See also Sanitation for a Healthy Nation: Sanitation Technology Options. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Republic of South Africa. February 2002. This brief report presents a range of technical options that meet the requirements for basic sanitation, divided into two categories: Dry on-plot systems (that do not require water for operation) and wet systems (that do require water for operation). The following information is provided for each technical option: technical drawing of the recommended option, description of the options, explanation of the principles of operation, operational and institutional requirements, a summary of costs, and notes on previous user experiences and comments.
 

The household latrine used in low income communities varies enormously in design. Improved versions of the traditional pit latrine include a ventilation pipe or a cover plate for the squat hole. The collection chamber may vary from an unlined pit to a septic tank, a composting chamber or a connection into a sewer. The superstructure may be a crude shelter or an attractive brick or thatch construction with or without a vent pipe and with or without a seat. Ideally hand washing facilities should be associated with the latrine.

Space and ground conditions affect the choice of technology as do social and cultural preferences. The success or otherwise of sanitation programmes is often based on the appropriateness of technology being promoted and unfortunately is often either too prescriptive or based on little community consultation.

Each variation of construction has advantages and disadvantages depending upon the local circumstances and therefore the choice of technology should, as far as reasonably possible be left to the household to determine.

As household sanitation is seen as a household responsibility it is often difficult to get commitment or involvement from the utility or from other agencies such as the local authority. In Burkina Faso a partnership between the municipality and the water utility saw a small part of the sanitation fee collected by the utility being used to subsidise improved latrines. Technical standards were agreed upon with the utility and the construction was carried out by local masons, trained and registered by the utility. In India, a similar strategy is in use to help residents improve their facilities.

Some options are as follows: (click on thumbnail for description)

VIP Latrine (Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine)	Double-pit VIP Latrine	Composting Latrine
Agua Privy	Pour-flush Latrine	Holding Tank

Source: Sanitation for a Healthy Nation: Sanitation Technology Options.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Republic of South Africa. February 2002.

Advantages:

• Household latrines have a high level of convenience and are therefore the most likely of the latrine options to be used.
• Vent pipes reduce smell and, if screened, discourage flies.
• Lined pits reduce risk of collapse, improve emptying and have the possibility of upgrading.
• Septic tanks reduce groundwater contamination, are permanent and have possibility of upgrading.
• Composting systems (Ecosan variations) reduce risk of groundwater contamination, are suitable for poor ground conditions and may provide some economic benefit.

Disadvantages:

• Pit latrines in urban areas will have long term effect on groundwater.
• Septic tanks and sewerage require reliable water supply.
• Septic tanks require an emptying and disposal system.

Principles:

• Household sanitation offers convenience, privacy and is the highest level of service.
• Sanitation solutions for low-income urban communities should have a long-term perspective, and provide the possibility of upgrading to reduce groundwater pollution.
• All households should have access to sanitation as the whole community may be affected by the poor sanitation of a few.

Management options:
Household sanitation is managed at the household level and therefore provides a desirable option for the household as well as the utility. However in urban areas there is a health risk to members of the community from poor sanitation practices by any other member. There is therefore always a need for community and utility (municipality) commitment to follow up and continuously working to address sanitation problems aiming for a progressive improvement in standards. This requires external or community management of a development plan which may include some inspection and a mix of incentives and sanctions for reluctant landlords or community members.

As there are no fees and no service associated with on site household sanitation utilities may feel they have no role. The more enlightened utilities and municipal authorities recognise that household and community sanitation solutions are inter twined with the management of water and health services and they work together to promote and facilitate household sanitation solutions.

Where the household latrine is shared by an extended family or by several tenants within the same yard, management becomes a bit more problematic and occasionally there is inadequate maintenance to the extent that the installation becomes a health risk or is not used at all. The management remains a private responsibility and the range of solutions may include counseling, if this is a common feature of the community, sanctions against the landlord, or community peer group pressure.

Implications:
The choice of household sanitation design may have a serious effect on the groundwater and its future availability as a resource. The design may also affect the possibility and cost of upgrading.

The linkage between sanitation planning and water service planning is essential as they are interdependent, the options for sanitation being greatly influenced by water availability and wastewater disposal requiring a sanitation solution.

Lessons and case examples:

• In Lesotho, a pilot project of installing ventilated improved pit latrines for individual households was expanded to a national program. Additional information is available at http://www.wsp.org/pdfs/af_bg_lesotho.pdf
• In many developing countries, water (rather than paper products) is used for anal cleaning. The pour-flush toilet can be a particularly appropriate technology for such communities. A water seal is provided between the household and the excreta storage pit, so that odors, flies, and insects are kept out of the latrine enclosure. For more information, see link.
• A local government initiative in South Africa has produced a website describing on-site sanitation options including ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, low flow on site (LOFLOS) latrines, and septic tank effluent drainage (STED) systems. See link.
• As household sanitation is seen as a household responsibility it is often difficult to get commitment or involvement from the utility or from other agencies such as the local authority. In Burkina Faso a partnership between the municipality and the water utility saw a small part of the sanitation fee collected by the utility being used to subsidise improved latrines. Technical standards were agreed upon with the utility and the construction was carried out by local masons, trained and registered by the utility. 

See: Increase Access to Improved Sanitation

Just as the in-home connection is viewed as the ultimate goal for water supply planners, utilities, and households, the private sewer connection represents the highest level of service for household sanitation. Waste moves from the household toilet into sewers laid under the road, then is discharged into the environment (ideally after undergoing some form of treatment). Convenient, private, with a high degree of user satisfaction, conventional household sewer connections are also costly and require substantial volumes of water for proper use (approximately 6-15 liters per flush). For these reasons, conventional sewerage is often beyond the reach of low-income urban neighborhoods in developing countries. Two alternative sewerage technologies that are often more appropriate for such communities—small-bore and condominial sewerage—are discussed below.

Advantages:

• Convenient, private, with a high degree of user satisfaction.
• Private facility provides incentives for owners to maintain infrastructure.
• If well constructed, has little impact on groundwater quality.

Disadvantages:

• The most expensive sanitation option, in terms of both capital and operating costs.
• Up-front connection fees are often unaffordable for low-income households.
• Requires substantial volumes of water for proper operation.
• Design, installation, and maintenance require technical capacity often lacking in developing-country communities.
• Environmental hazards can be created by point discharge of large volumes of wastewater.

Management:
As with piped water supply networks, sewer networks are generally managed by municipal or private-sector utilities. Fees for sewerage services are often computed as surcharges on water supply bills.

Implications:

It is often difficult to install sewerage networks in unplanned or informal urban settlements without demolition of existing housing stock. Laying sewer lines also requires a minimum proportion of households to participate such that economies of scale can be exploited.

It is possible in some situations that sewering low-income neighborhoods may drive a gentrification process that raises demand for housing and thus property values. Those residents who rent their homes may find themselves pushed out of neighborhoods where rents are increasing.

Even if it is determined that low-income households are willing and able to pay monthly fees for sewerage service, they may not be able to afford the up-front fees for a household connection. Financing services have been shown to be very effective in overcoming affordability constraints of connection fees.

Lessons and cases:

• Alexandra Township, Johannesburg, South Africa. In this township, the number of households using the sewerage system is exceeds the designed capacity four-fold. Maintenance has been slowed by poor access to the network, caused by rampant illegal construction. Remedial measures employed in Alexandra Township include sewer rehabilitation planning by ‘over-sized’ interceptor sewers and improving backyard shack configurations and sewer alignments. More information is available at http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/case-examples/overview-africa/alexandra-township.html

Sewage disposal network at minimum and standard level using communal facilities initially. The land subdivision pattern establishes the costs for the piped network - a more efficient land subdivision results in reduced costs to the municipality and the user, in both initial capital investment and long-term maintenance. See: Urbanization Primer. Horacio Caminos and Reinhard Goethert. MIT Press. 1983.

  

• Example of Conventional System. (Click on thumbnail)
  

A piped sewer technology developed to reduce the financial and water resources needed for installation and operation is the small-bore sewer. Small-bore sewers convey liquid wastes through narrow pipes to be treated and/or discharged, while solids are collected in a septic tank that is emptied periodically.  
 

A conventional sewerage network is inappropriate for the low-income population of cities in developing countries for a variety of reasons not least of which is the poor access to water services but also including the high per capita cost. The condominial sanitation systems can, however, provide more affordable improved services provided the water consumption is sufficiently high. The system consists of a low-cost secondary pipe network, built upstream of the main sewerage network at the residents' initiative. They share the investment costs (possibly together with donors, or with municipality or utility assistance) as well as the maintenance and management costs. Lower costs are achieved by using small diameter pipes with works partially carried out by residents and the possibility of laying pipes through private lands (no obligation to follow roadways, which would lead to increased length of pipes). The sense of responsibility of the residents is higher, which minimizes the risks of wrong use and decreases operating costs.

This system is widespread in Latin America (in particular in Brazil where it was originally developed). In El Alto (Bolivia), it is the main strategy of the utility to achieve its objective of having 65% of the population connected by the year 2001 (See good practice note in appendix).

Advantages:

• Small diameter pipes at shallow depths reduces cost over conventional sewerage systems.
• Utility maintains main sewer pipes only and community maintains local network.
• High service level, suitable for high density communities.

Disadvantages:

• Cost remains a problem for low-income communities.
• Reliability of water services is essential.
• Problems of downstream waste management remain for the utility. 

Principles:
 

Management Options:
Management of the main sewer and the wastewater treatment process is the responsibility of the utility. The small diameter pipe network joined to the main sewer is subject to a range of possible management options.

Low-income communities in some areas where water supply is adequate may aspire to a condominial, small bore sewerage system. This is probably the closest step to a full sewerage system that is feasible as a low-income area progresses to a higher income level. The maintenance of the pipe infrastructure between the households and the main sewer is a basis for discussion and cost sharing. Responsibility may be taken completely by the utility, the community, or shared, with appropriate impact on charges. Users may form an association formally or informally, although a corporate body recognized by the law is necessary if entering legal agreements with the utility.

Each user would be billed by the utility for the use of water and the mains sewage system. The users would make a commitment to inform the utility of any unauthorised connections and the utility commits itself to connecting any section that is newly occupied after the installation of the initial network. (Sample of the type of arrangements from the Bolivia example)

Implications:
This is a high level of service and requires certain standards of house fittings with their own cost implications. Whilst this may be the long term aim of services to low income communities it is unlikely to be immediately attainable but may be held out as a long term goal. 

Lessons and Case Examples:

• The condominial system is widespread in Latin America, particularly in Brazil where it was originally developed.
• In El Alto (Bolivia), condominial sewerage has been adopted as the utility’s main strategy for pursuing its target of 65% sanitation coverage by the year 2001.
• See also Case Example: Condominial Systems-South American. This case includes some examples from African communities of varying economic status.
• The new sewage design technology reduced sewer diameters, slopes, and manholes in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The service reaches conventional quality standards at greatly reduced cost when waste treatment is integrated with irrigation.
• A simplified sewage and a condominial system was developed in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil by CAERN and the Orangi settlement in Karachi, Pakistan that allows smaller, shallower, flatter sewers with fewer manholes. In combination with low-volume flush toilets (using only one-third the water per flush as conventional toilets), this system reduces costs by as much as 33-46% while providing the same level of service as conventional sewage. For more information, see http://www.wisc.edu/epat/.energy/.env-serv/.format/.tech.html, and http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/Sewerage/manual/pdf/chap1.pdf 
• Example of Shallow Sewer System. (Click on thumbnail)
  

In areas where there is not enough space, the sharing of latrines between several families is a useful solution. The common situation is where groups of households or small communal areas have latrines to be used by all the families. The ownership of the latrines generally belongs to one of the houses, the owner of all the houses, or else ownership is shared between the households. The costs of pit emptying and other repairs is often included in the rent, causing problems when the owner does not live there, or the residents must collaborate to clean the latrine and collect money to get it emptied when necessary. This is a very widespread practice.

More unusual is the case of the communal latrines in Addis Ababa (See Case Example: Latrines). It consists of blocks of latrines, located in a public area, and made up of 2-10 rooms. Communal latrines already existed, but were badly used, cleaned and maintained. The system of ownership of the housing and the sanitation facilities led to a lack of any sense of responsibility and virtually no maintenance. The new system is based on more awareness and responsibility on the part of the users, using neighbourhood linkages. Each room is used by three or four households/families (each family has the key to its rooms) who take it turn to clean the latrine. Then, when a pit is filled up, all users contribute money and get the pit emptied. For that, the users select a representative to deal with general management of the latrine, including the coordination of users and collection of money for cleaning the pit by vacuum truck.

Advantages:

• Cheaper to construct than individual household latrines;
• Can be used in areas where crowding prevents household solutions.

Disadvantages:

• Maintenance is often problematic.
• Not used by all members of the community.
• Distance may be a factor affecting convenience and therefore use. 

Principles:
Designed for use by a defined group of households. 

Management options:
Management can be problematic. As with public latrines one option is to hire a person to carry out the cleaning but this rarely occurs. The most common management option is for households to take it in turn to clean or, as in the Addis case study, for a smaller group of households to be allocated individual rooms within the multi-compartment facility.

Management tends to be given inadequate attention in the planning and construction phase and as a result communal toilets often fail to provide the expected benefits. Communal latrines may be built by the local authority and then handed over to the community under an agreement which requires the community to carry out the maintenance with supervision from the authority.

Implications:
Communal latrines may provide an intermediate service level for overcrowded low-income settlements where there is no possibility of household sanitation. Inevitably they result in a remaining high level of environmental pollution from members of the community unable or unwilling to use them.
Communal latrines fill up quickly if not connected to a sewerage system and so have implications for an emptying and disposal service.

Lessons and Case Examples:

• Shared latrines have been installed in Addis Ababa, consisting of blocks of 2-10 latrines located in public areas. Shared latrines already existed, but were little used, poorly cleaned, and not maintained. The system of ownership for the facilities did not create any sense of responsibility for upkeep among users. The new arrangement has created greater awareness and responsibility among users. Each room of the latrine is used exclusively by three or four households; these users are responsible for cleaning the latrine. When a latrine pit is full, all users are expected to contribute money toward emptying services. One representative of the user group serves as manager of the latrine. His or her responsibilities include ensuring that all households contribute to maintenance, and collecting funds and arranging for emptying services.
• Lessons from Ethiopia indicate that management can be improved by various strategies but that the overall management of shared on-site facilities remains challenging. Instituting charges for use and employing a caretaker may, as with public facilities, may be necessary to address maintenance issues. Emptying services are challenging, and despite the availability of subsidized services concerns about sustainability persist. Privatization and competition have been successful in increasing the availability of such services and in reducing costs within Tanzania; see the Case Example of Dar Es Salaam: Communal Latrines.
• A local government initiative in South Africa has produced a website describing on-site sanitation options including ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, low flow on site (LOFLOS) latrines, and septic tank effluent drainage (STED) systems. See link.

Public toilets tend to be the most common sanitation solution for very crowded communities and for business areas.

In congested urban areas without enough space for household or personal toilets, or even for communal latrines public toilets may be constructed. Public toilets are also appropriate for business areas (markets, bus stations, car parks) for the use of customers and traders, and for religious groups who must make their ablutions before prayers and for whom privacy in toilets and washrooms is a matter of importance.

The public latrine is similar in all respects to the communal latrine except that it is not reserved for a particular group of families or area of households and there is usually a fee for use. They tend to be situated in busy public areas where people congregate for business, pleasure or travel.

Advantages:

• Have the benefit over communal latrines of a higher level of management and maintenance due to the commercial approach.
• Agreements with local authorities ensure some degree of supervision and accountability not necessarily seen for communal latrines.

Disadvantages:

• Distance and cost may be factors affecting convenience and use, especially for the poor.

Principle:
The principle is the provision of a basic level of access to sanitation facilities on a sustainable basis, especially for business or congested areas.

Management option:
The public management (municipal, sanitation department) of public latrines has been abandoned almost everywhere, in favour of some type of private leasing management. This solution seems to find a general consensus.

As a general rule, facilities (latrines and possibly blocks of showers) are constructed and owned by the municipality or government (often funded with donor assistance). The managers who lease them must pay an initial fee plus a monthly (or annual) rent. These amounts are passed on in the charges to the users. The municipalities/ governments are faced with the choice of charging:

• A realistic amount (in absolute value or compared to the cost of the facility) that recovers costs and permits the funding of new latrines if the income is used for that. The managers are then working on a commercial basis. This is the case in Bamako, Mali, with an annual rent of US$ 600, or,
• A more token amount, that encourages private participation even in low-income residential areas (less profitable than commercial areas) and also encourages wider use by residents (lower price). This presupposes, however, that the municipality allocates other tax revenues to fund facilities or benefits from donor assistance (See Case Example: Public Latrines - Nigeria).

Privately constructed public latrines may need to have planning permission, construct according to standards and pay a license fee to the local authority. The owner then operates or hires a manager to operate the latrine and charges a fee for use.

Emptying problems are the same as for communal latrines but as public latrines tend to be run on a payment and profit basis then the payment for emptying services is factored into the fees and managers are prepared to pay the full private sector emptying charge. (See Case Example: Vviability/ profit of privately run public latrines)

Implications:

• Public toilets are an essential component of a hygienic environment and have been shown to be valued and profitable where they have been installed and managed by the private sector.
• Public toilets are only one step to meet the sanitation needs of low-income urban communities with some advantages and disadvantages over communal latrines. They satisfy an important sanitation need in all communities but are unlikely to satisfy the sanitation needs of households.
• Public toilets do need water and the linkage with accessible and reliable water services is important. 

Lessons and Case Examples:

• Sanitation facilities are more profitable in markets or transport terminals. Locating facilities in such areas has been the primary strategy of Sulabh International, an Indian NGO dedicated to the elimination of nightsoil collection in that country. Sulabh facilities combine bathing, laundry and toilet facilities with an attendant operating on a pay-and-use system, and are well located along urban transport, commerce or public spaces. For more information, see http://www.sulabhinternational.org/pg05.htm
• See: “Tenancy and Sanitation Provision in Informal Settlements in Nairobi: Revisiting the Public Latrine Option.” by Madeleen Wegelin-Schuringa and Teresia Kodo. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 9, No. 2, October 1997. Available at http://www.irc.nl/themes/sanitation/publatrine.html.
  This paper describes experiences with the construction or improvement of public latrines in three informal settlements in Nairobi - including the type of latrine used and the organization developed for their maintenance and for cost recovery. It also describes why public latrines are the only possible sanitation solution for most such settlements, given the high densities, the high proportion of tenants and the very low incomes. The paper ends with a discussion on what has been learnt from these experiences, including how best to ensure maintenance and revenue generation.
• Composting communal latrines called ‘Enviro Loo’ as part of an experimental sanitation project in informal settlements in Johannesburg, South Africa. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cv/wedc/papers/23/groupb/banister.pdf 

Emptying services for pits or septic tanks may be manual, by small hand-drawn machines, or by suction trucks. Particular problems of high density unplanned low-income urban settlements can sometimes only be met by manual emptying as other machinery cannot gain access. The emptying service is provided by a mix of municipal and private sector agents although the availability of the service is often poor where attempts have not been made to reform the management system. Municipal emptying services are being gradually withdrawn because they appear not to be very efficient or responsive to demand, and are generally not run on an economic basis. However there are also examples of subsidised, CBO/NGO, emptying services that require external financial assistance (See Case Examples: Addis Ababa) and undermine private sector initiatives.

Experiences of intermediate technologies, such as hand drawn suction machines have rarely extended beyond the stage of external support to become viable businesses and whilst they should not be dismissed, success stories have been limited (See Case Examples: Emptying Services-Nairobi).

Disposal of collected waste should take place at designated sites under agreement with the local authority or utility (See Tools: Sample of the agreement conditions).

Advantages:

• Pit emptying is essential for high density settlements where it is not possible to relocate the latrine when it fills.
• Mechanical pit emptying reduces the health and environmental risks associated with manual emptying.
• Disposal can be controlled where pit emptying is properly organised and service providers can be identified.

Disadvantages:

• Disposal of waste from trucks can cause health and environmental problems.
• Technologies or the scale of demand may not be sufficient to ensure services are provided to low-income urban communities. 

Principles:

• Emptying services should be available at competitive prices.
• Service should be available with a minimum of waiting time.
• Disposal of waste should be environmentally and socially acceptable. 

Management options:

• The private sector is increasingly taking responsibility for emptying operations in most cities. That development includes manual latrine cleaners, used by most low-income families, and suction trucks.
• This is indeed a very competitive sector where benefits of privatisation have been clearly demonstrated. In Dar es Salaam, the municipality decided to open the provision of emptying services to licensed private operators, provided that they complied with a common set of rules and regulations intended to ensure fair pricing and proper handling of waste by all actors. Because of the high level of competition, the tariffs charged have quickly stabilized to half of the official recommended price without reducing the quality of service, nor leading drivers to dump sludge elsewhere other than in the sludge dumping facilities. Waiting time has now been reduced from weeks to hours.
• Over-regulation as an attempt to control the private sector or reduce competition with a parallel municipal service has generally had a negative effect and does not result in any improvement in service.
• Manual cleaners do a large part of the latrine cleaning work in low income urban communities, as they charge little. They tend not to be regulated as they are informal and can operate where other truck based systems cannot reach. The disposal of the waste is problematic as it tends to be buried nearby or just left in the open. Utilities can improve the disposal of waste by providing suitable waste discharge points or allowing the development of private waste disposal systems (See Case Example: Waste Disposal - Cotonou)

Implications:

• More efficient emptying services will place a strain on the already overloaded waste treatment works operated by utilities.
• More efficient emptying services are likely to have an impact on choice of sanitation technology at household and community level.

Lessons and Case Studies:

• Manual cleaners perform a large part of the latrine emptying work in low-income urban communities, as they charge little. Manual cleaners tend not to be regulated and can operate where other truck-based systems cannot reach. The disposal of the waste collected by manual cleaners, however, tends to be buried nearby or simply left in the open. Utilities can improve the disposal of waste by providing suitable waste discharge points, or by allowing the development of private waste disposal systems (see Case Example: Waste Disposal - Cotonou).
• Experiences of intermediate technologies, such as hand drawn suction machines, have rarely extended beyond the stage of external support to become viable businesses. Whereas such technologies should not be dismissed, their successes have been limited (see Case Examples: Emptying Services-Nairobi).
• Suction tanker services may not satisfy the needs of high-density communities where access is difficult and alternatives may still be required (see Case Example: Suction tanker services: Nairobi).
• This is indeed a very competitive sector where benefits of privatisation have been clearly demonstrated. In Dar es Salaam, the municipality decided to open the provision of emptying services to licensed private operators, provided that they complied with a common set of rules and regulations intended to ensure fair pricing and proper handling of waste by all actors. Because of the high level of competition, the tariffs charged have quickly stabilized to half of the official recommended price without reducing the quality of service, nor leading drivers to dump sludge elsewhere other than in the sludge dumping facilities. Waiting time has now been reduced from weeks to hours. For more information, see Case Example: Waste Disposal - Dar es Salaam.