On-Farm Use of Faecal Sludge Example from Birendranagar Municipality, Surkhet National Workshop on FSM, March 17, 2015 Nadira Khawaja, WASH Sector Leader

Reuse of Faecal Sludge in Agriculture  N, P, K, organic matter  Fertiliser and Soil Conditioner Why to use Peak P- Phosphorus is a finite resource Eutrophication- algal growth in water bodies How to use Septage has high volume water and few solids How to use on farm land safely Health- pathogens and worm eggs Challenges Social Norms- is it acceptable to reuse FS; smell Environment- ground water pollution Why is it so important to use when we have chemical fertilisers- Peak phosphorus Cost/affordability/business models Guidelines All end products can be used if safety guidelines are respected

Birendranagar Municipality Size: 169 km2 Population: 93,718 First planned town Expanded from 36,000 to 93,000

Birendranagar Municipality Majority of households have flush toilet with soak pit or septic tank

Faecal Sludge: Emptying and Transport Services Municipality truck out of service Private Sector: 1 service provider with one truck (6000 L capacity) 7-8 trips per week Charges: 5000 – 6000 NPR Business expansion: Demand exists for single provider

Faecal Sludge: Disposal Dumping: Designated landfill site 10 km from town centre- not used Dumping in forest area- 6-7 km from town centre Untreated use on farm land (rice) Farmers pay 300 – 400 NPR per truck

Faecal Sludge: Disposal

Faecal Sludge: Disposal

Faecal sludge application on vegetable farming without any treatment

Solution: Work with farmer groups, close to the city centre, to use faecal sludge collected from the city, apply on crops as fertiliser, in safe (health and environment) manner, with benefits to crops.

Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Crop Management Crops: Potato Cauliflower Cabbage

Multi-barrier Approach for Use of Human Excreta in Agriculture in Order to Protect Health The multi-barrier approach was the basic framework adopted for reusing human excreta in agriculture so that health risks are minimized. This approach is based on the premise that a single action is not enough for addressing potential health risks from reuse of human excreta in agriculture but also that it is not practically possible to implement all actions- rather a combination of actions is needed and the actions taken depend on the situation. First step may be separation of the excreta streams at source (e.g. this is the case in the double chamber, urine separation toilet) because it reduces the treatment requirements of the different streams. Urine from a healthy person is pure and has no pathogens whereas feces is high in pathogens. 2nd step: urine (which has been contaminated by feces) can be treated by storing it in an air tight container (due to rise in pH and natural die off) and feces can be treated to different levels by drying, composting, heat treatment to kill of as many pathogens as possible (persistent pathogens like helminth eggs need heat treatment). 3rd step: proper application techniques reduces chances of exposures. 4th step: The type of crop grown reduces exposure. Eg. Crops touching the soil have high risk, orchards have low risk. 5th step: Stopping application 1 month before harvest reduces exposure because the excreta is exposed to sun for one month and pathogens die off with time. 6th step: using maskes, gloves and boots at time of application reduces exposure. 7th step: hand washing with soap after application reduces exposure. 8th step: cooking food or washing with soap kills any remaining pathoges. 9th step: basic hygiene practices.

Barrier 1: Treatment Process Fermenter Pool Technology (6 m3) Prepare Mixture of 200L: Molasses (20 kg) Bacterial (EM) solution (20L) Water Bio-pesticide- jeevato (1 L) Store for 1 week in sun

Barrier 1: Treatment Process Fermenter Pool Technology Mix solution and sludge. Add ash if available. Cover, leave for 2 weeks. Mix regularly.

Barrier 2: Wear Protective Equipment

Barrier 3: Method of application Fertigation or application manually in furrows

Barrier 4:Witholding period Stop one month before harvest

Joint Monitoring by Stakeholders

Preliminary Results: Reuse in Agriculture No chemical fertilizer No chemical pesticide Larger size of potatoes Yield the same or more as compared to farmer practices and chemical fertilizers Can use multiple sources of organic matter in fermenter: Septage, traditional toilets, animal manure, green manure

Preliminary Results: Social Norms High acceptance and demand for faecal sludge Use of own toilet waste Illiterate farmers also can easily understand about the process of preparing fermented FS as well as applying in vegetables.

Preliminary Results: Health Results from treated sludge: significant reduction in pathogens Pathogen Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 E. coli 9 x 104 31 x 103 28 x 103 18 x 103 Helminth Eggs Hookworm Hookworm, Ascaris Absent Ascaris Salmonella sp. Present Results from harvested crops in process

Preliminary Results: Affordability Farmers One time investment of 32,000 NPR for fertigation of 1500 m2 land (6 m3 lined pool, drum, pump/pipes) Per cropping season cost of materials: 3,000 to 4,000 NPR (EM, molasses, jeevato, septage) Desludging tanker Reduction in travel cost from 12 km round trip to dumping ground down to 6 km round trip to farmers

Preliminary Results: Environment No risk to ground water pollution No dumping Reuse of phosphorus mineral

Preliminary Results: Challenges Adjust technology and application for rain fed crops Optimise treatment process Optimise use on crops- application rates and timing Access of trucks to fields