1 Doulaye Koné & Martin Strauss SANDEC / EAWAG – Switzerland Tel / 5553 Faecal Sludge Management The links which matters Urban sanitation upgrading in developing countries

2 Excreta sewered sanitation Septic tanks Latrines Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (co-treatment of small flows of FS) “on-site” sanitation FS treatment Septage Effluent to soakage or drains (alt. 2) Faecal sludge Liquid to discharge into receiving waters No-mix latrines: biosolids and urine to horticulture Effluent to agricultural use or discharged into receiving waters Biosolids to agriculture for soil conditioning and fertilization The System of Faecal Sludge and Wastewater Greywater

3 Current thrusts in urban sanitation development Latrinization (improved systems; increased coverage) – improves hygiene Hygiene promotion (hand- washing; school sanitation; soap usage; ) Ecosan – source separation (feasible in urban areas ?) Low-cost + conventional sewerage (< 20 % of pop. Coverable in many cases).... and who is taking care of the remaining?

Engineers’ thrusts and beliefs How to empty this pit ? What happens next ? Challenges: how to shift our mind set?

2-2.5 billion urban dwellers on on-site sanitation ! Number and share growing ! On-site sanitation = the hidden reality

% of cities and towns in developing countries served by on-site sanitation (latrines and septic tanks) 3.Lack of regulations, illegal dumping and use of FS untreated 2.All installations produce FS to be collected (  trucks replacing sewer lines ?) On-site sanitation = the hidden reality

Faecal sludge = resource

On-site sanitation = the hidden reality

Reuse Technology Managerial, institutional, financial FSM – the pillar of urban sanitation improvement

11 FS management = integral part of sanitation planning! Decentralized system of disposal/treatment sites Treatment plant  Minimising haulage distances FSM – the pillar of urban sanitation improvement

12 The Challenge Guarantee pit emptying, FS haulage, treatment and reuse The Challenge Guarantee pit emptying, FS haulage, treatment and reuse The challenge

13 Problems Pit emptying and FS haulage  No access to pits  Traffic congestion  Poor management of emptying services The challenge

14 WWTP FSTP Condominial septic tank Condomenial septic tanks at easily accessible sites

Low - Low - : Low + Med: med + High - : High + 1.low - viscosity zone 2.low - : low + viscosity zone 3.med : med + viscosity zone 4.high - : high + viscosity zone The chosen technology influences the FS characteristics and determines the emptying procedure and technology Integrating FS M into the urban Sanitation planning

Manual emptying where trucks cannot access/pump or households cannot pay the service

Transportation of manually-emptied solids and liquids

In the street Manual emptying (70%) Dumping in the street, Reuse in agriculture Manual emptying where trucks cannot access/pump or households cannot pay the service

Transportation of manually-emptied solids and liquids Distance? Reuse potential? Humidity (hygienic quality)? Additional treatment (storage)? Greywater collection transpotation and treatment? Quantity (size of neighbourhood)? Business opportunity?

20 Emptying companies are not always equipped with appropriate vehicles  e.g. Haiphong: Tanks in narrow lanes accessible by small vehicles Mechanical emptying lacking the support of local government

Mechanical emptying (30% ) Mechanical emptying lacking the support of local government

Faecal Sludge Management Latrines without it = simply moving the shit around !

1 truck of latrine sludge carelessly dumped = 5,000 people shitting in the open!

Latrines without FSM = promoting open shitting !

Latrines without it = diarrhoea = waste of money = own-goal !

Expertise widely lacking (still bias on sewered sanitation)  need for capacity building of individuals and institutions FSM not recognised as a crucial component of urban sanitation upgrading  need for advocacy and awareness raising The challenge for mitigation

A strategy for sustainable faecal sludge management is elaborated and validated Specific questions What institutional and legal framework to obtain optimum involvement of stakeholders? What financial framework to allow all stakeholders to profit? How to carry it away - what type of sludge from what type of latrine ? Defining new goal for mitigation (MDGs) How to sustain local expertise ?

28 Thick and yellow Sludges from unsewered public or family toilets emptied at weeks’ intervals  “unstable” Thin and black Sludges from septic tanks emptied at years’ intervals  partially “stable” What is faecal sludge ?

29 Sludge drying beds + co-composting Constructed wetlands How to treat ? e.g. by...

Affordability Enforceable regulations, improved public health, reduced pollution Competitive survival Improved FSM means different things for different stakeholders Affordability + better soil

Municipal Authority Households Manual Emptiers Mechanical emptiers Farmers National water&Sanitation Agency National line agencies Donor Agencies Waste collection NGOs Service Financing Leasing Control Fees Cooperation Tool for guaranteeing the business : stakeholder identification and analysis Universities & research institutes

32 stakeholdercost money flow Legend revenue Pit emptying fee Sanitation tax Subsidy External Funds Household (pit owner) Municipal authority Administration, office cost, etc. Profits Collection company Vehicle capital and O+M cost Biosolids sale O+M cost Capital cost FS treatment plant Licensing Discharge premium “Reversing the money flux” A planning tool helping to create the MARKET for a sustainable business

If the dumping of FS is remunerated (Blue line), how much external money (i.e. sanitation tax) is needed to finance a treatment plant and what is the correspondent emptying fee? Money flux model for decision making (Ouahigouya)

Mechanical Emptier National Water & Sanitation Agency (ONEA) Households Farmers Municipality Capital cost 0 € O & M Costs 11.5 € Profit € Current money flow Invest. 14 € ? Pit emptying fee FS sale Licence 12 € 14 € 1.5 € Mechanical Emptier National Water & Sanitation Agency (ONEA) Households Farmers Municipality Capital cost 0 € O & M Costs 11.5 € Profit € Current money flow Invest. 14 € ? Pit emptying fee FS sale Licence 12 € 14 € 1.5 € Sustainability of mechanical emptying

The current money flow is balanced if 75 % of the sanitation tax is recycled into the system. A professional service provider could lower this contribution Sustainability of mechanical emptying

36 Features of improved FSM Feature, componentDomain FSM ↔ on-site technology Engineering Recycling of organic matter and nutrients contained in human “waste” (hyg. safe) Engineering; health; agronomic Policy; regulatory; institutional (“PPP”) Shit hauled to designated sites Financially and economically sustainable Financial / economical Institutional; financial Sanitation stewardship by local entrepreneurs Engineering Cesspit truck operation and maintenance

Sanitation = Business I can do it at low-cost ! Domestic liquid waste (faecal sludge, wastewater, feces, greywater, urine,...) Same product hauled by sewer ! Legalize it !!

Sanitation = Business I can do it at low-cost ! The above-ground sewer system The trucked sewer system The mobile honey sucker Sanitation = Business The above-ground sewer system The trucked sewer system The mobile honey sucker Private entreprises can perform well in the job of bringing the shit to the site – efficiently and affordably !