................................................................................................ 42
5.3. MobiSan acceptability ...................................................................................................................... 44
5.4. Environmental & Health aspects ...................................................................................................... 48
5.5. Technical aspects ............................................................................................................................. 53
5.6. Priorities to consider a toilet acceptable and how the MobiSan fulfils those requirements ............. 60
5.7. Financial aspects .............................................................................................................................. 61
5.8. Potential for on-site/off-site reuse .................................................................................................... 66
5.9. Findings in relation with the research questions .............................................................................. 70
6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ......................................... 73
6.1. Social ................................................................................................................................................ 73
6.2. Technical .......................................................................................................................................... 74
6.3. Financial / Economical ..................................................................................................................... 75
6.4. Reuse ............................................................................................................................................... 76
6.5. Gender.............................................................................................................................................. 76
6.6. Strategic planning ............................................................................................................................. 76
7. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 77
8. List of key informants ......................................................................................... 79
e-REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 82
9. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 84
9.1. Chemical toilets servicing frequency ................................................................................................ 84
9.2. Container toilet servicing frequency ................................................................................................. 86
9.3. June 2009 invoice container toilets Pook se Bos ............................................................................. 88
9.4. Flush toilets maintenance cost ......................................................................................................... 89
9.5. Household survey. Part 1 (Basic demographic information) ............................................................ 92
9.6. Household survey. Part 2 (MobiSan acceptability information) ........................................................ 93
9.7. Household survey (Part 3) Priorities to consider a toilet acceptable................................................ 94

viii

9.8. Household survey. Part 4 (Awareness about UDDT) ....................................................................... 95
9.9. Certificate of analysis faeces sample ............................................................................................... 96
9.10. Method of Analysis moisture content .......................................................................................... 97
9.11. Moisture content analysis............................................................................................................ 98
9.12. Care-taker schedule and checklist .............................................................................................. 99
9.13. Community acceptance agreement on the removal of all container toilets from Pook se Bos . 101
9.14. Method of analysis urine (CSIR) ............................................................................................... 102

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Major barriers for disable and disadvantages people ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2. Different models of UDT ................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.3. Nutrient content in different media ................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.4. The Vietnamese double vault urine diversion toilet ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 2.5. Wastewater treatment recreation at sewage works ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 2.6 Struvite production process in Siddhipur, Nepal .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.7. Ecotact model ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.8. BioCentre design ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2.9. Ground floor BioCentre .................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3.1. Cape Flats area .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.2. Adapted from the general household survey .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.3. Flooding prone areas ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.4. Land accessibility ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.5. Land ownership ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.6.Housing density distribution ............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.7.Assessment of the feasibility of various sanitation options for the ‘average’ informal settlement in Cape Town
................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 3.8.Cubicles distribution ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 3.9. Airflow recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.10. Map of Pook se Bos including toilet location ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 5.1. Distribution of the exiting 21 container toilets in Pook Se Bos ........................................................................ 42
Figure 5.2. Age distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.3.Users and non-MobiSan users distribution per groups by July 10th 2009 ........................................................ 44
Figure 5.4. Women’s reasons for not using the MobiSan .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 5.5. Men’s reasons for not using the MobiSan ....................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.6. Elder’s reasons for not using the MobiSan ...................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.7. Children’s reasons for not using the MobiSan ................................................................................................. 45
Figure 5.8. Objections among MobiSan users .................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 5.9.Sanitation system used at night in Pook se Bos .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 5.10. Red Plexiglass extension to reduce urine into the faeces tank ................................................................... 54
Figure 5.11. Comparing wind speed to natural air flow within the ventilation pipe ............................................................ 55
Figure 5.12. Comparison of rH% of the airflow in the ventilation pipe and outside temperature ....................................... 56
Figure 5.13. Comparison RH% getting out the pipes and RH% outside the MobiSan ...................................................... 57
Figure 5.14.User’s degree of satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.15.Priorities for the respondent to consider a toilet acceptable ........................................................................... 60

Figure 6.1. Strategic planning ........................................................................................................................................... 77

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Examples of obstacles faced by disabled people ............................................................................................. 9
Table 2.2. Advantages Vs Disadvantages of UDDT ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 3.1. Sanitation technologies in informal settlements of Cape Town ....................................................................... 26

Table 5.1. Caretaker counting ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 5.2. Sensor probes installed ................................................................................55
Table 5.3. Operating cost chemical, container and flush toilets ....................................................................................... 63
Table 5.4. MobiSan operating cost.................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 5.5. Advantages vs. Disadvantage of container toilets ............................................................................................ 64
Table 5.6. Advantages vs. Disadvantage of flush toilets ................................................................................................... 64
Table 5.7. Advantages vs. Disadvantages of chemical toilets ........................................................................................... 65
Table 5.9. Advantages vs. Disadvantages of the MobiSan approach ............................................................................... 65
Table 5.10. Capital cost container and flush toilets ........................................................................................................... 66
Table 5.11. Comparison of urine characteristics from different origins .............................................................................. 68
Table 5.12. Fertilizer comparison prices ........................................................................................................................... 69

x

LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 2.1. Slogan DMT Mobile toilets ............................................................................................................................... 7
Photo 2.2. Community designed children's toilets in Byanapalli settlement, Bangalore .................................................... 9
Photo 2.3. Wastewater discharge .................................................................................................................................... 10
Photo 2.4.Barrels for excreta storage before upgrading .................................................................................................. 19
Photo 2.5.Upgraded system to empty urine collection tanks ............................................................................................ 19
Photo 2.6. Upgraded vacuum system for faeces .............................................................................................................. 19
Photo 2.7.Salt deposits from urine .................................................................................................................................... 20
Photo 2.8. Ikotoilet in Nairobi business distric .................................................................................................................. 20
Photo 2.9. BioCentre ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Photo 3.1.Improvised stormwater drainage ....................................................................................................................... 24
Photo 3.2. Water ponding next to the shacks .................................................................................................................... 24
Photo 3.3. Unplanned and dense settlement ................................................................................................................... 24
Photo 3.4.Chemical toilets (CPT, 2009) ............................................................................................................................ 26
Photo 3.5. Prevalent toilet conditions in Pook se Bos (container toilets) ........................................................................... 26
Photo 3.6. Clogged flush toilet ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Photo 3.7. Porta-potti ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Photo 3.8.Manual mixing device in care-taker room ......................................................................................................... 30
Photo 3.9. Second faeces chamber (separation panels can be seen in the left hand side) .............................................. 30
Photo 3.10. Line of container toilets before removal in April 2009 ................................................................................... 32

Photo 5.1. Oversused container toilet (Muller, 2009) ........................................................................................................ 39
Photo 5.2. Vacuum truck unblocking vacuum sewer ......................................................................................................... 39
Photo 5.3. Overused & not maintained chemical toilet ..................................................................................................... 39
Photo 5.4. Protection grid blocked with toilet papier .......................................................................................................... 41
Photo 5.5. Urine built up in non properly maintained urinal siphons.................................................................................. 41
Photo 5.6.Toilet paper in the urine channel and foot prints on the toilet pan .................................................................... 41
Photo 5.7. Nurse explaining reasons of urinary infections to a group of women in Pook se Bos ...................................... 46
Photo 5.8. Common container toilets servicing practice .................................................................................................... 49
Photo 5.9. Open defecation behind chemical toilets next to the canal in Khayelitsha ....................................................... 51
Photo 5.10. Open defecation next to container toilets in Pook se Bos .............................................................................. 51
Photo 5.11. Open defecation next to recently implemented vaccum sewer flush toilets in Kosovo informal settlement ... 51
Photo 5.12. Children defecating near the marsh in Pook Se Bos ..................................................................................... 51
Photo 5.13. Hand washing basin and laminated children friendly brochure on how to wash hands thoroughly ............... 51
Photo 5.14.Toilet converted into women urinal ................................................................................................................. 54
Photo 5.15.Moisture and airflow probes within the ventilation pipe ............................................................................... 55
Photo 5.16. Exterior walls.................................................................................................................................................. 56
Photo 5.17. View of the lid closed ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Photo 5.18. Steps and platform too narrow ....................................................................................................................... 57
Photo 5.19. Toilet adapted for children with pedestal and detachable potty ..................................................................... 58
Photo 5.20. Slab for urinals and hand washing basin not adapted for children ................................................................. 58
Photo 5.22. Urine tank access gate .................................................................................................................................. 59
Photo 5.23. Second chamber access gates ...................................................................................................................... 59

xi

1. INTRODUCTION

This research aims to outline sanitation as an important contribution to eradicate poverty in informal
settlements of Cape Town. It is also focussed on the evaluation of the potential of upscaling communal
urine-diverting and dehydrating toilets (UDDT) in these locations, where individual sanitation options are
difficult to implement due to physical and legal issues or just because other shared systems do not
deliver a fare and acceptable service to the community involved.

Sanitation englobes wastewater, stormwater, greywater and rainwater from which different resources
can be recovered. Nevertheless, this study will focus mainly on urine-diversion and dehydration
communal toilets in the peri-urban context.

This document includes aspects of technology (hardware) to be combined with hygiene and health
promotion, behavioural change and community participation (software) along with an enabling
environment considering all stakeholders, in order to achieve a balance between the supply and the
demand for sanitation.

There are limitations in terms of scaling communal UDD toilets such as non-extensive data on large
scale projects of these characteristics not fully working at the time of undertaking this study.

Furthermore, the acceptability of reuse-oriented technologies and the demand for their end products is
a challenge, especially in densely populated urban areas where the lack of space, financial constraints
and social issues make a reuse-oriented approach difficult.

The research will present a general overview of sanitation in urban and peri-urban areas as well as
UDDT and communal sanitation. In that respect field work experience will be provided from communal
urine diverting mobile sanitation unit (MobiSan) evaluated in the Pook Se Bos informal settlement in
Cape Town.

This research highlights operation and maintenance (O&M) as a key point in the success of communal
UDDT and considers it a main difference between individual UDDT and communal UDDT, because the
O&M in a communal unit is provided by caretakers who are receiving a salary for carrying out their
duties.

Nevertheless, when concluding this research the MobiSan unit would only have been monitored for
about four months, therefore the available data would be insufficient. Even though communities in the

1

informal settlements might not be aware of the proper use of said technology, South Africa has the
advantage of being a relevant and strategical location where sustainable sanitation has been actively
promoted and where re-use oriented experiences are well documented.

Consequently, this study will try to answer the following questions:

1) What socio-cultural, technical, financial and environmental aspects inhibit and encourage communal
urine-diverting toilets from going to scale in the informal settlements of Cape Town?

2) What are the priorities from the user perspective for a toilet to be considered
acceptable? To what extent does the MobiSan fulfil those requirements?

3) What is the on/off-site potential reuse of treated urine and faeces?

4) What are the managerial, operation and maintenance requisites for the MobiSan system to be
considered as a long term solution?

In order to answer these questions, the actual sanitation situation in the urban context will be evaluated,
as well as different aspects from the social, political, financial and technical perspective along with
constraints and successes with communal toilets from India, Kenya and Nigeria.

Finally, the reasons for having chosen this subject are because well managed communal toilets can
reach all users, especially the very poor that cannot afford another option. Moreover, upscaling reuse-
oriented systems in the peri-urban context remains a contemporary and a very hot topic in the
sanitation field.

2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Main issues on sanitation

Sanitation is still the weak partner of the drinking water and sanitation sector (Snel, 2006), although,
sanitation and hygiene are fundamental to all the MDGs and deliver broad development outcomes
(Swann et al 2007). In 2007, the situation was that 83% of the world's population have access to
drinking water while only 58% have access to improved sanitation facilities (De Bruijne et al, 2007).
This can be translated into the fact that two million impoverished children die each year of diarrhea due
to poor sanitation and hygiene (Coates et al 2004). On the other hand, evidence shows that girls and
women are those who suffer most for lack of sanitation as they are responsible for fetching water, to
look after the sick and are often at risk when using shared toilets or when looking for a secluded spot to
release themselves (Worldwater week, 2008:11)

In 1995, a review of the Sanitation Program Evaluations in Developing countries considered that
investment in sanitation was inadequate for several reasons (La Fond, 1995):

• The demand for sanitation was often low
• Promoting demand consumed time and money
• Development institutions were not attuned to demand-led programming which could explain an
unenthusiastic approach to investing in sanitation.
• Key decision-makers were not clear about an overall strategy for sanitation programming
• No consensus on the optimal role for governments, NGOs, communities, the private sector, and
external donors in program implementation.

The review found that projects were heavily promoting technologies, such as latrine construction,
without the same emphasis in changing consumer attitudes to general hygiene as well as latrine
operation and maintenance.
Regarding program success, the review found that projects implemented by NGO's or the private sector
with the communities had sometimes a better outcome than programs implemented by the government
alone.
Five years later, in 2000, sanitation was not included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's),
however, the same year the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) held a
meeting where sanitation was extensively discussed and from where the Bellagio statement on
environmental sanitation was developed (Reed, 2008). In 2002, during the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD), powerful arguments about the relevance of sanitation as an igniter
of human development resulted in the adoption of the international sanitation target which is to halve
the people without access to sanitation by 2015. However, the global MDG sanitation target will be

3

missed by more than half a billion people if the trend 1990–2004 continues up to 2015 (WHO &
UNICEF, 2006). Therefore, due to human growth and urbanisation, there is a need in the Sanitation
sector to challenge conventional thinking (Lüthi et all, 2007; Narain, 2003; Konukiewitz, 2003; WSSCC
& WHO, 2005; Sanitation 21, 2006).

2.1.1. Urban sanitation
The urban areas of the world are expected to absorb all the population growth expected over the next
four decades. Furthermore, most of the population growth expected in urban areas will be concentrated
in the cities and towns of the less developed regions. Asia, in particular, is projected to see its urban
population increase by 1.8 billion, Africa by .9 billion, and Latin America and the Caribbean by 0.2 billion
(UN, World Urbanization prospects, 2008:1). The lack of basic amenities and job opportunities in rural
areas contributes to the exodus of the rural folk to towns where slums mushroom without protected
water, drainage or adequate toilet facilities (Ganapathy, 2003).

The living conditions in slums can be very difficult for dwellers that have to live in very space restricted
sheds or houses in densely populated settlements, sometimes without any land tenure which can
legally allow governments and utilities not to provide services to these communities. Diseases can
spread easily due to the unsafe disposal of all human, animal and solid waste that attracts rats and
insects that contribute with further health risks. Furthermore, their living conditions and their nutrition
are far worst than the rural poverty that most of them abandoned for a better life in the city (Bruijne et
al, 2007).

Western cultures tried to solve their urban sanitation problems with the concept of “Modern” sanitation
which started in Great Britain in the 19th century. In 1851, half of Britain’s population lived in cities and
the living conditions were desperately unhealthy, with death from sickness, such as Cholera and
Typhus among other diseases, at a level not seen since the Black Death (Daunton, 2004). The solution
to this problem was the combination of toilets with a collective sewerage system requesting large
amounts of water to remove and transport human excreta from homes to water sources away from the
urban areas.

After London had its sewerage system, New York followed in 1860 and then Calcutta in 1870 (Sulahb,
2008). However, the widespread application of wastewater treatment plants only took place during the
1960's and 1970's (Sanitation 21, 2006). The urban sewerage coverage that could have London or New
York is yet not comparable to the coverage in low and middle-income countries. According to Sulahb
(2008), in India out of over 4,800 towns/cities only 232 have the sewerage system and that too partially.
He also considers that in the developing world neither the central government, local authorities or
beneficiaries can cope with the operational nor maintenance cost of a conventional sewerage system.

There is then a global concern regarding sustainable sanitation and how to reach the best results in the

4

increasing urbanised cities for all stakeholders and the environment. However, the software, such as
hygiene promotion and behavioural change remains an important contribution to the success of urban
and peri-urban water and sanitation projects, especially in areas not well deserved such as informal
settlements.

2.1.2. Hygiene promotion
Clean water alone only leads to minor health improvements and, as it has been mentioned previously,
agencies have done far too little work on sanitation compared with what has been done with water
(Vision 21, 2000:7). Nevertheless, proper sanitation alone does not either improve the overall health
situation as much as the right combination of hygiene, sanitation or clean water. Within the health
sector, hygiene is a behaviour that serves to prevent infections and also helps to maintain people and
the environment clean and attractive (Curtis, 2005). Effects to promote hygiene focus on the following
three areas which have demonstrated strong health benefits (Curtis, 2005):
• Hand-washing with soap; if not available, ash or earth is nearly as effective (Bolt, 2005)
• Removal of stools from the household environment
• Home treatment drinking water

De Bruijne (2007) agrees on the importance to motivate Community hygiene to achieve sustainability,
however, many people still do not understand the link between disease and poor sanitation and hygiene
as well as why a healthy environment can improve health. The cause can be that nobody has explained
that to them or because the habit does not exist (Vision 21, 2000). In fact, one of the challenges
remains to make hand washing with soap a habit and a social norm on a worldwide basis (World Bank,
2004). This is not simple because behavioural change is difficult, takes time and requires resources and
skills (Curtis 2005). By acknowledging the importance of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) plans
it should be understood how relevant the enabling environment is.

2.1.3. The enabling environment
Changing the enabling environment could optimize investments in sanitation and hygiene promotion;
however, this is a challenging task because legal and regulatory instruments may require to change
policies, financial instruments and organizational arrangements (WSCC & WHO 2005). All countries
have a national policy and legislation to guide the provision of water and sanitation services, however,
not all local governments have developed local policies and by-laws for the local provision of services
within the national framework. Policies and by-laws create an enabling environment for the provision of
WASH services. By-laws are the ‘rules of the game’ and specify, for example, how new water projects
are prioritised, how tariffs are determined and what happens when customers do not pay, then, they
provide the framework within which services are regulated (De la Harpe 2007:11). In that respect, the
Household Centred Environmental Sanitation (HCES) approach for planning and implementing water
and sanitation services considers that the preconditions showed in figure 2.1 have to be addressed for
the success of such approach.

5

2.1.4. Demand for sanitation
Further to the lessons learned from the International Water Supply and Sanitation decade, the “Water
Decade” (1981-1990), a shift has been necessary from promoting technology to involve community
participation and management (Reed, 2008). Promoting technologies via a supply driven approach in
the 70's and 80's ended up having the following typical problems (Reed, 2008):

• A large number of systems were not maintained over time
• Levels of technology were selected which could not be sustained
• In implementing water systems, sanitation and hygiene were missed

Nevertheless, even in the current decade the demand for improved sanitation does not always exist
(Scott et all, 2003), therefore, generating and satisfying a demand can confirm that only wanted
technologies get used (DFID, 2009). Further to Table 2.1. below we can see that different reasons for
demanding sanitation exist and vary from country to country. For that reason, the social marketing of
sanitation studies what particular factors the users identified being more relevant and focus on them.
The case below is quiet straightforward as it shows that health improvement has been considered as a
5th priority in the demand for sanitation in the Philippines while in rural Benin it is not even mentioned in
the table as it only achieved the 13th rank (Swann et al, 2007).

Rank Benin Philippines

1 Avoid discomfort in the bush Smell and flies

2 Prestige Cleaner surroundings

3 Insecurity at night Privacy

4 Snakes Less embarrassment when visitors came

5 Reduce flies Reduce gastrointestinal disease

Table 2.1. Reasons to demand sanitation (adapted from Swann et al, 2007)

Moreover, promoting a behavioural change should be included while selling sanitation “hardware”
(Bruijne et all, 2007) as promoting health improvements or hardware alone would not be effective
(Swann et al, 2007:4).

6

2.1.5. Willingness to pay
To assure a financial sustainability of a project the demand created has to be supported by a
willingness to pay (WTP) for a chosen service by the user (Bruijne et al, 2007; Sansom et al, 2008).
WTP can be estimated as follows (Sansom et al, 2008:86):
• Observing the prices that people pay for a service
• Observing local expenditure of money, time, labour or exchange of goods to obtain a service
• By asking people directly what they are willing to pay for services in the future

However, in some countries willingness to pay can be difficult to assess if the user is very poor or if it
considers that housing, water and sanitation services should be provided for free by the government as
a constitutional right. This is the case in South Africa where a free basic sanitation policy exists. Section
26 (1) of the constitution states that everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing and
section 27 (1.c) guarantees that everyone has access to sufficient food and water (SAGI, 2008).

Examples of sanitation as a business

Alternative Pro-poor Sanitation Solutions in Peru

When the objective is to create or increase a demand for sanitation the supply side has to follow.
Taking the Peruvian example, half of the population lack of basic sanitation, however, an important part
of the population is willing to pay for safe and low-price services. In this context, 50 private and public
partners are seeking to develop sanitation markets in five communities that represent a potential
market of 44,000 families (roughly 200,000 individuals), under the initiative "Alternative Pro-poor
Sanitation Solutions in Peru". If the initiative succeeds in building sustainable and inclusive markets in
poor areas, consumers will gain access to sanitation products and small business will grow along with
the community demands (WSP, 2009)

DMT Mobile Toilets – Nigeria

As an African example we have the Nigerian
company DMT Mobile toilets that provides this
hardware to bus stations and in densely populated
areas in major cities in Nigeria, until 2002 they used
to import their plastic toilets, nowadays, after
acquiring the technology and the know-how they
manufacture their own plastic mobile container
Photo 2.1. Slogan DMT Mobile toilets (WASH
toilets (DMT, 2004).
news Finance (2009)

7

DMT’s innovative model offers a decentralized, Community -based waste management system that
privatises public toilets and economically empowers women and young men who struggle with high rates of
unemployment. The women and youth who franchise a toilet from DMT keep 50 percent of the profits from
usage charges-paying the rest to DMT for operational services-and after three years own the toilets they
manage. Charging US$ 0.25 a visit, DMT faces little competition from the poorly maintained municipal
public toilets in capital Lagos. It has become the second largest toilet manufacturer in Africa. WASH news
Finance (2009)

2.1.6. Gender
Better hygiene and sanitation is gender specific, men decide on major investments and they do not
attach the same importance to sanitation and hygiene as women whom along with girls can seldom
change practices of men (Casella, 2004).

Women have a central role in Water, Sanitation and hygiene programs as they take the main
responsibility to socialize children on how to use the latrines while providing them health and hygiene
education. In addition women take care of the sanitation needs from the elder and the sick (Hannan et
al 2002:3). Different research demonstrates that women are concerned with safety and privacy. Safety
for their children not to fall in the pit hole and privacy, for instance, in the sense of having toilets with
doors so for not to be seen while using such facilities (Hannan et al 2002:3; Burra et al, 2003:22).
Regarding public toilets, women interests and concerns have to be considered when locating, building
and designing the facilities as these details can make the difference between the use and non-use
(Andenyang, 2008). The results from a sustainable sanitation implementation project in Tanzania
showed that full benefits only accrued when women have more influential role in management
committees and maintenance of installed facilities, and men are encouraged to become more involved
in activities such as hygiene education and sanitation (Chaggu et al, 2002:13).

In the case of communal toilets, in most countries separate toilets are needed for men and women,
therefore, it is important to consider the distance between men’s and women’s toilets as this can be a
sensitive issue (Reed et al 2004:3). Regarding urine male urinals in public facilities it has to be
evaluated whether a physical separation is needed for the urinals to be used as maybe men cannot feel
comfortable while using non screened urinals. With regards to waterless urinals, Münch (2009:15)
considers that conventional urinals or waterless urinals enjoy the same level of user acceptance since
there is no change in behaviour requested for men and regarding privacy it makes no difference
whether the urinal is water flushed or waterless.

2.1.6.a Children
Toilet facilities have to be designed including children requirements so for them to use such facilities.
With regards to schools, inadequate water and sanitation facilities not only have a negative effect on

8

hygiene and health but also contribute to retention and limit the attendance and the performance of
students at school (UNICEF 2009:33). Girls are particularly affected by inadequate toilets when these
do not assure that washing facilities are private and safe (Casella, 2004; Varghese et al, 2005; UNICEF
2009:34). An assessment on urine diversion toilets in the Kathmandu valley shows that in some cases it
was hard for children to keep urine out of the faeces hole due to the pan being too large for them
(WaterAid, 2008:35). In Mumbay, observation of public toilets in slums during the morning queues
showed that children in the queue were pushing out of the way as people were rushing to use the toilets
before going to work. At that time of the day women had no time to accompany their children to the
public toilets so they let them defecate outside their houses (Burra et al 2003:15). Furthermore, many
young children are scared of using conventional latrines because they are dark, often smelly and have
big holes in which they are frightened of falling into.

In slums in Mumbay, young children under the age
of seven are a significant part of the population,
often one quarter of the total, for that reason, the
SPARC model designed Community chosen
children facilities with smaller squat plates,
handles to prevent overbalancing and smaller pit
openings into a shallow trench that is washed
Photo 2.2. Community -designed children's toilets
regularly (Burra et al 2003:15). in Byanapalli settlement, Bangalore (Homeless
International)

2.1.6.b Elderly, disables and overweighed
It is not always possible to do anything about the individual impairment of a disabled person, however,
most of the time the problems for disabled people to access water and sanitation facilities are caused
by the following external factors (Jones et al, 2005):

External factors Examples
Natural barriers Muddy or flooded paths
Physical infrastructure Narrow platforms, high steps, steep steps, slippery floors,
no handles
Institutional factors Lack of knowledge about disability issues
Social barriers Overprotection from the family, isolation
Table 2.1. Examples of obstacles faced by disabled people (Adapted from Jones et al, 2005)

Therefore, if a water and sanitation project aims to include everybody, accessibility has to be
considered. Disables do not expect more than other groups but they equality in terms of access (Jones
et al, 2005). On the other hand flexibility should be considered when choosing the location of a new

9

toilet or water tap, in the sense that the option to be build in an easier access or at a short distance from
a disable house should be included.
Fg

Figure 2.1. Major barriers for disable and disadvantages people (Jones et al,
2005)

2.2. Sustainable sanitation
Every day in urban and peri-urban areas of low-income countries thousand of tonees of human excreta
from either open defecation or collected from on-site sanitation such as unsewered household and
communal toilets, septic tanks and aqua privies are dumped into open drains, open land or landfills and
in some cases used in agriculture and aquaculture without any treatment (Strauss et al, 10:2003). In the
case of conventional sewerage systems only 5% to 10% of the worldwide wastewater is treated
(Werner, 2000). As a result in the case of shallow water table or unprotected water resources highly
contaminated matter can end up polluting groundwater and open waters causing a serious health and
environmental burden. Conventional centralized systems for treating wastewater are unsuitable for
developing countries as a blanket solution due to the high energy consumption, O&M and water
consumption involved (Werner, 2000; Morel, 2002, Sulahb, 2008).

Do we (the Indians) build huge dams and
irrigation systems to bring in water only to flush
it down into an expensive sewage system, all
ending up polluting our rivers and ponds?
(Sulabh 2008)

Photo 2.3. Wastewater discharge (USGS, 2009)

In this research the term reuse oriented technologies, sustainable sanitation or ecological sanitation is
mentioned, however, the author prefers to refer to sustainable sanitation. In that respect this study will
understand sustainable sanitation as a system that is accepted, financially sustainable, durable, and
easy to operate and maintain at a low cost by the users or a caretaker and that system is not harmful to
the environment while it provides the opportunity to safely reuse the generated end-products.

10

Eco-sanitation is a niche with great potential in the following different situations (Snel, 2006):
• High ground water table
• Water scarce areas
• Rocky soil

However, Münch et al (2006) consider that within a supportive enabling environment this concept could
be adaptable to high density areas, slums and emergency areas having benefits for meeting the
Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s). On the other hand, Mara (2009) claims that ecological
sanitation is too expensive and therefore not viable to meet the MDG’s until it is a financially viable
option.

2.3. Urine-diverting toilets

A Urine Diverting Dehydration Toilet (UDDT) is an on-site system that operates without water and has a
division so for the user, with little effort, to be able to divert urine away from faeces. Therefore, the aim
is to maintain faeces as dry as possible so for to encourage the dehydration process. Urine is then
collected separately through a urine channel located in the front of the toilet bowl or squatting pan,
while faeces drops in a larger drop hole in the back. In that respect urine and faeces are stored on-site
this makes this system independent from a sewer connection. It is important that the urine and faeces
separation is well defined in order not to clog the urine channel with faeces or letting urine into the
faeces hole which would not allow the process to perform adequately (Akvo, 2009). The major
difference with other conventional sanitation systems is that there are two outlets and two collection
systems (Kvarnström et al 2006:3). In the case of water being used for anal cleansing an extra outlet
for wash-water would be needed. Figure 2.3 below shows two models of urine diverting toilets, the
squat pan and the toilet bowl.

Figure 2.2. Different models of UDT (Sandec/Eawag, 2008)

11

UDDT allows performing primary and secondary treatment based on storage time and addition of
products such as lime, ash or sawdust to encourage pathogen destruction. Nevertheless, the final
quality of the material would depend on the operation and maintenance of the system. The quality
standard for reuse will depend on what the end product will be used for.

Advantages Disadvantages
Does not require a constant source of water Requires education and acceptance to be used
correctly
No real problems with odours and vectors (flies) if
Urine diversion channel is prone to clogging with
used and maintained correctly (i.e. kept dry)
faeces and misuse
Can be built and repaired with locally available Special child seats have to be provided to keep their
materials urine and faeces separate.
Low capital and operation costs
Large scale nutrient recovery is a realistic possibility.
Suitable for all types of users (sitters, squatters,
washers, wipers)

Table 2.2. Advantages Vs Disadvantages of UDDT (Akvo, 2009)

2.3.1. Maintenance

A UDDT is slightly more difficult to keep clean compared to other toilets because of both the lack of water
and the need to separate the solid faeces and liquid urine. For cleaning, a damp cloth may be used to wipe
down the seat and the inner bowls. Some toilets are easily removable and can be cleaned more thoroughly.
No design will work for everyone and therefore, some users may have difficulty separating both streams
perfectly which may result in extra cleaning and maintenance. (Akvo, 2009)

Again education and demonstration is needed for new users to maintain and operate properly. Then,
the fact that men can have access to urinals reduces the chances of liquid getting in the faeces
container; this is a disadvantage for women that commonly used the same toilet for urinating and
defecating.

2.3.2. Reuse

Sustainable sanitation englobes different aspects of sanitation ranging from rainwater harvesting,
stormwater, greywater and excreta management. Each of these fields has a potential to provide a
resource, it can be in the form of raw material to produce energy trough the conversion of excreta to
biogas or reused on land for agriculture, aquaculture, gardening or ornamental purposes among others.
The quality of these resources would dictate where there should be reused and what treatment would
allow to get the requested quality standard. In terms of reuse the scope of this research will be on end
products from UDDT, namely urine and dry faeces.

12

Both urine and faeces content nutrients, however,
most of the nutrients; nitrogen, phosphorous and
potassium, are found in urine while faeces content
high organic matter that aids water retention and
is a good soil improver (Waste, 2005; WELL,
2006).
Figure 2.3. Nutrient content in different media (Snel,
2008)

Historically, the reuse of human excreta for agricultural purposes has been widely used for hundreds
and even thousands of years since the early Chinese history (Smet et all, 2006). An example of one of
the first contemporary UDDT is the Vietnamese double vault urine diversion toilet.

In 1956 the Health Authorities of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam started a
campaign to construct latrines, after several experiments the peasants of the
Quang Ngai Province developed “the double septic tank for on-the spot
composting of excreta”, however, the term septic tank is confusing as it was
dry double vault latrine with urine diversion. In the period 1961-1965 the
Vietnamese Ministry of Health concentrated in the three major installations for
rural hygiene, namely, the double pit latrine, the lined well and the bathroom
(Winblad, 1985:18). Figure 2.4. The Vietnamese double
vault urine diversion toilet (Winblad
et al,1985)

In 1978, a variation of the Vietnamese latrine was introduced in Guatemala; and lately in the rest of
Central America; by the CEMAT in consultation with the local population, because of the volcanic rock,
the lack of space and the interest in turning excreta into fertilizer (Winblad et al, 1985).

Even though urine-diversion systems allow the reuse of nutrients such a technology can be chosen to
extend the life of a simple pit latrine in emergency situations when there is no interest in reuse
(personal communication with Andy Bastable, 2009).

Another example of UDT with no interest in reuse of urine comes from eThekwini municipality in South
Africa where 75.000 double vault urine diversion toilets have been installed in peri-urban and rural
areas and the urine is infiltrated into the ground (personal conversation with Rebecca Scott 2009). The
aim of these UDDT is to reduce the high cost involved in emptying VIP latrines (Macleod 2005).
End products from UDDT in urban and peri-urban does not always have the opportunity to be re-used
on-site because of space restriction, the distance to the farmlands or because further treatment that
cannot be done on-site is necessary. In any case, when the pit or urine tank is full and no on-site reuse

13

or infiltration is possible, transport is definitely needed, therefore increasing the operating cost of the
system.

Nutrient removal processes

The researchers from the CSIR believe that prevention is better than cure, i.e. remove the nutrients with
urine rather than dilute with the rest of the waste stream (email communication with Jac Wilsenac,
Wastewater specialist, 2009). In that sense a pilot project is on-going about effects of urine-separation
on the wastewater effluent quality. The study is piloting different processes that could be upscalled at
the WWTW level by the end of 2010 (CSIR, 2009).

Improving the effluent quality entering the WWTW could extend the design capacity and reduce the
corrosion in the pipes. Moreover, it could diminish the energy consumption in WWTW and would
contribute to a better quality effluent released to the environment which would cut the discharge taxes
to be paid. Nevertheless, it has to be considered that for this to be accomplished the demand for UD
toilets should be created.

Of the total concentration in wastewater urine contains ±70% of the nitrogen and ±50% of the
phosphorus while making less than 1% of the total of urban wastewater volume (Mac Millan, 2009).
In figure 2.6 below, it can be observed the required processes to treat waste water, however, if nutrients
are removed before diluting raw urine into the waste stream, then energy could be saved and an
income could be generated out of the recovered nutrients.

Figure 2.5. Wastewater treatment recreation at sewage works (New scientist, 2008)

Some of the biological processes that are being tested to reduce the amount of nutrients getting to the
WWTW are the following (Mac Millan, 2009):
Nitrification:

NH4+ + 1.5O2 NO2- + H2O +2H+

NO2- + 0.5O2 NO3-

14

Denitrification:

2NO3- + 10e- + 12H+ N2 + 6H2O

On-site systems

With regards to on-site systems, one way to reduce frequency in transportation from the source to the
destination is by increasing the volume of the storage tank but this will increase the investment cost.
Concerning transport, urine takes much more volume and requests more frequent emptying than
faeces but in terms of nutrients it is more valuable. On the other hand, crops do not need to be fertilized
all year round which means that urine should be stocked until the suitable time for fertilization arises.
For that reason research is going on ways to extract urine nutrients while reducing its volume. One
option which is currently studied is struvite precipitation as it is seen as a method to transform liquid
fertilizer from urine into a crystallized form which would allow an easier distribution, stock and
acceptability by the user.

Potential drawbacks to urine handling
systems are the risk of ammonia
evaporation and the relatively large
volumes to be handled. In that
situation struvite technology has been
established to trap the phosphates in a
solid fertilizer. Using the technology
could reduce the huge volume of urine
and transporting cost. However,
struvite production also generates
effluent. Struvite effluent reuse has
significant potential benefits on both a
local and global scale, such as re-
circulating plant nutrients like nitrogen
and potassium back to agriculture Figure 2.6 Struvite production process in Siddhipur, Nepal (Etter
(Kashekya 2009). 2008)

Policies for the reuse of human excreta

Although guidelines on the reuse of urine, excreta and greywater in agriculture exist such as the one
published by the WHO, laws, policies or by-laws that enforce the use of treated human excreta remain
non-existent except in Sweden and Finland. Consequently, reuse of human excreta in sustainable
sanitation is often not taken seriously or takes place only in small scale pilot schemes which are not
converted into large-scale sustainable projects (Snel, 2008:2).

2.3.3. Acceptance, behaviour and attitudes towards UDDT
The UDDT is not intuitive or immediately obvious to some users, therefore, education and
demonstration projects are essential for the correct use of the system (Akvo, 2009). Concerning
human excreta, it is a taboo topic in most of the cultures about which little is known outside

15

epidemiology (Tanner, 2000:1). However, human society has developed different attitudes towards the
reuse of human excreta ranging from abhorrence through disaffection and indifference to predilection
(WHO, 2006:109). Within the African context, its societies are faecalphobic due to its history (Chaggu et
al, 2002:2). In fact, African societies were used to live in relatively small tribes spread over large areas
where open defecation or burying excreta was the common practice. On the other hand, the most
common agricultural method was the slash and burn, therefore, when the soil started to became
infertile communities just moved to another place (Missar 1997 in Chaggu et al 2002:9; Winblad et al
2004:100). Contrary, in Asian countries such as Japan and China the food demand to cover an
increasing population converted human excreta in valuable fertilizer (Winblad et al, 2004). In 1956, an
estimated of 90% of all human excreta produced in China was collected and reused in agriculture,
representing one third of all fertilizers used in the country (Dorozynsky, 1975, in Winblad et al, 1985:13).

The results from a project in Tanzania show that the inhabitants of Majumbasita area, an unplanned
settlement at the peri-urban of Dar-es-Salam, don’t have problems handling human excreta, provided
that it is dry, as they consider it as cow dung. However, they refuse to get in contact with wet faeces
(Chaggu et al, 2002:10).Therefore, to achieve sustainability on the implementation adequate training,
follow up and education is needed (Terrefe, 1999) to make clear that the end product is no longer
faeces but nutrient rich fertilizer without odours and impurities (Snel, 2006). Then, the relative novelty of
the closed-loop approach to sanitation is implying that education should be a mixture of teaching and
promotion at all levels (UNESCO/GTZ, 2006:32).

A study involving the social perceptions of the users of urine diversion systems in three provinces of
South Africa showed that 86% of the users did not like to empty the vaults and that the implementation
process by the local authorities was very poor contributing to too little training on how to operate and
maintain the systems. In fact, 16% of the UDDT installed in the area of study were not used at all or
used for unintended purposes such as storage, bathing and animal pen (Matsebe 2005:4).

Regarding social acceptance on UDDT the following barriers are highlighted (adapted from Münch
2009:7)
• Odours (only happened if incorrect design and operation)
• It is difficult for the poor to see UD as a solution when they know the rich have only flush toilets
• Users have to understand how the system works and the importance of keeping liquids (urine
and/or anal wash water) out of the faeces vault
• Users cooperation is needed
• Taboos related to human excreta
In addition, user acceptance will depend on what people had before and what they are expecting to get.
(Morgan 2004; Münch 2009:7)

16

2.3.4. Technical issues
Depending on the country the quality of the construction materials of the toilets built can be a problem,
as an example, in the Ethiopian market often plastic items such as toilet seats or plastic pipes produced
locally are of low quality and this is reflected on the quality of the toilets built (Terrefe et al, 1999).
However, common technical issues with UDDT are faeces chambers getting too wet because of wrong
operation due to lack of investment in software; i.e.: people urinating in the faeces vault; and blockages
in the urine pipe caused by the quantity of precipitates as well as narrow diameters and prolonged
residence of urine in pipes and siphons (Larsen at al 9:2007). These technical problems can lead to
offensive odours which can influence the user acceptance and satisfaction.

2.4. Communal sanitation
Scott (2006) considers that improved sanitation at the household level can have a direct impact on
health by reducing risks from contaminated faeces as it breaks down the faecal-oral transmission of
disease while increasing social standing and dignity. However, individual sanitation is not always
possible due to financial, space or land tenure issues. When such constraints do not allow adequate
sanitation, communal systems can be evaluated as a viable solution. Public toilets serve the needs of
anybody that can afford the fee, if any. These facilities are often found in markets, stations and other
public areas, however, there are also needed in schools, hospitals and institutions (Reed at al 2004).
Some practitioners consider that lots of public toilets, the majority in slums and peri-urban areas just
don’t work right and are really horrible (WASH helpdesk 2007). The MDG indicator does not consider
shared sanitation - whether fully public or only available to some - as “improved” facilities. In addition,
serious concern has also been expressed about the accessibility throughout the day and about the
security of users, especially at night (WHO, 2008).

Some of the possible reasons for none in use of community toilets are listed as follows (UN-HABITAT
India and Madhya Pradesh Government, 2005:7 and 8):

• Poor construction and planning • Lack of water supply
• Lack of operation and maintenance • Lacking in special provision to children
• Lack in safety and security for women and handicapped
• Insufficient funds for running/upgrading • Lack of public health and hygiene
the system education among poor sections of society
• Lack of sensitisation of gender issues

Besides the common problems found in public toilets, the following examples acknowledge that in some
cases public toilets do work. UN-HABITAT and Madhya Pradesh Government (2005:5) confirm that
public toilets in India are particularly useful in densely populated areas where there is no space for
individual household toilets; in addition, this concept has a demonstrative effect as the people using
communal toilets become used to toilets and can realize the need for individual household facilities.
Therefore, community toilets can have a positive impact on behaviour change among the public living in
slum areas and can generate demand for sanitation. The side effect of poor management of public

17

toilets instead can lead to a widely use of open defecation in the surrounding area of the public facilities
(Burra et al 2003:15).

Devolving responsibility for operation and maintenance is growing in popularity. An organisation built
the communal toilet, usually the government, and hand over the O&M to the private contractor which
charges the user for a fee for using the service. Conversely, when the government manage the O&M it
has been proved that communities might have little sense of pride in government structures and feel
free to vandalise them and steal components (Reed et al 2004:12).

2.4.1. Examples of communal toilets

2.4.1.a Contractor- built toilet blocks in Mumbay
The legacy of contractor-built public toilet blocks in Mumbay’s slums had ended up in unhygienic
facilities with a short lifespan of two to three years and 80% of the these toilets not working properly
(Scott et all, 2005). In fact, most of these toilets had broken doors, and many had overflowing septic
tanks, latrines clogged with excrement and sites covered with garbage (Burra et al, 2003:16). Moreover,
signs of open defecation were found in the surrounding of the toilets due to the poor management
(Burra et al, 2003:14). Other reasons for the failure of that legacy were the lack of water supplies,
electricity and privacy particularly for women confirming that this model required a serious revision.

2.4.1.b The SPARC model
Burra et al (2003) describes the ten year programme of Community design, built and managed toilet
blocks in eight cities in India including Mumbay, Pune and Bangalore that in 2003 served more than half
a million of low-income urban dwellers. These toilets are managed by urban poor federations, women's
cooperatives and the Society for the Promotion of Area Resources Centres (SPARC). The SPARC
model shows how urban poor communities that have taken steps to improve their sanitation through
community toilet blocks are a good example for other communities and can change the attitudes from
the local authorities by providing an alternative to the conventional approach of service delivery. This
model makes a distinction between public toilets and community toilets in the sense that a Community
toilet belongs and is managed by the community and not the government. The SPARC model started as
an alternative to public toilet blocks build by contractors using rarely any type of community consultation
regarding the location, design, construction and operation and maintenance. On the other hand it was
also an alternative to “toilets for the poor” projects from charitable trust funds or NGO’s that often build
“pay and use” toilets where the users pay every time they access to the toilet. This fee will cover the
caretaker and cleaner’s salaries as well as the cost of operation and maintenance (Burra et al,
13:2003). However, these public toilets are too expensive for a poor individual that would like to use it
every day. Consequently, SPARC integrates a model in which the city pays for the initial capital cost of
constructing the toilets while the local community is involved in the design, supervision and
construction. Once the toilet is build, the community will take care of the expenses of operation and
maintenance (SPARC 21:2005) by integrating a monthly charge to the users which are usually

18

community members. This monthly fee is certainly a cheaper option than the “pay and use” model
which could be efficient in large concourses such as bus or railway stations but which are not a solution
in slums because of the high prices involved. The SPARC model aims to empower poor communities
by managing their toilet blocks and allow the improvement of the sanitation situation in informal
settlements.

2.4.1.c . ACTS eco-friendly public toilet centre in Bangalore
Rajendra Nagar slum was the location of a pilot UDDT public toilet started in 1999 in Bangalore. The
objectives of the project were to improve the sanitation situation, the development of the slum and to
stop soil and water pollution by faecal contamination. Income was generated by charging for the use of
the toilets which was serving around 500 persons a day and by recovering nutrients from human
excreta to fertilize a banana plantation as well as by the selling of compost produced (gtz 2007:1). In
2005, it was decided to upgrade such public toilet as the original logistics concept was often questioned
as it constituted a cultural and a hygienic problem. The initial collection of urine and faeces was done in
barrels that were stored in compartments below the toilets. Once a day the barrels were transported
with a truck or cart to the ACTS Rayasandra Campus where urine, after storage, was applied as a
nitrogen rich fertilizer into the mentioned banana plantation and faeces were composted with waste
paper and biodegradable waste which involved the workers to be in contact with the wet excreta. In
order to achieve a more sustainable and culturally accepted system, the collection, transportation and
further treatment was modified by equipping the existing truck with a vacuum suction unit and by
changing the drums by holding tanks.

Photo 2.4.Barrels for excreta storage Photo 2.5.Upgraded system to empty Photo 2.6. Upgraded vacuum system for
before upgrading (Baier, 2005) urine collection tanks (seecon faeces (seecon gmbh,2007)
gmbh,2007)

The treatment process for faeces was changed from composting to biogas because composting turn to
be a complicated process to achieve a proper degradation at a large scale. Therefore, for treating the
faecal matter more hygienically a 40m3 biogas digester was built at the Rayasandra campus. Operation
and maintenance including collection, transport and final disposal was done by a group of six to eight
trained workers. Lessons learnt on that project state that a strong local organizational embedding and a
good long term management of the technology are key prerequisites for a successful and sustainable
project operation and that strong local project partner and manager remains crucial (gtz 2007:4).

19

After more than three years of operation of the nutrient transport scheme
and the composting facility, many recommendations are no longer strictly
adhered to.

The workers motivation and awareness of their own role as nutrient
managers has somewhat faded away. Without their proper sense for
horticulture, agriculture, and nutrient management, it was sometimes easier
to dump a whole drum of urine at the foot of one single banana tree instead
of storing and "managing" the nutrients.

A lack of understanding of the basic principles of composting led to
"workload minimization" rather than process optimization. Care for personal
Photo 2.7.Salt deposits from urine safety precautions is easy to neglect if not under the sharp eyes of the
over-fertilization (Baier,2005) supervisor (Baier 2005).

The ACTS public toilet was discontinued due to the following reasons (conversation with Michael
Kropac, Project Manager India, Seecon, 2009):
• Lack of funds to finance the project
• Logistic involved with the treatment and disposal
• The municipality did not want them to continue as another solution was wanted
• No space for on-site treatment increased logistics and made this option economically
unsustainable (the implementation of four or five of these toilets would have made the project
economically viable)
• A sanitation upgrade plan in Bangalore increased the number of individual toilets in Rajendra
Nagar slum up to 60% so fewer customers were using the toilets.
• People living close to the toilets or on the way to the disposal site did not accept the high
emptying frequency (every day or two).

Unfortunately, this project could not assure a long term management as a prerequisite for the success
of their initiative. Municipal support, funding and logistics were an issue as well the lack of space for on-
site treatment and the community acceptance.

2.4.1.d Ecotact’s Ikotoilets in Kenya

Ecotact is a social enterprise that sees sanitation as a
business opportunity. Eleven public toilets called “Ikotoilets”
are already operational in Kenya, 13 are under construction
and contracts have been signed with the local authorities for
the first 100 units.

Photo 2.8. Ikotoilet in Nairobi business district
(ecotoilet.org, 2009)

20

These public toilets do not open at night, use a “pay and use” model and besides toilet facilities
incorporate other revenue generating products and services such as showers, cold refreshments with
snacks, shoe shinning, newspaper vending and the new models can even include an ATM machine.
The toilets are located in public areas like markets and parks and by August 2009 the first two units will
be implemented in slum areas. These two units would be different from the ones in Nairobi city centre
because a monthly daily fee can be evaluated, there is no connection to sewer and the employees
would be youth from the community, chosen by the community, to encourage the ownership of the
facilities. In that respect, the toilets are connected to a biogas digester and the effluent is sucked out
using a vacuum truck when requested (conversation with David Kuria, 2009). Corporates are interested
in sponsoring this model in slums; which is expecting to serve 500 users a day, as part of their
Corporate Social Responsibility (conversation with Wendy Mukuru, 2009). Ecotact takes advantage of
the human circulation rate (700 users per day in the business district of Nairobi), and tries to implement
The reuse of human excreta is considered as a source of energy as well as a way to recover nutrients,
in that respect biogas is produced from the digestion of human excreta and they are exploring the
conversion from urine harvested from their waterless urinals to be used as fertilizer instead of Calcium
Ammonium Nitrate, which is beyond the reach of most farmers (sanitation updates 15/05/2009). Local
universities are involved in the training of capacity development of the employees working in the toilets.
Ecotact uses a Build-Operate-Transfer model of public-private partnership, entering into long-term
contracts with municipalities to secure use of public lands. In exchange for the use of public land, the
company agrees to bear all facility construction costs but relinquishes ultimate ownership of the
facilities to the municipalities. The contracts give Ecotact the right to operate the toilet and shower
facilities for a certain number of years and charge user fees. Because it is a Public-Private Partnership
one of the constraints is that nobody knows who will be in power in five year time during the transfer
period and whether the contracts could be extended. Also, the Municipality or City Council; depending if
the toilet is located in urban or rural areas, decides where the facilities should be established having an
impact on the profitability of the business itself which is highly dependent on the location (conversation
with Wendy Mukuru 2009).

Figure 2.7. Ecotact model (ecotact.org)

21

2.4.1.e . Biocentres in informal settlements in Nairobi

Umande Trust, a Kenyan rights-based organisation has developed the BioCentre concept. This is a
biogas generating public toilet located in informal settlements and managed by the Community that
treats human excreta on-site through a biogas digester, its effluent is further treated through reed beds
when space available, however, this is difficult in informal settlements so buffler filtration is being tested.
The sludge is dried in the sun and then composted and the liquid is directed into the soakaway. These
toilets consist of ten cubicles, 9 pour flush toilets using one to two litres per flush and one toilet using a
15 litres cistern that can help flushing solids found in the pipe. It serves around 600 users per day and
the biogas generated can be used as an alternative to GPL, wood or charcoal. The building ground
floor is used for the toilets and showers to optimize accessibility and the upper floor, which maximizes
restricted urban space, has implemented a hall for community activities and a room for a community
health promoter (Audrey, 2009). The project is supported by the provincial administration and the City
Council of Nairobi. Twelve BioCentres are up and running in Kenya and four extra are under
construction. The aim of the project is to have 20 BioCentres in the next three years serving 12.000
people/day (www.challenge.bfi.org). Further to a BioCenter user survey research on Gatwekera Village
in Kibera based on a questionnaire administrated to 500 residents living within the vicinity of the
BioCenter, 458 respondents found no objection for using the facility. There are two caretakers from the
community chosen by the committee during the opening hours who are collecting the fees, providing
toilet paper and cleaning the facilities. The toilets are closed at 9pm, although, spontaneously hawkers
have requested the permission from the community to use the gas generated and the kitcken at night to
cook their dishes. The constraint of that model is the lack of space available in informal settlements to
assure a proper tertiary treatment trough reed beds and therefore the quality of the effluent which can
be up to 80% free of pathogens and that at the moment is directed to a soakaway (conversation with
Dyfed Aubrey, 2009).

Figure 2.9. Ground floor BioCentre
Photo 2.9. BioCentre Figure 2.8. BioCentre design (challenge.bfi.org)
(seedmagazine.com) (challenge.bfi.org)

22

3. CASE STUDY: MOBISAN IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN CAPE TOWN
3.1. Water and sanitation in South Africa
Here below there is a brief description history of Water & Sanitation in South Africa

One sector of the economy of South Africa has developed from a rudimentary settler level through an
agricultural phase plagued by droughts and depressions into that of a sophisticated, mining and
industrialised economy using modern techniques in keeping with those of the western world. The other
sector of the economy is poverty-bound, its poverty aggravated by the systematic destruction of traditional
subsistence economies. This sector enjoys little of the services and advantages of the wealthy sector which
was developed largely at the cost of the poor. The development of South Africa’s water resources has been
linked more with supporting the progress of the country’s wealthy sector than with alleviating the position of
the poor, particularly in the rural areas.

By the end of the 19th century most of the water used in South Africa was for white commercial agriculture.
Water for irrigation was generally diverted directly from rivers, since few dams had been constructed.
Legislation enacted in the early years of this century protected the water rights of farmers along rivers and
the State concentrated on the construction of works to benefit irrigation.

Later, the emphasis on irrigation in the legislation proved to be inadequate for the water requirements of an
expanding industrial base. Accordingly, in 1956 a new Water Act (Act 54 of 1956) was passed, which was
intended to ensure an equitable distribution of water for industrial and other competing users, as well as to
authorise strict control over the abstraction, use, supply, distribution and pollution of water, artificial
atmospheric precipitation and the treatment and discharge of effluent.

With the introduction of Grand Apartheid and the balkanisation of the country into the homeland territories
and the tri-cameral parliamentary “own affairs” administrations, it became very clear that virtually all of the
vast investments mentioned above served the white sector of South Africa and the rest were left to fare for
themselves. Within white “RSA” the black townships were placed under the authority of the “Black Local
Authorities” and also largely left to fend for themselves.

The history of the development of sanitation services closely parallels the history of water service
development in South Africa. In the wealthy municipalities and towns the development of water supplies
generally made provision for the greater quantities of water required for water borne sewage services. Black
local authorities in some areas undertook water borne sewage development but in many places the bucket
system was used.
Extracted from Water supply and sanitation policy, White paper (DWAF, 1994)

3.1.1. Urbanisation and poverty
Regarding poverty and rural exodus, South Africa is not an exception within the African context. The
country is currently experiencing one of the highest rates of urbanisation in the African continent, with
the population of urban dwellers anticipated to reach some 33 million people by 2015 which would be
62.7% of its total population (WRC 2009:1). This high rate of urbanisation increases the number of
people in informal settlements making of these settlements part of the landscape of every city in South
Africa which makes it more difficult for the municipalities to reduce the backlog in housing and
sanitation provision. The definition of informal settlements is context-specific, however, the UN Habitat
Program defines it as follows:

i) Residential areas where a group of housing units has been constructed on land to which the
occupants have no legal claim, or which they occupy illegally;

23

ii) Unplanned settlements and areas where housing is not in compliance with current planning and
building regulations (unauthorized housing).

In South Africa, when almost any land is occupied for more than 24h, the law protects squatters until a
resolution is issued deciding on relocation or non-eviction. Consequently, when an informal settlement
is recognized basic services have to be provided by the Municipality, consisting of 6m3 of water per
person and month along with basic sanitation such as a VIP or similar. Generally, the occupied land
faces physical barriers which limit the sanitation systems to be implemented.

Photo 3.1.Improvised stormwater Photo 3.2. Water ponding next to the Photo 3.3. Unplanned and dense
drainage shacks settlement

Informal settlements are a result of social and economic contradiction (Huchzermeyer et al, 2004). In
2000, the richest 20% of the South African population earns 52.5% of the income, while the poorest
20% earns just 3.1% (ISS 2009). A recent research from the University of South Africa reveals that
during the period 2007 to 2008 differential growth rates with respect to the number of adults in the
different income categories were evident. It was a 58% increase in the adults earning more than
R750.000 pa from 2007 to 2008 while only 0,8% of adults were earning more than R 50.000 pa
compared to the previous year (Aardt et al 2008).

The situation in Cape Town
The Cape Town area has around 240 informal settlements spread mainly in the Cape flats, an
expansive, low-lying flat area situated to the southeast of Cape Town.
HGHGH

Figure 3.2. Adapted from the general household survey
Figure 3.1. Cape Flats area (Wikipedia, 2009) (Huchzermeyer et al, 2004) and Muller (2009)

According to the 2008 general household survey there are 128.146 dwellings out of which only 80.487

24

are serviced with the free basic sanitation policy (6m3 of water/pp/month and a VIP or similar). Then, in
theory the difference between these figures is the sanitation backlog (47.659 households). The
sanitation coverage is calculated using a ratio of one toilet per five families. Therefore, in theory the
number of toilets installed will provide the household coverage number. However, this coverage is just a
figure that does not state whether the sanitation is accepted as well as if one toilet is really serving five
families. This is particularly difficult to control due to constant human migration in informal settlement as
well as the cohesion issues that may arise between dwellers sharing a toilet. This sometimes turns up
in one household changing the lock of the toilet for its own use making the ratio 1:5 not always reliable.
On the other hand, the technologies to be implemented in informal settlements are heavily dependent
upon physical barriers as it is shown in the figures below representing the typical characteristics found
in unplanned settlements in Cape Town.

Figure 3.3. Flooding prone areas Figure 3.4. Land accessibility

Figure 3.6.Housing density distribution
Figure 3.5. Land ownership
Source: Castellano (2007)

3.2. Existing sanitation systems in informal settlements in Cape Town
The following table provided by the WSIS shows the different technologies implemented in Cape Town,
as well as the households served.

25

Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town

Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town

Similaire à Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Thesis Aytor Naranjo Innovative Sanitation The Mobi San Approach In Informal Settlements Of Cape Town