14thSanitation Community of Practice Meeting:

Sanitation in Emergencies

Thursday 10th April 2014

SanCoP 14 Synopsis: Sanitation in Emergencies

The 14th meeting of the UK's Sanitation Community of Practice was held on Thursday 10th April at Oxfam's head office in Oxford. The meeting's focus was on Sanitation in Emergencies.

The meeting aimed to:

  • Outline recent trends in emergency sanitation
  • Explore the applicability of CLTS (community led total sanitation) in an emergency context
  • Highlight sanitation technologies for use in emergency and humanitarian contexts
  • Develop an appreciation of accessibility issues when designing and planning latrines and sanitation facilities.

The day was kindly opened by Andy Bastable, from Oxfam, and the sessions were chaired by two of the SanCoP committee; Hayley Sharp and Angus McBride. Ruth Kennedy-Walker was unable to attend but played a major role in the coordination and development of the day.

The following is a very short synopsis of each presentation, the ensuing questions and discussions and an overview of thoughts from the attendees on posed questions about the future of the community.

All presentationsare available on:

Thanks

Many thanks for Oxfam for hosting our event. Thanks to our speakers, Andy Bastable (Oxfam), Harriette Purchas (RedR), Angus McBride (Oxfam), Frank Geaves (Concern), EmanueleSozzi and Huw Taylor (Brighton University), Merryn Haines-Gadd, Atsushi Hasegawa, Quentin Huck, Magdalena Pabian, Cesar Portillo, and Lu Zheng (all from Cranfield University), Leigh Jones (SaniBox), Katie Anderson (WASTE), and Hazel Jones (WEDC).

Finally, thanks to all those who facilitated the discussion exercises, assisted in note taking, and attended and contributed.

Synopsis of Presentations

Session 1:"Shit for the Future"

Andy Bastable, Head of Water and Sanitation, Oxfam

Andy opened the day, and provided an overview of humanitarian sanitation, including recent and ongoing research and development in the field.

Some key facts and figures:

  • Population without basic sanitation: 2.4 billion (40%) WHO
  • Solids produced per person per day: 0.4 litres
  • Urine per person per day: d 1.5 litres
  • Average life span of a camp latrine: 3-6 months before desludging
  • Average cost of 1 single latrine: Labour/slab + superstructure = approx £100 (Andy also highlighted that by having an estimated cost per toilet, there's a risk that donors may require all their latrines to be at this cost).

Andy highlighteda range of ongoing research in sanitation. Some examples included:

  • 2009 – GatesFoundation andLSHTM pit latrine bio-additives project.
  • 2011 – a two-day workshop was held in Stoutenburg, the Netherlands, where a gap analysis was undertaken to identify where sanitation technologies could be improved for the emergency phase (e.g. a "no toilet" option, squatting latrine slabs). Some of these are being looked at by Oxfam under the Emergency Sanitation Project.
  • 2012 – theSpeedkits project aims to develop improved kits that can be deployed in emergencies.
  • 2014 - The second "Reinvent the Toilet" forum, held in Delhi in 2014 (funded by Gates), which enable Oxfam to assess a range of new toilet ideas and designs that could be used in emergencies and picked the top 6 for development.
  • 2014 - Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) Challenges – Urban Latrines. Identified that sanitation is still a gap as its more difficult and complicated than water. This was evidence-based. Andy is the Technical Lead for the major grants that are released. An issue they were discussing recently was what people stuck in a 2nd floor flat in Aleppo could use – ideas such as buckets, or special gels.

New developments and technologies include:

  • Urine diversion in emergencies (makes it easier to treat faeces). This was used in Haiti, and Dolo Ado, Ethiopia. They’ve also been quite successful as they smell less. Also managed to use double vault as first phase emergency camps and UNHCR have now bought into the fact that they can work.
  • “Tiger Toilets” use the tiger worm and eudrilusengeniae worm to treat the sewage, with trials in Myanmar, Liberia and India. However the worms are quite sensitive (require the right bedding material), so not yet at implementation.
  • The Biofil model used in Ghana, which uses bedding layers, and worms to live around the bedding. Oxfam have improved it - now called Modified Biofil.
  • Improved Emergency latrine slabs which enable urine diversion. Nag Magic supply most agencies; also do children’s potties.
  • Bio additives seem to be making a resurgence even though before it was proved that they didn’t work. There seems to be a future in it. Lots of research into bio fuel cells, with one development area biofuel (where you could use all the waste from toilets to get power).

Session 2: "Urban Emergency Sanitation"

Harriette Purchas, RedR

RedR recently held their first course on WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) in Urban Emergencies. Harriette presented the outcomes and learning from this course.

Key differences between emergency sanitation in urban and rural areas were highlighted:

  • In an urban area an emergency is more likely to affect many people rapidly.
  • Physical access to get into a city after an emergency can be very hard.
  • In urban areas, people may be used to very good facilities (e.g. Aleppo)- and may not like the post-emergencysolutions offered
  • Land tenure and multiple occupancy are challenges (e.g. Land owners might not want sanitation as it will encourage slum dwellers to stay)
  • Every urban environment is different. It could include different demographics with differences in wealth, different nationalities and ethnic groups - whereas rural areas are more likely to be more homogeneous.
  • An urban environment is more likely to be a monetised economy than in rural areas, and is also more likely to have a large private sector. A voucher systems for NFIs may be more straightforward to implement.
  • Politics, bureaucracy and control can be more entrenched and complex in an urban environment
  • Urban emergencies have a lack of space and access to natural resources - this means that sanitation should be a higher priority in an urban environment.

The city may have a minimum standard for sanitation, and it is important to consider the long-term impacts of sanitation interventions (essential to have an exit strategy at the front end).

SPHERE standards are not always relevant as they were designed for rural areas.

Good management of the latrines is normally more important than the technology. If it’s well managed and clean then people are more likely to use it.The challenge in urban environments to get people to keep it clean.

In an urban environment the humanitarian worker can often act as a facilitator to allow the original systems to get back up to how they were operating - rehabilitating the urban WWTP system so that people can go back to using the systems that exist. This requires a set of skills that are not traditionally within aid worker expertise. RedR are setting up a roster of people who have attended the course so that NGOs can come to them for someone with experience.

Session 3: "The Emergency Sanitation Project"

Angus McBride, Oxfam

An introduction and update on the activities of the Emergency Sanitation Project

The aim of the Emergency Sanitation Projectis to make kits (things that can be held in storage and then shipped out in emergencies). There is currently a lack of sanitation kits available. The Project aims to make a latrine superstructure of lighter materials that is cheaper to construct than existing solutions.

Various latrine superstructures were constructed and demonstrated at the 2014 “Reinvent the Toilet” forum exhibition. There was a clear trade off with robustness and weight, and no outright conclusions on which was the best, however a number were selected and will go out for field testing.

Angus highlighted a number of problems of testing in the field:

  • The designs are for first phase response – so they need to be stockpiled in advance in order to actually be able to be testing in the first phase.
  • Trench lining: Problems of collapsing latrine trenches, oxford plastics making a plastic latrine linings.

Some outcomes of the tests so far:

  • Raised latrines (“Eden Waste). These performed well, people liked them. Feedback was positive in comparison to plastic covered latrines. Desludging equipment was available. But as they were raised latrines they are even heavier and even more difficult to ship.
  • Often latrines made of metal are very heavy. A real problem. Dunster House made a nice wooden latrine, like an IKEA construction (this design is going to be field tested in Ethiopia).
  • Imaker London, a3D printing company, is going to be running a design challenge that asks people to make a design. There is a 3D printer in Lebanon so design will be sent there and made for testing.

By the end of August hopefully more products will be available in the Oxfam, and other aid agencies warehouses.

Concerns were raised over disabled access to latrines, and whether the Project could do more to consider accessibility in the new designs.

Session 4: "Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) in Emergencies Workshop"

Frank Greaves, Tearfund

Exploring CLTS within the Relief-to-Development continuum

Frank discussed the potential for CLTS in emergency and post-emergency settings, and where it could be used along the "Relief to development" continuum.

Frank gave an overview of CLTS - thatit’s a community focussed process, requiring community cohesion, and aims to achieve an open-defecation free community. However, it requires an empowered and cohesive community, which may be challenging in the emergency or post-emergency environment. Frank presented a number of fragile and humanitarian environments where CLTS had been applied, including:

  • Community Approaches to Sanitation (CATS) in Haiti;
  • Implementation of CLTS through IDPs and host communities in Sudan, with a strong use of religious leaders;
  • Afghanistan, which also involved religious leaders, used social marketing, and worked closely with local government;
  • Oxfam in Pakistan, which used children as whistle-blowers
  • Tearfund in DRC, where CLTS was adopted at the government level, and there is a national scheme ‘clean village’ scheme

In groups, attendees discussed the potential for CLTS in emergencies and post-emergency situations. Points raisedincluded:

  • Conflict often leads to movement of people, and fracturing of communities. It could be difficult to enable CLTS with these less stable communities.
  • It may be difficult to encourage people to prioritise CLTS in a conflict situation
  • Lack of access to trained facilitators in a conflict situation?
  • How can you disassociate from an aid dependent environment? CLTS demands an empowered community. If a community are receiving aid, possibly distributions of goods, would it be possible to implement CLTS?
  • Other participants felt that CLTS can be used in urban area - the triggering would is the same but can take various forms. However after triggering, the process can become more political, requiring a broker between landlords, local authorities, etc - and this may not be possible in emergencies.
  • Triggering activities could cause embarrassment, and further conflict within the community

Session 5: "Lime Stabilisation for Faecal Sludge Treatment in Emergencies"

EmanueleSozzi and Huw Taylor, Brighton University

Experiences from Haiti and latest research into using lime stabilisation as a quick and easy method to treat faecal waste.

The presentation dealt with experiences from Haiti and latest research into using lime stabilisation as a quick and easy method to treat faecal waste.

Cholera appeared in Haiti for the first time ten months after the earthquake. To treat the wastewater of cholera treatment, the traditional approach is to put wastewater in a hole, but the high water table in Haiti made this impossible.

In the experience presented, three potential solution were discarded:

  • Disinfection through super-chlorination, as it was expensive and ineffective (cannot disinfect solid particles)
  • Off-site treatment/disposal, as it poses a danger to the public health (there is only an uncontrolled municipal dumping site)
  • Biological treatment, as it has a slow start-up, is expensive and sensitive to disinfectants
  • The only feasible option was then on-site pathogen deactivation (chlorine) chemical combined with coagulation/flocculation to make solid particles sediment (for ulterior solar deactivation).

The process reduced consistently the presence of vibrio cholerae and other pathogens. E. coli for instance was less than 10 per 100 ml.

In the future, in collaboration with Oxfam, the same technology will be applied for faecal waste treatment in Myanmar and the Philippines in order to fill their present treatment gaps.

Academic microbiology can contribute to current development and emergency practice. We now know more about the pathogens survival mechanisms and infection thresholds, so we can have a better understanding of how diseases are transmitted in the field. Thus, different disease pathways can be assessed in terms of which poses a greater risk, supporting more evidence based decision making.

Session 6: "Design of an improved bucket toilet for emergencies"

Merryn Haines-Gadd, Atsushi Hasegawa, Quentin Huck, Magdalena Pabian, Cesar Portillo, and Lu Zheng, C4D, Cranfield University

The development of a ‘sit and pull’ bucket toilet for improved sanitation in urban emergencies.

This project was undertaken by a group of students at the Centre for Competitive Creative Design (Cranfield University) in collaboration with Oxfam, aiming at the development and prototyping of a novel, low-tech portable sanitation solution for urban emergencies.

The main challenges were to balance and manage the tension between high value and low cost, functionality and simplicity, to make it easy of use, stackable and ergonomic.The requirements defined for the sanitation solution to fulfil were that it:

  • Had a hint of toilet shape (seat, lid), used a bag, and was easy to handle
  • Minimised visual impact
  • Considered short and long term use and disposal
  • Was stackable
  • Had a maximum cost of 20 pounds per unit

The working process of designing the solution ensured the exploration of all the possibilities, with several phases from problem definition through to the final selection. The final solution was a plastic structure (including a lid) with a big bag inside and then an intermediate plastic piece used as seat. A smaller bag is attached to this piece so that its string is accessible from outside and the bag can be easily closed and dropped into the big bag (which has to be removed after around 15 uses.

Next steps include:

  • The development of a bag with biodegradable material and that ensures no smell.
  • Field testing of the product (find out if it works there, what can be improved)
  • Manufacturing
  • Think about the disposal system of the big bags –a collection system should be created apart from this toilet

Session 7: "A portable sewage treatment plant for emergency use"

Leigh Jones, SaniBox

The development of and testing of SaniBox, a portable sewage treatment plant for use in emergencies.

SaniBox is a lightweight easily transportable toilet and sewage treatment facility designed for rapid deployment in emergencies but which can be adapted for long-term use, too.Developed from an engineering perspective, SaniBox was created as a result of the consideration that:

  • Sewage and waste-water treatment are not sexy.
  • The biological and engineering aspects involved are little understood.
  • Current infrastructure for waste and sewage tends to be heavy and bulky.

These considerations mean that there is a need for an easily deployable sewage treatment facility that is of good quality, compact, quickly to assemble, hygienic, easily cleaned and environmentally and socially adequate (no water contamination or infringement of cultural sensibilities).

The toilets consist in latrine pans located in a conventional camp tent partitioned in 4. It includes handwashing devices that then flush into the pans.A joint ventilation system obviates the need for a U trap.The waste goes into a flexible plastic pool with six sedimentation chambers,separated by baffles, and an air pump, that aerates and recirculates the sewage.The system deals with most of the waste, rendering it suitable for discharging into a watercourse but not potable.

A single SaniBox unit can serve approximately 100 people.It is electrically powered, requiring 1000W. If the power-supply to the camp is not too irregular (not more than 24h without electricity), the system can recover its waste processing capacity. Longer electricity cuts can however reduce its efficiency by 80%.

The SaniBox is now being tested in a site in Suffolk with animal waste, and there will be another testing in Uganda in the future. SaniBox would be ready to be used at scale by 2018.

Session 8 "Treatment of Faecal Sludge in Emergencies"

Katie Anderson, WASTE

The results of WASTE’s recent field trial of differentfaecal sludge treatment options (lactic acid, urea, and lime) in Malawi

Katie Anderson presented recent research undertaken in Malawi by the NGO WASTE earlier this yearon faecal sludge treatment technologies suitable for emergency situations,investigated through small scale experiments. The purpose of the research undertaken was to provide a safe excreta disposal option applicable during an immediate emergency, and directly afterwards.

Background

Outbreaks of diarrhoeal diseases including dysentery and cholera are common in emergencies and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Containment and Treatment of faecal matter is a vital barrier against the spreading of diarrhoeal diseases, in particular during emergencies when the population is more vulnerable.

The research conducted was in response to a call to investigate low-key faecal sludge treatment technologies that could be rapidly deployed upon the event of an emergency, and are effective under challenging physical conditions e.g. unstable soils, high water tables and flood-prone areas.

Three Faecal Sludge Treatment Options were chosen to be investigated on a field scale namely : Lactic Acid, Urea and Lime Treatment, which were all added to the latrines, and mixed.