Sustainable Sanitation Solutions for Refugees and displaced persons Graham 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

MDG focus SDG focus

Demand End-use/ Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Creation Disposal

Sewage Sewerage network End-use/ Flush Toilet treatment Pumping stations Disposal Promote works sanitation, create Vacuum truck demand, Treatment Latrine community Primary plant End-use/ or Transfer organisation emptying disposal septic tank Safely covered and replaced in new location Technical options

Manual Container- Emptying & Based UDDT Transport Toilet pit Pumped Faecal sludge Composting / Biogas Toilet Emptying & treatment biochar / BSFL Transport plant Vermi-Filter Toilet Planted Drying Bed / Landfill UDDT

Anaerobic + Small-Bore Maturation Interceptor Facultative Sewer Pond Pour-Flush Ponds Toilet Simplified Sewer Anaerobic Constructed Showers Baffled Reactor Wetland Vacuum Sewer Understanding the Issues

S Topography makes faecal sludge haulage difficult Space for waste treatment severely restricted Social challenges for Sanitation

Women and Girls Toilet and Shower at Home 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

Intermediate case

Limited space for nearby wastewater treatment

In most locations, tertiary treatment to reduce pathogens to acceptable levels with be limited Waste-Stabilisation Ponds

• Simple to operate • Robust • Reflect current practices

Facult. A Pond Facult. Pond A 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 of rocky 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 – Design

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

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

High-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 – Design

Main Simplified sewer line connected to Conventional Sewer system 3. Outcomes/Impact

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 + *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 compatible with 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 condominial sewerage, 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