Sanitation for low-income rural communities in Nepal: Multi-Criteria Analysis and case studies

Engineers Without Borders UK National Research Conference 2010 Royal Academy of Engineering 19/02/2010
WaterAid Nepal/ Barun Kanta Adhikary

LUCA DI MARIO
DFID British Government

Bursaries

Overview

MSc in Environmental Engineering - Final Dissertation; Decision making for low-cost sanitation Part of a broader programme DelPHE by DFID Financed by DelPHE and EWB-UK Bursaries programme Focus on 2 rural communities Balakhalak Rural community nearby Kathmandu Chamar Tolia Rural community in the Terai Valley

DFID British Government

Bursaries

nec (Nepal Engineering College)

Answering to the dissertation dilemma...

Developing country

Low-income communities

Rural areas or slums

Contributing positively to health and quality of life of the people.

3

Sanitation: why have I decided to deal with this dirty stuff?

42% of Worldwide population lack of simple

sanitation = 2,500,000,000 PEOPLE 1,800,000 PEOPLE die EVERY YEAR from diarrhoeal diseases The most affected are <5 years old children MDG Goal 2015 halve the number of people without sanitation 1$// invested in sanitation = 9x
(UNESCO, 2009)
4

Which sanitation technology build?

IMPROVED SANITATION = safe disposal of

human excreta to block pathogens (break faeco-oral route or BOTTOM-MOUTH) Low-cost sanitation technologies already exist; THE PROBLEMS are:
Break the poo tabu (people Take the right decisions which embody technical/social/environmental factors = SUSTAINABLE DECISION (MAKE ENGINEERS aware of social factors and SOCIAL EXPERT aware of numbers)
5

Decision making - Objectives

Simple and transparent (EVERYONE HAS TO

UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS); Understandable by stakeholders (i.e. community people, NGOs, Government); Consistent and reliable (we MUST do the RIGHT DECISION... Or at least try to do our best) INCLUSIVE of COMMUNITY NEEDS AND DEMAND ASK TO THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED!!! = DESK STUDY + FIELD WORK building enduring systems where people matter (Schumacher Institute)
6

Methodology
Literature review of :
sanitation technologies (i.e. Pit-latrine, VIP, ECOSAN); Decision Making tools (i.e. Decision trees, MCA, CBA);

Understand the best tool to use; Adapt it for sanitation and make it

appropriate; Apply it and verify it on the field.

Why did we need to get in Nepal?

Work in cooperation with Nepal Engineering

College; Interact with the two low-income communities (UNDERSTAND COMMUNITY NEEDS); Apply and test the tool in the field (DOES it WORK? DOES the COMMUNITIES LIKE IT?)

Multi-Criteria Analysis Sum Weighted Method

1= very bad 5 =very good

A guideline to help the Decision Makers...

Problems, stakeholders, options and constraints preliminary Analysis

Objectives determination

Preliminary technology selection

Weighing and socring the MCA matrix together with the community

Multi-Criteria Analysis

Meeting with community people explaining sanitation options

from FTR to FTS

Preliminary design

Final design and specification

10

Interaction with the communities

Workshop in Duhlikel 3rd July 2nd meeting with
Chamartolia

Visits to
Balakahlak

11

Population: 174 Households: 35 Elevation: 1550 m

Population: 187 Households: 17 Elevation: 97 m Community castes: Untouchable

Problems: Floods during rainy season; Lack of improved sanitation; Diseases; Lack of Hygiene; Very low-income community (<US $ 1). Solutions for sanitation: 1. Mounded single pit pour-flush toilets; 2. Mounded single pit-latrines.

Problems: Lack of improved sanitation; Open defecation; Lack of a proper maintenance programme for existing latrines; Insufficiency of water supply; Diarrhoea and other faecal-oral diseases are recurrent; Excreta are reused without any pathogen control for farming purposes. Solutions for sanitation: 1. ECOSAN toilets (only with willingness); 2. Single pit latrine.

12

Conclusions (MCA)
MCA allows to involve community people

within the Decision Making process without neglecting crucial technical element; Tool is straightforward, easy to understand and flexible; It considers different factors (Sustainability); It must be used by trained people with technical background; Sometimes it is not easy to weight correctly.
13

To bear in mind...
policy makers and practitioners who intervene in other peoples live should acknowledge that although they act with the best of intentions, they may sometimes do more harm than good. That possibility should be sufficient motivation for them to ensure their prescriptions and proscriptions are informed even if not dictatedby reliable research evidence. (Ian Chalmers)
14

Special Thanks to...

Dr. Mike Templeton (Imperial College London); Mrs. Sabitri Tripathi (nec);
Nepal Engineering College; Community People; All staff and students of nec

EWB-UK Bursaries programme

15

Thank you !

16

Any question??

?
luca.dimario@ewb-uk.org
17