Sustainability and equity aspects of total sanitation ... - WaterAid

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 6In Nepal latrines are characterised as either ‘pucca ’ (permanent) or ‘temporary’.The majority of latrines were either direct or offset single pits. The pucca latrinesinvariably used a standard ‘set’ consisting of three or four concrete rings, a ceramicor concrete pan, and a concrete slab usually laid in situ rather than precast. Therewas virtually no innovation with the exception for two latrines which used oldcooking oil cans for the pan.In Nigeria all of the latrines observed in the study communities were pit latrines.Out of the 109 latrines surveyed in the study communities, only five (5%) were flushor pour-flush toilets; fully 95% of the latrines surveyed were dry pit latrines of whichjust less than half had a cover over the squat hole. Around one third had vent pipesbut almost none were proper ventilated improved pit latrines.6.6 Hygienic latrinesThe Research Design Brief identified four proxy indicators of hygienic latrines: Separates human excreta from human contact Fly-proof (preventing flies from faecal matter to the wider environment) Eliminates smell Does not contaminate surface waterIn Bangladesh the research team found that a significant majority (at least threequarters) of the latrines inspected were hygienic although there is no data from thestudy on impacts on surface water. The data for shared latrines showed slightlyworse results (Figure 4). Interestingly 35% of the latrines surveyed later (which werepredominantly shared latrines) were observed to have damaged polythene or waterseals – and were therefore not considered to be hygienic. There was little detailedinformation on ease of cleaning, although more than 90% of all the latrines werereportedly easy to clean.Figure 4: Incidence of hygienic parameters in observed latrines in Bangladesh100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%All latrinesShared latrines (poor HHs only)10%0%Separates excreta Flies absent Eliminates smell18 Sustainability and equity aspects of total sanitation programmes
Section 6In Nepal 77% of the 61 latrines inspected were considered to be hygienic. None ofthe pucca latrines were found to be unhygienic, whilst 63% of the temporary latrineswere hygienic.In Nigeria all of the latrines were pit latrines and there was no contamination ofsurface water. A few collapsed latrines were observed, but as these provided noprotection at all the households were recorded as practicing open defecation. Inalmost all the other observed cases there was an adequate depth of pit and a slabthat provided effective separation of excreta from human contact. A third hadwashable slabs and 40% had sweepable slabs – the effect of this was that 90% ofthe observed latrines were clean.However, very few latrines were observed that were fly-proof and flies and/orfly maggots were observed in 16% of the latrines. This was partly due to poorimplementation of elements of VIP latrines, notably unscreened vent pipes whichallowed ingress of flies for breeding.Overall there was a mix of hygienic and non hygienic latrines – by and large aroundthree quarters of latrines in Bangladesh and Nepal were judged to be hygienic. Thepercentage was lower in Nigeria but it is difficult to tell to what extent this is due tomore rigorous inspections and to what extent it is due to failures in implementationof the technology.6.7 EquityIntroductionThe literature on CLTS emphasises repeatedly both the need for and the focus onworking across the entire community to achieve 100% change in behaviours. Thejustification for this is strong both in terms of health benefits and equity. Howeverthree specific questions arise: Firstly, the extent to which community-wide sanitation is actually achieved –whether there are certain groups who, despite an initial willingness to participateare more likely to continue to practice open defecation at least some of the time,and whether there are certain groups who are unable to use any of the facilities forfixed-place defecation either for physical or cultural reasons Secondly, whether there are some groups who are disadvantaged by the process,either because of relative poverty, or because they are subject to inappropriatecoercion in order for the wider community to achieve its objective Finally, whether sanitation facilities are available for use throughout the courseof the working day; even where community members move away from the home,to school, work, the market or the fieldsReasons for building latrinesIn Bangladesh many households already had toilets prior to the project intervention.Only a quarter of household respondents for example had built their toilets withinthe last three years.Sustainability and equity aspects of total sanitation programmes19
Page 3 and 4: Running headContents1 Introduction.
Page 8 and 9: ContentsSection 2ObjectivesThe purp
Page 10 and 11: Section 3Table 1: Study communities
Page 13 and 14: Section 2Section 5Limitations of th
Page 15 and 16: Section 6The following sections exa
Page 17 and 18: Section 6Figure 1 : Percentage of h
Page 19: Section 66.4 Open defecationThe res
Page 23 and 24: Section 6Figure 5: Open defecation
Page 25 and 26: Section 6Sanitation available throu
Page 27 and 28: Section 66.8 SustainabilityIntroduc
Page 29 and 30: Section 6In Nigeria there was almos
Page 31 and 32: Section 6Table 7: Summary costs per
Page 33 and 34: Section 6In general, the CLTS-type
Page 35 and 36: Section 7The data are not however c
Page 37 and 38: Section 7countries where NGOs are t
Page 39 and 40: Running head Linked to this, indica
Page 41 and 42: ReferencesReferencesBibby, S. and K
Page 44: WaterAid’s vision is of a worldwh

Sustainability and equity aspects of total sanitation ... - WaterAid

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?