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

2. 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

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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Faecal Sludge: Disposal

8. Faecal Sludge: Disposal

9. Faecal sludge application on vegetable farming without any treatment

10. 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.

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

12. 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.

13. 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

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

15. Barrier 2: Wear Protective Equipment

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

17. Barrier 4:Witholding period Stop one month before harvest

18. Joint Monitoring by Stakeholders

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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