November - 2014 WASH | Bangladesh Baseline Study A Baseline Study to Assess Faecal Sludge Management of Residential Premises in Selected Southern Cities of Bangladesh 1869 1869 1869 1869 A Baseline Study to Assess Faecal Sludge Management of Residential Premises in Selected Southern Cities of Bangladesh 1 8 8 4 1 8 8 4 186918691869 Authors: Dr. Ahsanul Kabir and Md. Salahuddin, Urban and Rural Planning Discipline, Khulna University Contributors: Rajeev1 8 8 4 Munankami, Shahidul Islam, Mahmudur Rahman Chowdhury, Reza Patwary and Jenni Lillingston, SNV Netherlands Development Organisation Data collection: Staff of Conservancy Department of Khulna City Corporation, Conservancy/Health Section of Kushtia and Jhenaidah Paurashava Coordination: Md. Anisur Rahman, Conservancy Officer, Khulna City Corportion Ranver Ahmed, Town Planner, Kushtia Paurasahva Md. Kamal Uddin, Asistant Engineer, Jhenaidah Paurashava Shahidul Islam, Sahidul Islam, Kamrul Hassan, SNV Netherlands Development Organisation Edited by: Jeff Gantner, Freelance Technical Writer Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of SNV Netherlands Development Organisation. WASH | Bangladesh1st Day of the Training Executive Summary The main objective of this baseline study was to un- are inaccessible to humans but still accessible to flies derstand the current situation of faecal sludge man- are categorised as level 3, while toilets that are inac- agement (FSM) and practices of residential premises cessible to flies fall into level 4. Toilets that don’t con- in three cities in southern Bangladesh: Khulna, Kushtia taminate surface or groundwater and are inaccessible and Jhenaidah. to flies are categorised as environmentally safe toilets. A second objective was to establish a benchmark for Most respondents have access to an improved toilet the FSM programme. inaccessible to flies (Khulna 66.09%, Kushtia 63.51% and Jhenaidah 43%). We also observed from the same The baseline consists of two parts: variable that open defecation has been very low in all three cities (Khulna 1.33%, Kushtia 1.10% and Jhenai- 1) A quantitative part measuring access to sanitation, dah 1.9%). hygiene and FSM services at residential premises. Toilets with a septic tank are predominant in all three 2) A qualitative part assessing the capacities and ena- cities, but in the majority of households in Khulna and bling environment factors affecting safe sanitation Kushtia, the septic tanks are only providing contain- and FSM services. ment, as there is no soak well. Jhenaidah has a com- This report covers the first part. paratively higher number of environmentally safe toilets because of functional soak pits. Ninety-four per cent We collected information through a questionnaire sur- of households whose septic tanks are not connected vey of sampled households. We employed a stratified to a soak well/pit in Khulna mentioned that septic tank random sampling method designed to detect relatively outlets were connected to surface or grey water drains. small changes in the survey indicators with a satisfying Another 4% said that the liquid from the septic tank degree of precision. To conduct the study, we gathered was released onto open ground. information on five impact indicators: In all three cities, a strong correlation was found be- • Access to sanitary facilities tween access to a sanitary toilet and wealth. This is most pronounced in Jhenaidah. Open defecation • Hygienic use and maintenance of sanitation facili- is relatively low and only seen in the poorest wealth ties quintiles, except in Kushtia where 1% of those that do • Access to hand washing with soap not have a toilet are from the wealthy and wealthiest groups (WQ4 and WQ5). • Safety of pit emptying and collection, and To assess the hygienic use and maintenance of sanita- • Safe treatment and disposal tion facilities, we used a scale based on functionality, availability of water and privacy. High levels indicate We used the Qualitative Information System (QIS) to a hygienically used and maintained sanitation facil- quantify factual statements describing the situation for ity, while low levels indicate poor hygiene. Residents a particular score using progressive scales. Each scale of the three cities have used and maintained toilets in ranges from the absence of the particular indicator at a hygienic way (Khulna 36.47%, Kushtia 42.08% and the lowest level (score 0) to the optimal mini-scenario Jhenaidah 28.70%). At the same time, they are keeping at the highest level (score 4). Levels 1, 2 and 3 de- the toilet clean and privacy is ensured (Khulna 34.82%, scribe the scenarios in-between levels 0 and 4 for each Kushtia 40.43% and Jhenaidah 29.40%). On the other specific indicator. To disaggregate the data by wealth hand, a tiny percentage of respondents have no toi- groups we used asset-based wealth ranking. let or their toilet is not in use (Khulna 2.93%, Kushtia The sampled households’ sanitation facilities were 3.78% and Jhenaidah 3.5%). Thirty-six per cent of re- grouped into various levels as per the type of toilets spondents in Khulna, 42% in Kushtia and 29% in Jhe- they are using. High levels indicate an environmentally naidah have functional toilets without blockages in the safe toilet while low levels indicate no toilet. water seal but there is no water within the toilet cubi- cle. Eighteen per cent of households in Khulna, 6% in Level 1 indicates that no toilet is used within the prem- Kushtia and 19% in Jhenaidah are using a toilet with ises. Level 2 indicates the presence of unimproved toi- functionality problems; common issues are no water lets, i.e., there is direct contact of faeces by humans seal, blockage in the water seal or unimproved toilets or faeces are conveyed directly to the environment; in use. Even if most of the toilets are functional, there shared toilets also fall into level 2. Toilets where faeces is no access to running water within the toilet cubicles A Baseline Study to Assess Faecal Sludge Management of Residential Premises in Selected Southern Cities of Bangladesh | SNV i and the majority of households use pour-flushing after enters the containment wearing protective gear; or an defecation. anaerobic digester was in use. The highest level, en- vironmentally safe emptying, indicates that no one en- Out of 182 cases in all three towns, only 47 households ters the containment; no leakage exists in the sewerage met the toilet use needs of members with mobility dif- pipe; or anaerobically digested slurry is disposed of ficulties. There are 50 cases with members with vision after six months’ storage. In all programme locations, impairment, of these only 13 households have met their more than 85% of households practice unsafe faecal needs. Frequency of toilet cleaning is satisfactory but sludge (FS) emptying and conveyance. There are no there are still a good number of households, especially safe emptying options available in the towns. Sweep- in Jhenaidah, who do not clean their toilet every day, or ers are largely used to empty septic tanks/pits, sweep- even every week. ers in all of the project areas. However, a combination of sweepers and mechanical cleaning is predominant Access to hand washing with soap after defecation in Kushtia. Kushtia Paurashava has been operating Va- was classified based on the availability of a dedicated cutug services for slightly longer than the other two handwashing station, availability of cleansing material, towns. In all three towns, development partners and susceptibility to water contamination and availability the Government of Bangladesh have provided logisti- of running water. Higher levels tend to indicate a con- cal support to the local authorities for emptying, but tamination-free handwashing station while lower levels this collected sludge is directly or indirectly disposed indicate a partial or total lack of water and cleansing into waterbodies. As a result, most households are materials. About half of the households in Kushtia, classified as level 1, i.e. unsafe emptying. 43% of households in Khulna and 29% of households in Jhenaidah fall into the highest level with a dedicated To assess the safe treatment and disposal of sludge, handwashing station with running water and cleansing the levels were based on the final disposal of the materials; but around one-third of the households have sludge. If details are unknown by the household, it’s no handwashing station within accessible distance categorised as practising unsafe treatment. If anaer- with water available (level 0). The situation in Khulna obically digested sludge is disposed directly into the is worse (45%) compared to the other two towns. In environment, disposal is considered partially safe. most households, the decision to install handwashing But if sludge from a single containment is disposed devices is taken together by both the men and women. directly to a designated site or composted using twin Access to handwashing facilities is highly related to pit latrines and the compost is stored for less than six wealth; the wealthier households have better access months, then the practice is classified as using most- to sanitation facilities. In Khulna, the practice of stor- ly safe treatment and disposal. Environmentally safe ing water is very minimal in all of the wealth quintiles. treatment and disposal is where sludge is anaerobi- The majority of the poor (72%) and poorest households cally digested using two-compartment septic tanks (88%) in Khulna do not have a handwashing station or biogas, and the sludge is knowingly disposed to a within accessible distance to the toilet. The situation is designated site or composted in twin pit latrines, and similar in Jhenaidah, where 86% of the poorest house- the compost is stored for more than six months. Two- holds and 45% of non-poor households have no hand- thirds or more households in all three locations prac- washing device.