Teddy Gounden
Contents Background Challenges Urine diversion (UD) technology Urine diversion vs pit latrines Water supply Education Community involvement Results Monitoring Lessons learnt
Background Initiated to aid in preventing outbreaks of cholera and other water borne diseases Initiated in 2002 with a backlog of : 175 000 households without adequate sanitation 68 500 households without access to safe water Pilot project in umzinyathi Urine diversion toilets and yard tanks chosen as most suitable systems for rural and peri-urban areas Funded through Municipal Infrastructure Grant
Rural Water and Sanitation Challenges MDG Targets Emptying Pits Provision of water and sanitation Rural 76 000 UD 24 000 backlog Urban / Peri Urban Ablution blocks 302 completed in informal settlements Backlog 240 000 households VIPs 40 000 to be emptied
Rural / peri-urban Urine Diversion (UD) Toilets
Urine Diversion Technology Separating urine and faeces leads to destruction of disease causing pathogens in faecal matter through drying Two vaults are used contents of one vault dry-out while second is in operation Cover material (sand) is used Urine is diverted to soakpit Vault contents are buried upon removal Structure provided free of charge national funding Households responsible for operation and maintenance
Pedestal with urine diverting fitting
Urine Diversion Toilet Urinal for men Bucket containing sand & ash Pedestal with urine diversion fitting Cover over second vault
Vent-pipe with fly- screen Double vault aboveground Sliding cover access to vault
Influencing Factors Waterborne sewerage is extremely costly due to topographical conditions in unserviced rural areas Cost of emptying conventional VIPs unsustainable Tankers cannot reach many pits due to terrain and densities Desludging by tankers problematic due to solid matter in pits Manual emptying is also problematic due to terrain and costs
Influencing Factors (2) Water and Sanitation delivered as a package, cost effective education delivery Each household receives 300 litres of water a day dictates use of dry sanitation Safe on-site disposal of human waste No new pits required to be excavated when full No need to move top structure when full
Influencing Factors (3) Waste decomposes before expose to surrounding soil Decomposed contents is safer to handle when removing Conventional VIP seepage of raw sewage into surrounding soil/water table Manual emptying of VIP poses health risks
UD Urine Diversion vs Pit (UD) Latrines Pit Latrines (VIP) Separate urine and faecal matter Combined waste Pathogens destroyed through drying No impact on ground water Cost effective : Owners can remove dried feacal matter Pathogens not destroyed as no drying Possibility of ground water contamination Cost intensive: R600 to R1000 to empty one VIP
Water supply Standpipe 200l Ground Tank Informal settlements VIPs Rural UD Toilet
Water management device
Education (1) Education essential for successful role out Visits undertaken to each household: Visit Aim 1st Brief on plans to provide water and sanitation Gain information on household 2 nd Education on health and hygiene 3 rd Explanation on how to use UD toilet 4 th Explanation on water system 5 th Operation and maintenance of UD
Education (2) Educational leaflets on emptying
Education (3) Follow up carried out using the PHAST approach Street theatre productions Schools, shopping centre, taxi ranks On-going education vital Facilitators employed from local communities and trained by institutional and social development (ISD) consultants
Monitoring of Household Understanding & Practice of: - Health and Hygiene - Water and Sanitation System House Survey as Part of Monitoring of Facilitator HSRC House Survey Of Understanding And Practice HSRC Identification of gaps In health and hygiene issues passed to Health Department. HSRC Identification of gaps in understanding of use and maintenance of facilities. HSRC Design and deliver Supplementary education EDUCATION DIVISION Community Health Workers House Survey of use and maintenance of facilities ONLY HSRC Identification of gaps HSRC Supplementary Education EDUCATION DIVISION Construction period 1 st Pit Full 6 months 12 months 2 nd Pit Full Contents of 1 st Pit removed
Community involvement Key for successful implementation Need to understand cultural issues Work closely with tribal authorities Labour sourced from local community
Operation and maintenance Developing a caretaker approach to water and sanitation management One caretaker to manage 300 households Education of households (health, operations and maintenance) Promote services of SSIP Provide advice when emptying Extension of monitoring (O & M Ownership) Report to EWS
Development of Small Scale Independent Contractors To provide emptying service Set up general hardware supply store Provision of general operation and maintenance services
Monitoring Human Science Research Council (HSRC) to evaluate: Effectiveness of education Acceptance by community Maintenance of the system Pollution Research Group (PRG) and the University of KwaZulu Natal (UKZN): Investigating effect on pathogens Investigating use for dried faecal matter
Lessons Learnt (1) Need sector collaboration Need to create economic opportunities On going education and awareness programmes essential Feedback and monitoring of progress important
Lessons Learnt (2) Centralization of the programme has allowed for: Cost savings Focus on quality (sustainability) The implementation model must suit the needs of institution and be acceptable to community Ongoing independent monitoring allows for rapid response Securing of back panels Adequate cover for vent pipes Toilet seat for children
Lessons Learnt (3) Many households are emptying vaults Surveys show 28% refuse to empty but are prepared to pay Visit of President and Minister of Water Affairs greatly increased acceptance