Sustainable Sanitation Solutions for

Refugees and displaced personsGraham Alabaster, UNHabitat

Sunday 25 August | 14.00-15.30 | Room: L12

Convenors: UNHabitat, UNHCR, SDC, EAWAG, BORDA

What are the key Issues?

• Critical decision making processes in the early phases of humanitarian

crises do not always consider longer term sustainability of sanitation

solutions.

• Many refugees and displaced communities are now accommodated in

established urban agglomerations so upgrading of host facilities could be a

priority solution

• Aside from technical choices which are fast to implement, operational costs

are often not properly considered.

• During protracted crisis situations, host governments are often saddled with

the cost of service provision, which often leads to lower levels of coverage

in host communities.

• Effective reuse of faecal sludge and wastewater is seldom prioritised. It

could be used to offset the costs of providing food to migrant communities.

Sanitation Chain

TreatmentEnd-use/

DisposalTransportEmptyingContainment

Demand

Creation

Flush ToiletSewerage network

Pumping stations

Sewage

treatment

works

End-use/

Disposal

Latrine

or

septic tank

Vacuum truckTreatment

plant End-use/

disposal

Primary

emptyingTransfer

Safely covered and replaced in new location

Promote

sanitation,

create

demand,

community

organisation

MDG focus SDG focus

Technical options

Toilet pitPumped

Emptying & Transport

Faecal sludge treatment

plant

Composting / biochar / BSFL

Container-Based UDDT

Vermi-Filter Toilet

Pour-Flush Toilet Simplified

Sewer

Vacuum Sewer

Small-Bore Sewer

InterceptorAnaerobic + Facultative

Ponds

UDDT

Showers

Maturation Pond

Constructed Wetland

Planted Drying Bed / Landfill

Biogas Toilet

Manual Emptying & Transport

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor

Understanding the Issues

S

Topography makes faecal sludge haulage

difficult

Space for waste treatment severely

restricted

Women and Girls Toilet and Shower at Home

Social challenges for Sanitation

Water availability and use dictates what

we are dealing with

• Can mitigate outbreak risk from high population density (especially water-washed disease)

• Faecal sludge → high strength wastewater

Bacteriological quality of effluent crucial

Not only to break transmission route but also impacts on reuse of effluents

Direct disposal of FS into open drains

Solid waste drainage and sanitation are inextricably linked

Sanitation Masterplan

• Multi-year investment plan for sanitation

• Agreed technology and management models

• Economic - lowest long term operation cost

• Environmental – protection of environment, fit within limited space,

• Socially acceptable, reduce public health risks, wastewater reuse,

• Household/Family Latrines and Bathrooms where possible

• Integrated planning of SWM, sullage & drainage

• Different solutions for different sites-Centralised, semi-centralized, decentralized

Master Planning

Approach

Effluent has to drain

somewhere

Can’t rely on leach pits –

use natural drainage

network

Hence need to treat to

good bacteriological

standard

Availability of space for treatment

More opportunity for nearby wastewater treatment

Limited space for nearby wastewater treatment

Intermediate case

In most locations, tertiary treatment to reduce pathogens to acceptable levels with be limited

Waste-Stabilisation Ponds

Facult.Pond

Facult.Pond

A

A

• Simple to operate• Robust• Reflect current

practices

Decentralised Treatment: e.g. ABR

Operational performance data for ABRs in this region?

Low footprint, but in tight spaces conveyance to tertiary treatment site required

Simplified Sewerage

Definition/General Framework▪ constructed with smaller diameter pipes, ▪ laid at shallower depths, ▪ flatter gradients and fewer manholes/inspection chambers than conventional

sewers, ▪ less conservative design standards than conventional sewers, ▪ allows for more flexible design at lower costs, ▪ retrofitted to conventional sewer network.Transferability/Replicability▪ dense urban areas where space for on-site technologies or conventional sewer

is limited ▪ design can also be adapted to the conditions with steep gradients ofrocky hilly areas▪ existing unplanned low-income, less accessible areas i.e. Mwanza’s rocky hills. ▪ Pipes are usually laid within▪ property boundaries and along narrow trails rather than beneath roads▪ allows for fewer, shorter and cheaper pipes (no heavy load)Two important adoptions:1. due to the steepness of Mwanza’s informal settlements, the gradient of the

sewer increased from 10 to 30 per cent.2. due to the presence of rock outcrops, most of the pipes are run above ground

rather than being buried.

Simplified Sewerage – DesignAngular pipe alignment to reduce the pressure flow of sewage

Simplified Sewerage – DesignSewer pipes concrete covered to avoid vandalism and exposure to heat

Simplified Sewerage – DesignHigh-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes were used for main and lateral sewers; thus, any change

of direction and/or angle was made easy by electrofusion jointing (connection)sewage

Simplified Sewerage – DesignMain Simplified sewer line connected to Conventional Sewer system

SANITATION

City/Town % Coverage Before % Coverage After Total Beneficiaries

MWANZA Schools 0 34 157

(26 schools, 680 Teachers)

Public Places 0 620

(1 Dispensary , 1 Market)

INFORMAL AREAS Kilimahewa 0 14.5 (117 *9) = 1 053

Unguja 19.6 (178*9) = 1 602

Kwimba 21.7 (123*9 ) = 1 107

Total 3 762

WATER

Mwanza (Informal Areas) Kilimahewa, Unguja 0 14.4 (117+131 *9) 2 232

Mwanza 90 95 186 967

Magu 32 90 45 000

Misungwi 50 90 30 000

Lamadi 10 90 23 000

Staircases (Kilimahewa-Kwimba-Unguja) 0 18.3 3 762 +

3. Outcomes/Impact

*9 = Average number of persons per structure in Mwanza informal areas, (UN-Habitat 2019)

Simplified Sewerage – Impact▪ Increased access to basic sanitation

▪ Increased access to safe piped water

▪ Improved wastewater collection

▪ Increased number of households with flush toilets compatiblewith SS

▪ Improved Walkability

▪ Increased demand for sanitation services

▪ Improved community knowledge on WASH

▪ Improved WASH behaviours

▪ Reduction in pollution

▪ Increased Citizens participation in WASH programmes

A new paradigm for low-cost urban water supplies and sanitation in developing countries

• A “new paradigm” is proposed for low-cost urban water supply and sanitation, as follows: water supply and sanitation provision in urban areas and large villages should be to groups of households, not to individual households.

• Groups of households would form water and sanitation cooperatives. There would be standpipe and yard-tap cooperatives served by community-managed sanitation blocks, on-site sanitation systems or condominialsewerage, depending on space availability and costs and, for non-poor households, in-house multiple-tap cooperatives served by condominial sewerage or, in low-density areas, by septic tanks with on-site effluent disposal.

• Very poor households (those unable to afford to form standpipe cooperatives) would be served by community-managed standpipes and sanitation blocks.

• Mara D.D & Alabaster G.P, Water Policy 10 (2008) 119–129 “A new paradigm for low-cost urban water supplies and sanitation in developing countries”

Community-based Infrastructure-led planning

Kibera Integrated Water & Sanitation Project

Background information on Kibera

• 7 Km Southwest of the city of Nairobi, within the city boundaries. 3.5 by 1.5 km, 250ha with densities > 2,000 / Ha. 13 Villages 500,000 to 700,000 inhabitants

• No formal road network directly hinders, economic development of the area

• Most lack access to clean water and sanitation facilities

• kiosks and stand pipes are the major sources of water

Background information on Kibera

• The pipelines are usually ruptured exposing water to contamination

• Pit latrines main form of sanitation these toilet facilities are commercialized and expensive

• No waste collection services poor access roads prohibits waste collection Waste gets swept into drains which empty into Nairobi Dam

Kibera Integrated Water & Sanitation Project

• 7 sanitation facilities now accessible to

21,000 residents of Soweto East

(showers and toilets) cost US $ 8 per

capita) Each Facility Management

Group collects on average – Kshs

46,800 (US $ 600) per month

• Construction of the 1.5 km tarmac ring

road across Soweto East completed,

600m of improved drains constructed

• The youth-organized door to door

garbage collection for 400 homesteads

• Waste recycling has become a source

of income with the youth recycling

waste paper for resale

Conclusions

• An early assessment of conditions is critical to identify the best technical options

• Great opportunities exist to look at networked options at an early stage

• A thorough evaluation of CAPEX and OPEX needed

• Treatment must consider bacteriological quality

• Longer term options for reuse should be evaluated