1. WASH Infrastructure & Services Assessment in Zaatari Camp
Key Findings Presentation
June 2017

2. Introduction Communal sewage interceptor tank damage Water supply
Following the completion of the waste water network in Zaatari camp in 2016, REACH, in partnership with UNICEF, conducted a WASH Infrastructure & Services Assessment from 12 February to 5 March This was carried out in 2 phases that were conducted simultaneously.
The primary objective of this assessment was to evaluate the impact of this wastewater management project as well as general WASH practices in the camp in order to inform future programming.
More specifically, the assessment focused on the use of the following WASH infrastructure and WASH-related services by camp residents:
Private WASH infrastructure
Communal sewage interceptor tank damage
Water supply
Waste water and solid waste disposal
Repair & maintenance

3. Methodology: Phase 1
Primary objective: To assess private WASH infrastructure, waste water and solid waste disposal practices, and perceptions of adequacy of WASH R&M services, at the household level.
Every available household1 in the camp, in all 12 districts, was interviewed utilizing a structured questionnaire.2
Interviews were conducted with by a team of Syrian Cash for Workers (CFW) supervised by REACH enumerators, a Senior Field Officer, and Senior Field Manager. A total of 39 CFWs were recruited, which included 18 female and 21 male Syrians.
12,410 households visited
15,165 cases interviewed
68,221 case members recorded
1 Household is defined as either a single or collection of caravans inhabited by a UNHCR registered case or by multiple UNHCR registered cases who share resources. A case is considered the principle family unit upon registration as a ‘person of concern’ with UNHCR.
2 The discrepancy with current UNHCR figures may be explained by the 914 households that were not able to be recorded in the assessment (for the following reasons: no-one was available to interview, no-one above the age of 18 was available to interview, the household declined to interview, or the shelter was seemingly uninhabited), although it is not possible to determine whether the individuals residing in the respective shelters have departed from the camp.

4. Methodology: Phase 2
The second phase aimed to assess the state of communal wastewater network infrastructure, as well as to identify specific locations where further attention is needed.
The second phase of the assessment was conducted by a team of REACH enumerators using a short questionnaire recording damage at the location of each septic tank in the camp.
In addition, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were carried out with 1 or multiple individuals in areas where high levels of damage were recorded.
Number of KIIs conducted
Total number of participants
Number of female participants
Number of male participants 44
104 42 62

5. Key Findings

6. Demographics

7. Population Demographics
68,221 individuals were recorded
56.9% individuals were children (0-17 years)
51% of the camp population is female, and 49% male.
Assessed population demographics, by age group and sex

8. Shelter and Households
Shelter Type
Of the 12,410 shelters that were assessed, 99.3% (12,319) were recorded as caravans.
The remaining 0.7% includes: 77 households that were in mixed-caravan-and-tent shelters, 2 households residing in shelters constructed from metal sheeting, and 12 households were recorded as living in tents.
Household Size
The mean household size was 5.5 persons.
82% of households were single cases.
59% of households reported having a male head of household, and 41% a female head of household.3
3 The head of household is defined as the individual with the primary responsibility for household financial resources and decision-making.

9. Assessed population, by district
District Population
The proportion of the total recorded population (68,221 individuals) varied quite significantly at the district level, with the largest populations recorded in Districts 8 and 11, and the smallest in Districts 3 and 4.
Assessed population, by district
D01
D02
D03
D04
D05
D06
D07
D08
D09
D10
D11
D12
Total
5,537
6,432
4,166
4,007
5,086
6,634
5,916
7,929
4,811
5,496
7,092
5,115
68,221

10. Water Supply

11. Source of Drinking Water
In this assessment, the majority of the households (67.8%) reported using the free water trucking from NGO as their primary source of drinking water.
Reported primary sources of drinking water
32.1% Purchased from private vendor
67.7% Free water trucking from NGOs
Of the 32.1% of households purchasing drinking water, 95% felt the quality of the trucked water was not good enough to drink.
This varied considerably at the district level. The proportion of households using water trucked from NGOs as their primary source was highest in District 8 (79.9%), and lowest in District 1 (55.3%)
The proportion of households using free water trucking from NGOs as primary source of drinking water increased with household size: 64.4% of single occupancy households, up to 73.8% of households with 8 or more people.
Reasons: 0.2% due to late or inconsistent water delivery and only 0.1% because of not receiving free water delivery.

12. Private WASH Infrastructure

13. Households with Private Toilets
Since the last REACH assessment of WASH infrastructure in December 2015, the number of households that reported having a private toilet has increased: from 91% in 2015 to 98.4% in 2017.
of households reported having at least 1 private toilet
Total number of private toilets recorded in the camp
98%
12,508
The proportion of households with a private toilet ranged at the district level from 97.2% (D05) to 99.2% (D12).
The great majority of households reported having 1 private toilet (96%), and 2% reported having 2 or more.
Of the 12,213 households that reported having one or more private toilets, only 319 (2.6%) reported sharing this facility with another household.

14. Households Without Private Toilets
The 1.6% of respondents that did not have a private toilet were asked about what alternative facilities they used.
Reported alternative latrines of those without private toilets
4% Other
27% Private home of neighbour
69% Private home of friend or relative

15. Private Toilet Connection
99.4% of private toilets (12,437) were reported to be connected to the Waste Water Network (WWN) through a phase 1 concrete tank, which qualifies them as having ‘suitable connections’.
71 toilets (0.6%) had ‘unsuitable connections’, which included the use of: private pits, THW line and steel tanks.
Reported sufficiency of connection to the WWN
13.4% Not Sufficient
86.6% Sufficient
At the district level, the proportion of households that reported their connections to be insufficient ranged from 10.8% (District 6) to 16.8% (District 3).

16. Reported impact of connection to the WWN on the sanitation situation
WNN and Sanitation
89.2% of the respondents perceived that the connection to WWN tanks has “improved” or “greatly improved” the sanitation situation
However, 967 households (8.4% of the surveyed population) reported that the connection to the network made it either “worse” or “much worse”.
Reported impact of connection to the WWN on the sanitation situation
Of the 8.2% of households that reported the sanitation situation as ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’, 62.4% reported overflow of septic tanks as the main reason.
Reporting varied considerably at the district level, with 17% of households in District 1 and 11.4% in District 2 reporting the impact of connection as worse or much worse, compared to 4.3% in District 10.
Overflowing issues were more frequently raised in district 1 and district 2 (respectively by 78% and 83.3% of the dissatisfied population) than in district 5 or district 11 (mentioned respectively by 34.5% and 33.3% of the unhappy respondents)
Household composition appears to be related to the type of issues raised: single-person households mostly complained about the bad smell of the vents while larger households mainly reported septic tank overflowing issues.

17. Private Toilet Suitability
5 individual criteria were applied to assess overall suitability of private toilets.4
Proportion of private toilets by suitability criteria met
Criteria
Phase 1 concrete tank or network connection
99% 1%
Impermeable flooring
Handwashing facility
76%
24%
Handwashing water drainage
90%
10%
Permanent walls or curtains
70%
30%
Of households with a toilet, 52.6% of toilets were reported by the household to meet all five criteria, indicating that the toilet is suitable by WASH sector standards.
47.4% of toilets are therefore not suitable.
4 UNICEF established 5 criteria for private toilet suitability, all 5 of which need to be met to be defined as suitable. These include: having a connection to the WWN with a phase 1 concrete tank, impermeable flooring, having a handwashing facility, water drainage for that facility, and having permanent walls or curtains. Households were asked to report if each private toilet met each of these 5 individual criteria, from which overall suitability was ascertained.

18. Private Toilet Infrastructure Upgrade
If a household reported a toilet that was unsuitable according to WASH sector standards, they were asked if they had contacted an NGO to request an upgrade.
69.1% had not contacted an NGO to upgrade their facilities.5
Proportion of households that reported having contacted an NGO for an upgrade of their toilets, by district
Overflowing issues were largely more frequently raised in district 1 and district 2 (respectively by 78% and 83.3% of the dissatisfied population) than in district 5 or district 11 (mentioned respectively by 34.5% and 33.3% of the unhappy respondents)
5 In Districts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, 1% of households with a toilet that was deemed unsuitable reported that they did not know if the household had contacted an NGO to upgrade the toilet.

19. Household Movement and Private Toilets
2.7% of households reported that they had moved to a different location within the camp since January 2016.
80.6% of the households that had moved location reported that they had a private toilet at their previous location in the camp.
Proportion of households that had moved/ had a toilet previously, by type of previous toilet connection
Proportion of households that had moved and had a private toilet in their previous location varied considerably at the district level, ranging from: 52.8% in District 8, to 100% in Districts 1 and 2.

20. Wastewater and Solid Waste Disposal

21. Reported primary grey water disposal method
Wastewater Disposal
Almost all households (99.4%) reported generating grey water on a daily basis.
The most frequent method of disposal was a phase 1 concrete tank, although a minority of households (9.1%) are still pouring grey water on the street.
Reported primary grey water disposal method
Phase 1 concrete tank
Tank and pour on street
Pour on street only
Other
89.8% 7%
2.1% 1%
)nly 28.6% of the single-member households reported owning or using a washing machine as compared to 90.4% of the households composed of 8 members or more.
79.2% of households reported owning and using a washing machine inside the household.

22. Solid waste disposal methods
99.6% of households reported producing solid waste inside their homes
Of the households who reported producing solid waste inside their homes, the vast majority (97.2%) disposed their solid waste in bins, and 45.4% reported using the garbage collection service provided by NGOs.6
Solid waste disposal methods
6 Multiple options could be selected

23. Communal sewage interceptor tank damage

24. Communal sewage interceptor tank damage
34.3% of communal sewage interceptor tank sites assessed were found to be damaged in some way. 7 The proportion of sites with damage varied significantly between districts.
Proportion of damaged tanks, by district
34.3% = 946/2762
The most frequently reported damage was the removal of metal caps from ventilation pipes (97%), followed by rock or soil inside the ventilation pipes (6%), and ventilation pipes and surrounding area either damaged or missing (3%).
7 Communal WASH infrastructure sites were identified as ventilation pipes extending from septic tanks that households were connected to as part of the WWN.

25. Communal sewage interceptor tank damage
Reasons why communal sewage interceptor tank sites are being damaged
1. Kids playing with the pipes’ ventilation covers. (23/44 interviews).
2. Modification of the pipes’ size due to the insufficient capacity of the original ones (resulting in floods, blocked or clogged pipes). (13/44 interviews).
3. Caravans’ enlargement or modification in the layout of the existing shelter (e.g. adding an extra toilet, moving the existing toilet inside of the shelter etc.). (16/44 interviews).
Public health risks awareness
A majority of KIs reported being aware of the public health issues related to misuse of WWN infrastructure materials (or its alteration) can cause. (38/44 interviews).
Only female KIs mentioned attending public health awareness sessions organized by WASH partners in the camp.
Despite this, almost all KIs reported that they would not be able to pay for plumbers’ services to fix household connections and septic tank issues as they do not have the financial resources. (37/44 interviews).

26. Repair, Maintenance, and Reporting

27. WASH NGOs: Awareness and Reporting
More than three quarters of respondents (77.5%) were able to identify the primary WASH actor in their district. 21.8% did not know.8
8.7% of households wanted to report a WASH related issue in the last 3 months. This ranged from 4% in District 7 to 14.5% in District 12.
Of the 1,077 households who wanted to report a WASH issue, 79.4% reported the issue.
Type of WASH issues reported 9
Male-headed households were more likely to report a WASH issue than female-headed households (81.4% compared to 75.8%).
Big discrepancies in the type of issue reported between districts were identified. Desludging problem was the issue households in District 2 most frequently complained about (84.5%), which varied significantly from reported frequency in District 10 (49%).
8 Participants had the option to select: ACTED (Districts 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12), JEN (Districts 3, 4, and 5), Oxfam (Districts 6, 7, and 8), and IRD (previously Districts 6, 7, and 8).
9 Multiple options could be selected

28. Reporting and Satisfaction
Over two thirds of households that reported an issue did so through the WASH hotline (69%), followed by speaking to NGO staff (31.6%).10
Perceived adequacy of response to issue
Of the 42.7% who found the response ‘inadequate’ or ‘very inadequate’, 62.4% cited a lack of response as the reason.
Other reasons for dissatisfaction: Damage was not repaired (20.5%), response was excessively delayed (15.3%), quality of solution was inadequate (5.5%).
The justification most frequently given by those who wanted to complain and ending up not issuing a complaint, was: not believing that it would be effective (53.5%). Followed by: lack of knowledge on how to report the issue (41.9%), and not knowing the WASH partner operating in the district (24.5%).
Reported adequacy varied significantly between districts, ranging from 30% in District 7 to 52.5% in District 3.11
10 Multiple options could be selected.
11 This includes respondents that stated their feedback was either ‘adequate’ or ‘very adequate’.

29. Conclusion

30. Conclusion Private WASH infrastructure
The large majority of households (98.4%) reported having private toilets in Zaatari camp.
99.5% of toilets were connected to the wastewater network via a phase 1 concrete tank. Further, 89.2% of the respondent population perceived that the connection to PRC “improved” or “greatly improved” the sanitation situation.
47.4% of toilets were determined to be unsuitable according to UNICEF standards; only in a third (30.9%) of cases had the households contacted an NGO to upgrade their facilities.
Private WASH infrastructure
Communal sewage interceptor tank damage
Of the small proportion of the respondents (1.6%) who reported not having private toilets within their households, the majority (69%) used their friends’ or relatives’ facilities.
34.3% (946) of the tanks assessed as part of this survey were found to be damaged. The proportion of damaged tanks varied significantly between districts. The most frequently reported damage was the removal of metal caps from the ventilation pipes.
The most frequently reported reason why communal WASH infrastructure is being altered or damaged was due to kids playing with the pipes’ ventilation covers.

31. Conclusion Water supply Waste water and solid disposal
The majority of the households (67.8%) reported using the free water trucking from NGO as their primary source of drinking water.
Of the 32.1% reported purchasing drinking water from a private vendor, 95% felt the quality of the trucked water was not good enough to drink.
Waste water and solid disposal
Almost all households (99.4%) reported generating grey water inside of their home on daily basis.
The most frequent method of disposal was a phase 1 concrete tank, although a minority of households (9.1%) are still pouring grey water on the street.
99.6% of households reported producing solid waste inside their homes, the majority of whom (97.2%) use garbage bins for disposal, and almost half (45.4%) use the garbage collection service provided by NGOs.
At the camp-level, 79.2% of the households reported having a washing machine.

32. Conclusion Repair, maintenance, and reporting
Overall, the majority of respondents were able to correctly name the primary WASH services provider in their district. However, 21.8% did not know.
8.7% of households wanted to report a WASH related issue in the last 3 months, although this varied considerably across the districts.
Of these households, over three quarters (79.4%) did report. The majority of issues were reported via the WASH services hotline, and were about desludging operations.
Of those who reported a WASH-related issue in the last three months, 42.7% perceived the answer they got from the NGO as “inadequate” or “ very inadequate”. The most frequently reported reason for dissatisfaction was the lack of response to the issue they reported (62.4%).
Repair, maintenance, and reporting

33. For further information please contact:
Thank you! شكراً جزيلاً
For further information please contact:
Sarah Vose
Abrassac Kamara