Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

PROJECT REPORT

2010 - 2011
MSc Public Health

Stream: Health Promotion

Title: Communal Latrine Provision in Liberian Slums

Supervisor: Adam Biran

Candidate Number: 100822 Word Count: 9,277


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................3

EXCUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................4

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................6

2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................8


2.1 AIM ...............................................................................................................................................................8
2.2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................................8

3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................8
3.1 THE SLUM CONTEXT .....................................................................................................................................8
3.2 GOVERNMENT APPROACHCES TO SLUMS AND ITS IMPACT ON SANITATION ............................................8
3.3 COMMUNAL LATRINE PROVISION IN AFRICAN SLUMS ................................................................................9
3.4 GOOD PRACTICES IN THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNAL LATRINES ................................. 10

4 JUSTIFICATION AND KEY QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 11

5. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................................... 11


5.1 SEARCH STRATEGY ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ........................................................................................................................ 12
5.3 SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................................. 15

6. COMMUNAL LATRINE PROVISION IN LIBERIAN SLUMS A CASE STUDY............................ 16


6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 15
6.2 NATIONAL SANITATION PRIORITIES ....................................................................................................... 15
6.3 POLICY ENVIRONMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 17

7. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................... 19
7.1 NUMBER OF PAYING USERS ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.2 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF FACILITIES .......................................... 20
7.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNAL LATRINE USERS .......................................... 21
7.4 HOUSEHOLD LATRINE OWNERSHIP .......................................................................................................... 22
7.5HOUSEHOLD RESSOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.6 PATTERNS OF USE REPORTED BY COMMUNAL LATRINE USERS ........................................................... 21
7.7 CHILDREN AND COMMUNAL LATRINE USE .............................................................................................. 21
7.8 PAYMENT AND WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ..................................................................................................... 24
7.9 SANITATION ACCESS AND PLANS FOR FUTURE USE OF COMMUNAL LATRINES ....................................... 25
7.9.1 COMMUNAL LATRINE USERS SATISFACTION WITH THE FACILITIES .................................................... 26

8. DISCUSSION...26

9. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 32

10. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 33

2
ACRONYMS

CBO Community Based Organisation


GoL Government of Liberia
IDP Internally Displaced Person
I/NGO International/Non-governmental Organisation
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
LWSC Liberia Water & Sewerage Corporation
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MoHSW Ministry of Health and Social Welfare
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
O&M Operation and Management
PLWHA People Living with HIV/AIDS
PRS/P Poverty Reduction Strategy/Paper
SSP Slum Sanitation Programme
UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund
UN United Nations
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WHO World Health Organization
WSSP Water Supply and Sanitation Policy

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgement of academic support


I would like to express my gratitude to all who have assisted with this project and helped
make it a success.

Project development: The idea for this project was shaped after several discussions with
LSHTM professors in the Department of Disease Control. The focus was sharpened after
meeting my supervisor who suggested that I concentrate on aspects of the community
management of communal latrines and its impact on use. Professor Claire Snowden also
helped refine my qualitative research tools.

Contact, input and support: I met with my supervisor three times to develop the research
protocol and to discuss issues regarding ethical approval in a post-conflict country. We had
further email exchanges to develop and refine my household survey and other research
tools. I proposed the project to several INGOs and Yael Velleman (WaterAid UK) forwarded
my proposal to Oxfam GB in Liberia, which is the lead agency of the Liberia WASH
Consortium. The Consortium believed the research would prove useful to the WASH sector
and agreed to host the research. In Monrovia I was based in the office of Concern
Worldwide Liberia, which provided practical advice, administrative and logistical support. I
intermittently contacted my supervisor by email to discuss issues in the field, initial findings
and the first draft of the report. Financial support for the fieldwork was obtained from the
School Trust Funds, Bob Holt (The Mears Group), Prasad Gollakota (UBS), Thomas Lilo
Joycutty (HSBC), and Dr. Nelda Frater (The Frater Clinic). Unpublished documents and
information was provided by Jenny Lamb and Andy Bastable (Oxfam GB), Yael Velleman
(WaterAid UK), Madeleen Wegelin (IRC), David Kuria (Ikotoilet) and Aytor Naranjo.
Encouragement and emotional support was provided by my dear friend and colleague Dr.
Thomas Burke (Partners HealthCare).

Main research work: I identified all references through my own desk review. In Liberia, I
supervised the data collection of six-community based enumerators. I carried out key
informant/group interviews, latrine observations and transect walks.

Writing-up: My supervisor read notes from my field research and made comments and
inquiries. He also read my first full draft of which no major revisions were required.

4
Executive Summary

Communal latrines are an inadequate policy response to the sanitation crisis of sub-Saharan
Africas urban poor. It is estimated that 180 million African urbanites have no access to
sanitation and if current demographic trends persist, a majority of the African population will
reside in urban areas by 2015. This will result in slum densification and increase the urban
need for sanitation by 50 per cent. Humanitarian organisations have responded by providing
community-managed communal latrines in urban slums.

The overall aim of this policy report is to investigate communal latrine provision as a policy
response to inadequate sanitation and endemic cholera in urban slums in the West African
country of Liberia. It examined communal latrine provision in the Billimah, New Kru Town
and Zinc Kamp slums of Monrovia where each community has two communal latrine blocks
built by Concern Worldwide Liberia as part of its cholera response. The facilities have six
pour-flush toilets that are connected to a septic tank. The toilets function independent of
water, electricity and sewerage, and a community-based WASH Committee undertakes
operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities. A household survey in which 79
respondents were interviewed was conducted to ascertain user satisfaction and to explore
communal latrine usage rates, characteristics of users and non-users, and evidence for any
groups being systematically excluded. Multiple methods of inquiry were used to triangulate
the findings and strengthen the scientific argument for validity.

The study sought to answer whether communal latrines significantly reduced open
defecation in Liberian slums. While adult respondents have benefitted from the provision of
communal latrines, young children have been largely excluded because of cost and societal
acceptance of open defecation amongst children. Although usage rates amongst the adult
population were reportedly high, there was an even larger portion of the target population not
using the latrine. The findings suggest that the manner and scale that communal latrines
have been provided in Monrovian slums is not sufficient to stop open defecation.

The study also questioned whether the community management of communal latrines was
sustainable. The findings suggest that the technical design has made it difficult for
community-based WASH Committees to maintain the latrines as communities reported too
small, overburdened septic tanks that leak raw sewage into the roads. The WASH

5
Committees cannot mitigate this environmental and public health risk without substantial
external assistance. Furthermore, the current design is not environmentally sustainable
because the sewerage network does not function properly and vacuum tanks are obliged to
empty septic tank contents untreated into the sea.

These management challenges are handled by the WASH Committees alone each having
varying levels of skill and motivation. The inability of the New Kru Town WASH Committee to
resolve a conflict resulted in the community being locked out of the communal latrines for
nearly five months. The Zinc Kamp WASH Committee was unable to find a caretaker for four
months and the facilities sat unused while the target population continued promiscuous
defecation. Each community reported that the user fees were not enough to empty the septic
tank when it first fills. These findings imply that the current management structure gives the
community too much responsibility in the O&M of the toilets without sufficiently building local
capacity to solve problems. This adversely affects use and threatens the sustainability of the
latrines.

Communal latrines as a policy response to poor sanitation in Monrovian slums have


shortfalls that can only be overcome if the factors for sustainability are systematically
addressed. Concern Liberia and partners should build the capacity of WASH Committees
through standardised trainings to ensure a basic level of knowledge and skills. Gender
equity should be promoted to ensure that the communal latrines are responsive to the needs
of mothers and children. A sanitation demand should be stimulated through social marketing
activities that replace the disease-driven approach to sanitation provision. There is also a
need to advocate with municipalities for a reduced rate to empty septic tanks in slum
communities. These recommended actions would greatly improve the sustainability of the
community-managed communal latrines, and reduce the sanitation-related disease burden
of the communities.

6
1. Introduction

Communal latrine provision as a solution to sanitation in sub-Saharan African slums is a


weak policy response to the sanitation crisis of the urban poor.

Globally 2.6 billion people lack access to improved sanitation about three quarters of who
reside in sub-Saharan Africa (hereafter Africa).1 A lack of access to the safe disposal of
human excreta has traditionally been worse in rural areas but a majority of the African
population is expected to reside in urban areas by 2015, increasing the urban need for
sanitation by 50 per cent.2 In Africa, urbanisation is synonymous with slum densification as
the region has an annual slum growth rate more than double the global average (4.53% per
annum). Currently about 80% of urban dwellers in poorer African countries reside in slums
and Africa is expected to have the highest number of slums by 2020.3

Challenges to providing sanitation in African slums are broad. Sanitation has been severely
underfinanced; there has been little investment into the research and development of cheap
sanitation innovations; it is expensive to import northern technologies; and national
sanitation policies fragment responsibilities across institutions. The aforementioned factors
result in a weak foundation for national sanitation provision in both urban and rural areas.
Urban sanitation has been further challenged by rapid urbanisation that has outpaced the
provision of water and sewerage pipes, poor governance, a lack of political will, a failure to
recognise and provide service to informal settlements and decentralisation with insufficient
capacity building at the local level.

State and non-state providers have responded to the sanitation crisis through the provision
of communal or shared latrines. This policy report will focus on communal latrine provision
as an international non-governmental organisation (INGO) response to inadequate sanitation
in African slums. While communal latrines do not meet the World Health Organization/United
Nations Childrens Fund Joint Monitoring Programme (WHO/UNICEF JMP) definition of
improved sanitation* it is the most common means by which humanitarian agencies aim to
reduce open defecation and the unsafe disposal of human excreta in the slums.

*
JMP: An improved sanitation facility is one (private or shared with a reasonable number of people) that
hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. Communal latrines are not considered improved
sanitation.

7
2. Aims and objectives

2.1 Aim
The overall aim of this policy report is to investigate communal latrine provision as a policy
response to improve sanitation amongst urban slum dwellers in Liberia.

2.2 Objectives
The objectives were to:
1. Summarise existing knowledge regarding communal latrines and other low cost
technologies with a focus on how management and fee structures impact
sustainability.
2. Carry out a case study of a select communal latrine in a cholera-endemic Monrovia
slum to explore usage rates, characteristics of users and non-users, and evidence of
any groups being systematically excluded.
3. Highlight good practices in communal latrine provision in select African slums
including latrine design/user fees/ cleanliness/ maintenance/ distance/ opening
times/gender sensitivity/child friendliness and how these features impact use.
4. Critically review the policy of (communal) sanitation provision in Monrovia slums in
light of the desk and field research, and make recommendations relating to urban
slum sanitation policy.
5. Make policy recommendations to the Liberia WASH Consortium and the Liberia
Water and Sewer Corporation based on evidence from field research and selected
good practices on sanitation provisions in the slums.

3. Background

3.1 The slum context


The United Nations Expert Group Meeting in Nairobi (2000) defined a slum as a contiguous
settlement where the inhabitants are characterised as having inadequate housing and basic
services. A slum is often not recognised and addressed by the public authorities as an
integral or equal part of the city.4 Slums can be found on the land that nobody wants such
as rubbish heaps, swamps, and other unsafe areas. Strategic settling provides some
protection against eviction but also increases the populations risk to infectious diseases and
makes it difficult to find an appropriate sanitation solution. Because of the mainstay features
of the slums, there is little sanitation demand, as poor tenants may fear that an investment in
sanitation will result in an unaffordable rent hike, and landlords do not feel compelled to offer

8
household latrines.5 A lack of sanitation coupled with other environmental factors is
associated with the high levels of ill health found by Rhaman et al (1980)6 in the Dhaka
slums; and Gulis et al (2003)7 in the Nairobi slums.

3.2 Government approaches to slums and its impact on sanitation


Arimah et al (2010) conceptualised three ways in which African States have dealt with
slums: Benign neglect, forced eviction/demolition, and resettlement/upgrading. Each
approach has implications for sanitation provision. Countries adopting the approach of
benign neglect have deemed slums illegal, temporary and prone to disappearance with the
financial growth of the country. Settlements with illegal status are often not serviced by
municipal authorities and have no access to credit because their homes cannot be used for
collateral.8 In a resettlement situation, families are allocated land in which they are expected
to build their own houses (or low-cost housing is provided), and the burden of sanitation falls
on the household. In slum-upgrading programmes the environment is targeted for
improvement and communal latrines are typically provided.

3.3 Communal latrine provision in African slums


The provision and management of communal latrines varies according to context. In African
slums a common practice is for community members to pay at the point of use or to gain
access through the purchase of a monthly card. The structures are often built by I/NGOs or
government agencies that either lease the latrines to private contractors, or donate them to
the community to manage. User fees pay the caretaker who maintains the toilet block on a
daily basis. Fees also pay the municipality or private contractor that empties the pit/tank.
This fragmentation has profound implications for partnerships, because it is very difficult to
link the three segments and their role players into the delivery chain needed for effective
service delivery.9 Communities are then expected to take ownership of facilities that have
no institutional home, accountability or oversight. The end result is that facilities often fall into
disrepair and disuse even in sanitation-stressed areas.10

Research has found that communal latrines are often just receptacles for excreta11 that are
inaccessible and unresponsive to the needs of the target population because of issues
related to cost, access, security and overuse.12 In Harare, Zimbabwe 1,300 people are
supposed to share six seats. In Kibera, Nairobi, 190 shared facilities serve a population of
250,000 (1:1300 users).13 In Nairobi slums women have reportedly been raped en route to

Health problems found included intestinal problems, measles, fever, skin diseases, chronic respiratory
infections.

9
the communal latrine.14 Researchers have found that mothers sometime worry that children
will catch diseases from adult faeces on toilet slabs and fear that small children will fall into
poorly designed toilets.15 These aforementioned factors discourage use and open defecation
is still prevalent in communities where communal latrines are provided.

3.4 Good practices in the community management of communal latrines


Progressive community-based organisations (CBOs) have introduced community
management schemes that have a wider focus than simply providing toilet seats. The CBO,
Umande Trust, built 20 communal bio-sanitation centres in the Kibera, Nairobi slum the
largest being the Katwerkera Tosha Bio Centre. The facilities were found to be sustainable in
a number of ways when evaluated against ten criteria put forth in the Good Practices
Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation outlined by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).16,

Community processes to build and operate the bio-centres were found to promote
democracy and inclusiveness through the engagement of already-established community
groups that select sites of the bio-centres and manage services. The community groups
directly profit through a community-shareholding scheme in which 60% of the fees are
allocated to members as dividends; 30% pays for the O&M of the facility; and 10% is
deposited in a sanitation development fund.17 The technology of the bio-centres is equally
important as communities do not have to spend money to empty pits/septic tanks as the
toilets are connected to a bio-digester in which biogas is produced. Collectively the bio-
centres service about 12,000 users per day.

Another example of a good practice is the Greater Mumbai Slum Sanitation Programme
(SSP), which focuses on building strategic partnerships for the successful community
management of communal latrines.18 Under the SSP, NGOs lead a community-wide
consultative process, which results in the formation and registration of CBOs in sanitation-
stressed areas. Families must express demand through the contribution of a small
membership fee.** CBO members provide assistance and oversight of the latrine
construction throughout the building process. The integrated contracts feature of the SSP
formally links all actors in the provision of communal latrines in the slums. Unifying the
fragmenting service delivery of communal latrine provision in the slums, generating demand

Ten criteria include: availability, accessibility, affordability, quality/safety, acceptability, non-discrimination,


participation, accountability, impact, and sustainability.

TV/video room, caf, clinic, water kiosk, meeting rooms


**
The fee is Rs.100 per adult (US $2.25) (up to a maximum of Rs. 500 (US $11.25) per family.

10
for sanitation at the household level, and introducing mechanisms for the accountability and
regulation of the structures, provides the necessary conditions for the management of
communal latrines in the slums.19

4 Justification and key questions


Access to the safe disposal of human excreta is a fundamental human right that
protects health and upholds human dignity. Liberia has a population of 3.6 million
and nearly 2.9 million lack access to improved sanitation. The sanitation situation has
been affected by the countrys two brutal civil wars that spanned over a 14-year
period from 1989 to 2003. Pre-war sanitation coverage was 27% but a massive
influx of people into the capital of Monrovia, along with destruction of the nations
infrastructure and WASH institutions reduced national sanitation coverage to 17%.
Inadequate sanitation is the key protagonist in a web of interrelated diseases
such as diarrhoea, malnutrition, acute respiratory infections and endemic
cholera. Cholera is endemic in Monrovia and about 888 cumulative
(suspected) cholera cases occurred from 31 Dec 2008 to 18 Oct 2009, nearly 98%
originated in the capital city.20 About 50% of Monrovias population lives in slums and
INGOs respond to cholera hotspots through the provision of communal latrines,
public tap stands and hygiene promotion.

This case study sought to answer:


1. Do communal latrines significantly reduce open defecation in Monrovias
slums?
2. Is the community management of communal latrines sustainable?

5. Materials and methods


The study was comprised of a desk-based review and field research in Monrovia. The
fieldwork portion took place over a five-week period from 27 June to 31 July 2011. Access to
the research site was made possible with support of the Liberia WASH Consortium, which
comprises five INGOs including Oxfam GB, Concern Liberia, Tearfund, Action Contre la
Faim and Solidarits International. Concern Liberia is the only INGO that has built communal
latrines in three of the nine Monrovian slums. The sites comprise Billimah, Zinc Kamp, and
New Kru Town. All three communities participated in some of the research activities.

Civil war dates: 1989-1996 and 1999-2003

11
COMMUNITY VILLAGE POP BUILT HOURS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Logan Town Zinc Kamp 2,362 2010 24 hours WASH HH survey
(pay-per-use) Committee Transect walk
Kinc Kamp 2,871 6.00-22.00 WASH Individual/group
(Shared) Committee interview
Latrine
observation
Freeport New Kru 3,783 2009 LOCKED WASH HH survey
Town Committee Transect walk
(Beach) Individual
New Kru LOCKED WASH interview
Town Committee
Bushrod Billimah I 3,520 2010 6.00-22.00 WASH HH survey pilot
Island Committee Latrine
Billimah II 6.00-22.00 WASH observation
Committee

Figure 1: Research sites and activities

5.1 Search strategy


Database searches of OvidSP, Eldis, and Ovid Medline were conducted that combined the
keywords shared latrine communal latrine or toilet or communal flush toilet or
sanitation block and sanitation or excreta management or CBO or fe#cal sludge
management or ULTS or CHC or demand or participation or MDG or open
defe#cation or hygiene or behavio#r change or technolog* and Africa and slum* or
informal settlemen or urbani#ation or urban area*. Searches were limited to English
language articles, and citation searching was conducted to identify additional references and
titles on the research topic.

5.2 Data collection tools


The case study employed qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative data was
analysed using Statistics/Data Analysis (STATA), while interviews were audio recorded and
coded with NVivo 8.

5.2.1 User counts


Delays in reaching the field prohibited enumerators from conducting a traditional user tally at
the Zinc Kamp site. Therefore the number of users was derived by dividing the cost-per-use

12
(LD $5) by the sum of fees collected at the Zinc Kamp pay-per-use facility. On 7 July, the
day of the household survey, 20 users paid to use the Zinc Kamp facility. The monthly toilet
at Zinc Kamp has an average of 18 rooms (mean household size of 7.8), which means an
average of 140 have access to the pay-monthly facility. No information on the gender and
age of users was ascertainable from these data, and all rooms and users reportedly paid the
same established fees. No user count for New Kru Town was possible because the facilities
have been locked for nearly five months in a community political spat.

5.2.2 Latrine inspections


Visual inspections were conducted in Zinc Kamp and Billimah to ascertain the physical
conditions of the latrines and whether the latrines safely separated human excreta from
human contact. The survey assessed whether there were visible faeces in the cubicles, if
there materials for hand washing or anal cleansing, if a foul smell existed and whether the
facility was well maintained or needed repairs. At the Billimah facilities, the caretaker was not
on duty and two of the six cubicles were locked. At one of the Zinc Kamp facilities one of the
caretakers was not on duty and only a partial observation was possible. Observation of the
areas outside of latrines in New Kru Town revealed many instances of open defecation near
the facilities. [See Appendix 11.3]

5.2.3 Household survey


Six community-based enumerators were deployed to New Kru Town and Zinc Kamp slum
sites on 7 July 2011. Billimah was not included in the household survey because after
learning that New Kru Town community had no access to communal sanitation the survey
was used to measure variations in the defecation practices and attitudes toward communal
sanitation in the two intervention communities. The survey gathered data on household
composition, household resources, sanitation practices, communal latrine use and
frequency, satisfaction with the facilities, perceptions of established fees and prevalence of
self-reported diarrhoea. A comparison of the mean values between Zinc Kamp and New Kru
Town communities were done using simple group comparisons. Statically significant
differences were revealed in regards to defecation practices of adults, but no significant
differences were found between the defecation practices of children or the diarrhoea
prevalence in the households of both communities.

LD $5 equals US $0.07.

13
The enumerators were trained on 4-5 July and the survey was piloted in Billimah on 6 July.
Systematic data cleaning took place on 9 -10 July to eliminate errors that took place during
collection or data entry. [See Appendix 11.2]

5.2.4 Key informant interviews


Six key informant interviews were conducted with WASH Committee members and WASH
and programme mangers working at Liberia WASH Consortium partner agencies. Interview
topics covered topics including capacity building and training of WASH Committees,
monitoring activities and communal latrines as a response to cholera. The interviews were
audio recorded to increase the validity of the data. Coding took place with NVivo 8.

5.2.5 Group interview


A group discussion was conducted with the Logan Town Womens Development Association
on 11 July to ascertain the gender-and-child responsiveness of the communal latrines.
Questions included childrens use of the toilet, considerations of cost for childrens use,
womens safety and privacy. Due to security concerns, the group interview was not audio
recorded. Coding took place with NVivo 8.

5.2.6 Transect walks


Transect walks took place at Zinc Kamp and New Kru Town slums. On 1 July a transect
walk took place with the New Kru Town WASH Committee chairman. He revealed that the
toilet facilities had been locked for nearly five months in a community political spat. Near the
communal latrines there was nearly half a dozen piles of faeces covered with flies. The
WASH Committee Chairman then lead the team to an open defecation site on the beach,
about 100 metres away from beachside toilet facility. Groups of children were observed
defecating on the beach, and adults were observed going to-and-fro the site. The WASH
Committee chairman said that meetings were planned with the local administrator of the
slum to regain access to the latrines.

On 6 July a transect walk took place with the Zinc Kamp chairman. The walk started at the
pay-monthly facility and ended at the front of the settlement. He pointed out areas where
households were squatting on unpaved government roads and explained how this
prevented any potential sanitation upgrades for large portions of the community because no
tankers could access pits or septic tanks for emptying. The poorest households lived in this

The group interview took place outside.

14
area. He also pointed out the section where many people owned homes, and stated that
although some homeowners could afford to build household toilets, the tradition was often
that people built the house first and thought about the toilet later. He also pointed out
abandoned latrines and non-functioning tap stands due to poor design and people stealing
the metal taps to pawn for money. He cited access to water and sanitation as one of the
biggest issues in the community.

5.2.7 Ethical Considerations


The LSHTM Ethics Committee approved this study on 3 June 2011. An amendment to the
application was filed on 6 June 2011 to include the household survey as an additional
method.

5.3 Sampling

5.3.1 Selection of latrine facilities


Concern Liberia has built communal latrines in three slum communities in Monrovia:
Billimah, Zinc Kamp and New Kru Town. Each facility has two toilet blocks with six cubicles.
The user-latrine ratio is: 293:1 at the Billimah facilities; 393:1 at the Zinc Kamp pay-per-use;
478:1 at the Zinc Kamp monthly; and 315:1 at the New Kru Town facilities. All communal
latrines were observed either inside or outside for cleanliness and maintenance.

5.3.2 Selection of households


A near straight line from the latrine to 100 metres was taken with a Vonlen-511 etrex
handheld GPS. The sample was not adjusted for spatial clustering. Enumerators knocked on
every other house as a form of random selection of respondents. Interviewers then asked to
interview the head of the household, or a member of the household that was at least 18-
years old and had knowledge of the sanitation practices of the household. Information and
consent forms were completed before the interview took place.

5.3.3 Selection of key informant/group interviewees


As part of the collaboration with the Liberia WASH Consortium, WASH and Public Health
officers of Liberia WASH Consortium agencies were targeted for key informant interviews.
Concern Liberia WASH staff identified and called WASH Committee members from the
intervention communities to participate in the study. The chairman of Zinc Kamp community
contacted the chairwoman of the Logan Town Womens Development Association to

15
arrange the meeting with the women of the association.

6. Communal Latrine Provision in Liberian Slums a case study

6.1 Introduction
Liberia is a West African country on the North Atlantic coast of Africa. It is bordered by
Guinea to the north, Cte d'Ivoire to the east, Sierra Leone to the northwest, and the Atlantic
Ocean to the south and southwest. The population is estimated at 3.6 million, about 48% of
which are urban inhabitants. Liberia was entrenched in two brutal civil wars over a 14-year
period from 1989 to 2003 (1989-1996 and 1999-2003). The conflict destroyed the nations
infrastructure, institutions and systems of governance; uprooted families and killed an
estimated 250,000 Liberians. A direct result of the war is high levels of poverty in the
country, with at least twothirds of the population surviving on less than US $1 per day.
About 99% of Liberians lack electricity and running water and access to sanitation is
severely limited.

Figure 2 Topographical map of Liberia21

6.2 National sanitation priorities


The Government of Liberia (GoL) has expressed its commitment to tackling poverty in its
poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) for 2008-2011. Sanitation and water are included
under Pillar IV, Infrastructure and basic services. The Governments goal vis--vis the PRS

16
is to reduce the water and sanitation-related disease burden through scaling up hygiene
promotion in communities and schools, and increasing access to clean water from 25% to
50% and increasing access to sanitation from 15% to 40% by 2011.

Figure 3 Sanitation coverage (%) in Liberia. Based on WHO/UNICEF JMP Statistics (2010)

6.3 Policy environment and institutional framework


Liberia passed its Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (WSSP) in 2009. In regards to urban
sanitation, the government aims to provide basic services for all through the provision of
piped sanitation or on-site sanitation systems.22 Funding to implement the WSSP has been
minimal and financing of the sector was a paltry 1% of the total budget in 2008/9. This
meager allocation took place even though Liberia signed the eThekwini Declaration on
Sanitation in 2010, in which African governments pledge a minimum commitment of 0.5% of
national GDP for sanitation and hygiene. The government has since increased its
commitment to WASH, and allocated sector ministries and agencies 7.3% of the total PRS
costs for 2010/2011.23 The 2010 United Nations Development Programme Country Status
Overview found that US $68 million would be needed annually to expand and sustain
sanitation in the country and only one-third of the necessary investment has been funded.24

Institutional arrangements
The roles and responsibilities for WASH are fragmented across three ministries and there is
no mechanism to lead or coordinate the overall strategy. As written, the Ministry of Land,
Mines and Energy (MLME) is in charge of water resources; the Ministry of Health and Social
Welfare (MoHSW) is responsible for water quality; the Ministry of Public Works (MPW)
provides water and sanitation to rural areas; the Liberia Water and Sewerage Company
(LWSC) is provides water and sanitation to populations over 5,000 urban areas (although

17
mandated for urban and rural). Donors and multi-lateral organisations have assumed a
budget support model where monies are contributed through one of several
reconstruction funds. INGOs have provided support and direction with the
implementation and scaling up WASH activities. It is not clear, however, from the
institutional arrangements exactly who has the responsibility for the oversight and regulation
of communal sanitation in urban areas.

6.4 Sanitation in urban Monrovia


The LWSC is responsible for providing water and sanitation services to Monrovia, the 15
County capitals, and other urban centres with populations greater than 5,000. An estimated
25% of Monrovia is connected to the sewer system, while 75% of the urban population uses
either on-site sanitation (pit latrines and septic tanks) or unimproved forms of excreta
disposal. There are no official figures on the number of people with flush toilets connected to
septic tanks, however, vacuum trucks empty the septic tank and drive outside of the city to
dump the contents into the sewer network. The contents are then released untreated into the
swamps and sea because of dilapidated sewerage network is not functioning.25

6.5 Sanitation provision in Monrovias slums


There are nine slum communities in Monrovia, most of which are located in flood prone
areas that pose significant sanitation related risks due to constant flooding and close
proximity to major refuse dump sites. The slums of Monrovia are vestiges of the war as a
majority of its inhabitants are internally displaced persons (IDPs). From 1980 to 2000, the
annual population increase in the capital city was 3.8% of unplanned growth. Monrovias
population alone increased from 0.7 to 1.2 million people over the last 10 years of the
conflict and now stands at about 1.5 million. Slums began to form in the 1950s but slum
densification took place during and after the war. A 2011 Norwegian Refugee Council report
asserts that early on in the conflict, municipalities started charging yearly squatters rights
fees. This practice stems from a 1957 Zoning Code on non-conforming structures.
Charging squatters rights is a de facto practice that is broadly accepted but not clearly
legal. Paying the fee entitles the holder to occupy the area until such time as the
government fines [sic] it necessary to use the land in which case, one month notice will be
given to vacate the premises.26

While there is a dearth of information on sanitation in Monrovias slums, a 2009 Integrated


Regional Information Networks (IRIN) report found that in Clara Town, Monrovia nearly

18
75,000 people share 11 public toilets; and in West Point, Monrovia an estimated 70,000
people share four public toilets.27 Therefore, while communal sanitation is provided in slums,
access remains limited, and a high number of people are forced to defecate into plastic bags
and dispose of them as flying toilets or resort to open defecation.

With sanitation conditions such as these, diarrhoeal diseases are a major health concern in
Monrovia and in 2008 the WHO reported that 18% of all deaths in Liberia are WASH-
related.28 Cholera is endemic in Montserrado, Grand Basa, Grand Gedeh and Maryland
counties. Data from MoHSW reports 888 cumulative (suspected) cholera cases from 31 Dec
2008 to 18 Oct 2009. In River Cess County (2009) there were two reported cholera deaths.
The highest attack ratesor number of cases/populationoriginated in Bushrod Island
(0.02%), Sinkor (0.07%), Central Monrovia (0.10%) and West Point (0.21%). At least 47% of
randomly collected specimen (n=79) tested positive for vibrio cholera serogroup 01 in the
lab.29

The INGO provision of communal latrines in Monrovias slums is one component of an


institutional response to cholera. Cholera hotspots or communities that dominate the
cholera reports*** have first priority in the INGO consideration of providing communal
latrines.30,31 Communal latrine provision is only one aspect of the cholera response. All
partners to the Liberia WASH Consortium implement other WASH activities in urban slums
including the construction of public tap stands, and hygiene promotion.

7. Results

7.1 Number of paying users


The number of users was calculated using financials made available from the Zinc Kamp
WASH Committee. The data was given for the number of months the latrines have been
operational as it took nearly four months to find a caretaker and open the latrines for use.
The pay-monthly facility is located in a more isolated section of the community and the
WASH Committee converted it to a monthly payment scheme to make it financially viable.
While this fee structure has allowed the facility to operate, it has excluded those who are
unwilling or unable to pay the monthly fee, as it is accessible by key to members only.

***
When there is a suspected cholera case, the General Community Health Volunteer (GHCV) reports the case to the
Environmental Health Team (EHT). The EHT then submits the report to the County Health Team (CHT), which is responsible
for making the final report to the MoH. Cholera reports are also sent to the MoH when a person receives treatment at a
government clinic.

19
Pay-per-use facility
There are 2,362 people in the pay-per-use catchment area. For the month of July, the mean
number of paying users per day is 15, with a minimum of 11 users and a maximum of 26.
The mean number of users represents 6% of the target population. Calculations of users
from 6 February 2011 to 10 July 2011 found that the mean number of users per month is
353. This means that on average, only 15% of the target population is using the latrines per
month.

Pay-monthly facility
There are 2,871 people in the pay-monthly catchment area, and there are 18 rooms paying
each month to use the facility. Assuming that the average household size is 7.8, as reported
in the household survey, the pay-monthly facility serves an average of 140 users per month.
This represents about 3.2% of the target population.

Table 1: Number of facility users over one day

FACILITY EST POP32 TOTAL USERS33 % of total pop

Zinc Kamp I (Pay-per use) 2,362 Feb 330 Feb 14 %

Mar 437 Mar 19 %

Apr 376 Apr 16 %

May 354 May 15 %

Jun 460 Jun 19 %

10 Jul 162 July 7%

Zinc Kamp II (Monthly card) 2,871 140 users

7.2 Physical conditions and operating characteristics of facilities


Latrine observations took place at Zinc Kamp and Billimah communities. The New Kru Town
facilities were locked but observation of the areas near the toilet block revealed many
instances of open defecation. The pay-monthly toilet block at Zinc Kamp is more similar to a
shared latrine and was much cleaner than the pay-per-use toilet block. Only one of the
caretakers was on duty during the site visits, therefore two of the latrines were locked.
Observation was therefore only possible on the unlocked cubicles.

20
Table 2: Operating characteristics of facilities

COMMUNITY Village POP BUILT HOURS MANAGEMENT


Logan Town Zinc Kamp (Pay-per-use) 2,362 2010 24 hours WASH Committee
Kinc Kamp (Shared) 2,871 6.00-22.00 WASH Committee
Freeport New Kru Town (Beach) 3,783 2009 LOCKED WASH Committee
New Kru Town LOCKED WASH Committee
Bushrod Island Billimah I 3,520 2010 6.00-22.00 WASH Committee
Billimah II 6.00-22.00 WASH Committee

Of the total cubicles observable: 13% had faeces on the floor; 44% had faeces on the toilet
seat/slab; 25% had faeces on the wall; 25% had a foul smell; 75% had cobwebs; and 33%
were locked from the outside and there was no caretaker around with a key. The pay
monthly facility was cleaner than the pay-per-use facility at Zinc Kamp. All of the facilities in
Bilimah were pay-per-use and there no marked difference between the cleanliness of either
toilet block.

Table 3: Physical conditions of facilities

7.3 Social and economic characteristics of communal latrine users


The most common occupations of the head of household included caring for the family
(22%), casual work (21%) and informal business/petty trade (16%). The protracted civil
conflicts destroyed the economy and severely reduced livelihood options. The informal
sector is therefore a major provider of employment for the population. The informal sector
includes casual work, petty trade, construction, food/janitorial/security services and provides
some source of income for the officially unemployed.34

21
Table 4: Ages and occupations of communal latrine users

Figure 4: Age distribution of respondents

7.4 Household latrine ownership


The mean household size is 7.8 (CI: 6,9). Of the 12 households reporting latrine ownership,
only 7 (58%) owned toilets that qualified as improved sanitation. The remaining 5 (42%)
owned hanging latrines, which do not safely dispose of human excreta. The two most
common reasons given for not having a household latrine is cost 43% (CI: 32, 54) and space
25% (CI: 16, 35).

22
7.5 Household resources
Households in the communities do not have a large resource base to draw from in terms of
assets or infrastructure. The average household does not own a refrigerator/icebox. Only
23% reported owning a generator and 22% reported owning a TV. The most common asset
that households owned was a mobile phone (62%). A woman heads the average household
and the main occupation for female-heads of households is homemaker and does not earn
an income. Families are large, on average about 7.8 household members, with only 65% of
head of households involved in income generating activities. Remittances account for some
of the resource base as 11% of respondents reported remittances as a form of support.
There was no association between household resources and reported communal latrine use.

7.6 Patterns of use reported by communal latrine users


Of the households interviewed for the household survey, 65% (CI: 54, 75) reported having
ever used the communal latrines. All (100%) of Zinc Kamp users (n=28) reported that the
primary purpose for using the communal latrine was defecation, and 70% (CI: 52,89) of
users had used the latrines one day prior to the survey. Because the communal latrines at
New Kru Town have been inaccessible for nearly five months, the question of communal
latrine use was modified to investigate any instance of communal latrine use in the past. Of
those surveyed, 67% (CI: 51, 82) reported using the latrines at least once in the past.

While self-reported data show that communal latrines significantly affect open defecation in
Zinc Kamp, group interviews confirmed that promiscuous defecation is a big problem,
particularly at night. In the morning you walk outside and you see faeces all over the place.
You dont know who did it. You cant find the person, Ms. Jones exclaimed! Ms. Ellis
nodded in agreement. Its bad. If you see someone you tell them, this place is not for
you!35

Table 6: Communal latrine use

Facility Use (%) 95% CI


Zinc Kamp (n=39) 26 (67) (51, 82)
New Kru Town (n=40) 25 (63) (47,78)

23
Table 7: Frequency of communal latrine use

Zinc Kamp (n=39) Frequency


Once a day 18 (46)
Once a week 3 (8)
Twice per week 2 (5)
More than three times per week 3 (8)
Dont use 13 (33)

7.7 Children and communal latrine use


At least 53 respondents reported that a child under five (U5) lived in the household.
Respondents reported that the usual place of defecation for U5s was the potty, 29% (CI:
19,39), bush, 20% (CI: 11,30), or beach 16% (CI: 8,25). While the use of a potty is hygienic,
the most common method of stool disposal is unhygienic. Of the total sample, 58% (CI:
47,70) reported that the faeces in the potty are customarily tossed in the drain/ditch, while
9% (CI: 3,15) reported disposing of the faeces with solid waste. Only 14% (CI: 6, 22)
reported throwing the stool down the toilet. Of these 26% (CI: 14, 39) reported that the U5
had experienced runny stomach (diarrhoea) within the past seven days. Upon entering the
yards to interview people, field workers observed scattered faeces near many of the houses.

Group discussions with women from the Logan Town Womens Development Association
revealed that WASH Committee members found that it was socially acceptable for children
to defecate in the open and that the cost to use the latrine was prohibited when it had to be
paid for multiple times for multiple children. Some of us have five or six children and we
dont have money to pay $5, $5, $5, $5 at the end of the day its [LD] $35. We need that
money to feed our children Ms. Jones said. Another woman added, The children are
supposed to go to the toilet but the money is too much, so they go in a small bucket but
sometimes outside near the house. Questions on what happens to the childrens faeces in
the bucket were met with different answers. One woman said that mothers dig a hole and
cover it, but Ms. Morrison shook her head and said, We just let the children see to it.
Sometimes they throw it in a ditch.36 Findings suggest that cost and social acceptance of
children defecating in the open made it less likely for mothers to insist that children use the
communal latrines.

7.8 Payment and willingness-to-pay


Of communal latrine users, 37% (CI: 26,48) reported that the fee was too high while 25%
(CI: 16,35) thought that the fee was about right. A majority of respondents (46%) (CI: 15,
76) reported that they were willing-to-pay LD $5 for three uses, while 38% thought that a fair

24
price was LD $5 for 2 uses. Many of the public toilets in Monrovia charge "LD $5 for three
uses" and this recommendation is in line with the status quo. There was no separate fee
structure for children and the poorest community members.

Table 8: Established fees

Facility Fee
Zinc Kamp (pay-per-use) LD $5 per use
Zinc Kamp (monthly) LD $100 per month/per room
New Kru Town (I and II) LD $5 per use (closed)

Table 9: User perception of established fees (%)

Zinc Kamp & New Kru About right Too high Too low Dont use Dont know
Town
Users (n=51) 14 (18) 20 (25) 1 (1) 28 (35) 16 (20)
CI: 9,26 CI: 16,35 CI: -1,4 CI: 25,46 CI: 11,29

7.9 Sanitation access and plans for future use of communal latrines
The primary reasons for not having a household latrine were cost, 43% (CI: 32, 54), and
space 25% (CI: 16, 35). Plans for future use is high amongst the majority of respondents
57% (CI: 46, 69) with some variations between the two communities. Data reveal that more
users at Zinc Kamp do not expect to use the communal latrines compared to New Kru Town
residents. The difference could be attributable to access to sanitation, for example, New Kru
Town have no access whereas Zinc Kamp residents have some access and have expressed
dissatisfaction with cleanliness, cost and opening hours. More Zinc Kamp respondents plan
to build a latrine in the near future while no respondents in New Kru Town reported any such
plans.

Qualitative research revealed that aside from cost, land disputes prohibited latrine
construction. The majority (88%) of respondents in New Kru Town are from the Kru tribe,
and second to cost, lack of space, 38% (CI: 20, 50) was the second most common barrier to
latrine ownership. Transect walks through the community revealed physical space on the
plots; key informants revealed that lack of space referred to disagreements with
neighbours/kin on the location of septic tanks and to avoid disputes with ones neighbours/kin
many people would rather go without a toilet as this is traditionally how houses are built.
People build a house first, then they think about the toilet and at that time, it is too late,
there is no space.37

25
Table 10: Percentage of users who expect to use the latrines in the future

Facility Frequency (%) of users who do not expect to be using the


facilities a year from now
Zinc Kamp (n=39) 26 (67)
New Kru Town (n=40) 8 (20)

Table 11: Percentage of users who plan to build a latrine in a years time

Facility Percentage of users who do not expect to be using the


facilities in a years time and plan to build a latrine
Zinc Kamp (n=26) 7 (27)
New Kru Town (n=8) 0 (0)

7.9.1 Communal latrine users satisfaction with the facilities


The majority of current communal latrine users (Zinc Kamp) reported being Satisfied or
Very satisfied with the provision of communal latrines. The top reason cited for liking the
communal latrines was privacy 36% (CI: 23, 48), and clean environment, 22% (CI: 11, 33).
The aspects of communal latrines that were not liked included cost, 42% (CI: 22, 63), night
closure of the facility, 27% (CI: 9, 45), and faeces on the toilet seat, 19% (CI: 3, 35).

Table 12: User satisfaction

Zinc Kamp (n=39) Frequency (%) 95% CI


Satisfied/V Satisfied 24 (62) (46,76)
Unsatisfied/V unsatisfied 2 (5) (-2, 12)
Dont use 13 (33) (18,49)

There were some differences in satisfaction according to gender. Women reported being
very satisfied 71% (CI: 51, 92) compared to 50%(CI: 25,75) of male respondents. Group
discussions with women found that they felt insecure when they had to defecate in the open
and that men sometimes stood and looked. Women said they preferred to use the communal
latrine or ask a neighbours toilet because open defecation is risky. You can be harmed at
any time, one woman said.38

8. Discussion

8.1: Do communal latrines significantly reduce open defecation in urban slums?


This small sample size allowed for the drawing of some general conclusions on the
effectiveness of communal latrines in reducing open defecation. In Zinc Kamp an average of
155 people use the facilities each day and respondents reported that the facilities were used

26
primarily for defecation. Transect walks in Zinc Kamp and New Kru Town communities
revealed a higher level of faecal pollution in New Kru Town community, which has no
communal sanitation access at all. This observation provided further proof that communal
latrines do lead to less open defecation in the community but the manner and scale of
communal latrine provision does not stop open defecation.

At least 53 respondents reported that a child under five-years old (U5) lived in the
household. Most of the U5s defecated in a plastic bucket or outside. The fee structure and
the social acceptance of child open defecation influenced the decisions of mothers to allow
children to practice open defecation. Some mothers interviewed associated the childrens
runny stomach (diarrhoea) with poor sanitation, and at least 26% (CI: 14, 39) of the
respondents reported that an U5 in the household had experienced runny stomach within
the past seven days. A limitation of this association is that this study relied on self-reports of
diarrhoea prevalence and did not adjust for other factors. However, positive associations
between diarrhoea in children and unhygienic child defecation and faeces disposal practices
have been reported in 15 rigorous studies.39 These findings raise serious doubts on
communal latrine provision as an adequate response to cholera if the peri-domestic domain
is polluted with fecal matter that exposes and re-infects household members.

Concern Liberia does not have a child-friendly toilet design and the WASH Committee has
established a standard fee for all users. Children must often rely on adults to accompany
them to the latrines and pay the user fees. As a result, they are often left no choice but to
defecate in the open. This has adverse affects on their health, and organisations that provide
communal latrines should take steps to ensure target communities do not neglect the
sanitation needs of its most vulnerable members. Inclusiveness can be encouraged though a
progressive price structure and child-friendly designs that make it easy for mothers to bring
their children to use the communal latrines.

8.2: Is the community management of communal latrines sustainable?


There are two dominant forms of communal latrine management: Municipality-based and
community-based. This case study focuses on the community-based management of
communal latrines through the critical lens of sustainability. This is a necessary critique as
MDG Goal 7, Target 7c, aims to reduce by half, by 2015, the proportion of people without
sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.40

27
The MDGs do not specify or conceptualise what is meant by sustainable sanitation, but
most definitions encompass technical, financial, environmental and social aspects. The
EcoSanRes criteria for sustainable sanitation reads: protecting and promoting human health;
not contributing to environmental degradation; and being technically and institutionally
appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.41 The sustainability criteria applied
to the communal latrines built by Concern Liberia encompasses the environmental, financial,
technical and community aspects of the EcoSanRes criteria.

Technical
Concern-built communal latrines are pour-flush toilets attached to septic tanks. The design
was chosen because many of the slums are located on sand and have high water tables.
The technology choice affects management if the community is unable to effectively respond
to problems on its own, with limited external assistance. The WASH committee members of
Zinc Kamp and New Kru Town have reported the incidence of tank overflow and discharge
of raw sewage into the environment (particularly during the rainy season). Users responded
by not using the latrines and complaining about the cleanliness of the toilets. It was also
reported that digging shallow wells and fetching water to flush the toilet was burdensome,
and this also had some influence on people using the communal latrines.

The topography of Liberia and the slum context make septic tanks an appropriate and a
problematic choice. With user fees as the only money available for the O&M of the latrines, it
can be difficult to raise enough money to empty the tanks, said Morris Sherman,
Construction Engineer for Concern Liberia.42 Emptying the tanks cost from USD$100 to US
$150, depending on the size of the community and tank. The communities tell us that the
cost is too much, Mr. Sherman said. The LWSC (LWSC) is responsible for emptying the
tanks, although the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) has assisted communities on
request at a charge of US $75. Large tanks require about three trips (US $100 per trip),
which is expensive for low-income communities to afford. The technical aspect of the
communal latrines has made it difficult for the target population to manage the provision of
communal latrines, as the complete sanitation cycle has not been well considered from the
birth of the project.

Financial
If the money raised from user fees is not enough to operate and maintain the toilets, the
tanks become full, the toilets smell and people will avoid using the facility. In the Monrovia

28
example, user fees are the only source of revenue for the O&M of the toilets. Community
sources report that the user fees will not cover the cost of de-sludging the tanks at the time
that they need servicing. Alternative financing mechanisms must be explored as 25% (CI:
16,35) of users said that the current fee is too high. Therefore, increasing the fee to meet
O&M costs could have an adverse affect on use. As the new Liberia WSSP emphasises pro-
poor policies, Concern Liberia could advocate with the LWSC to empty septic tanks in the
slums at a reduced rate. This could be an entry point for strategic partnerships with the local
government. The Umande Trust and the Greater Mumbai SSP have demonstrated ways to
achieve full cost-recovery without charging burdensome user fees. This model should be
explored for its transferability to the Monrovia context.

Community
When Concern Liberia builds a communal toilet it hands the facility over to the community for
use and upkeep. Community members serve on the WASH Committee, which comprises 10
members including: two Community Health Volunteers, community water pump mechanic, a
sanitation representative, and community leaders with influence. Concern Liberia
coordinates the capacity building and training of the committee through inviting partners to
give workshops on different aspects of O&M. Key informants revealed that motivation is of
Committee members is sometime low, and the lack of tangible incentives mean that
participation can be unsatisfactory.

The WASH Committee is solely responsible for the management of the latrines and
communal latrine provision has suffered in both communities because of management-
related issues. A dispute over the handling of funds led to the locking of the communal
latrines in New Kru Town for nearly five months. Self-reported defecation is quite high 92%
(CI: 84,100) and transect walks revealed a high prevalence of faecal contamination in the
environment, and an open defecation site that was only 100 metres away from the
beachside communal latrine. The WASH Committee chairman said that he would soon
schedule talks with the local authority about re-opening the latrines.

29
Figure 5: New Kru Town communal toilets that has been locked nearly five months in community dispute.

In Zinc Kamp the toilet block near the rear of the settlement was locked nearly four months
from the time it was built, because the WASH Committee couldnt find anyone to take the
role of caretaker. The WASH Committee wanted to base the caretaker salary as a
percentage of the user fees collected, but couldnt predict how much the facility would collect
without previous intake. Without a caretaker, there was no way to collect money and de-
sludge the toilet that would certainly fill with use. The toilets remained locked until the
Committee set up a monthly card allotted by the room.

The fee is LD $100 per room, and 18 rooms are currently paying for the monthly card that
gives them 24-hour key access. This has increased ownership of the facilities, but it has also
prohibited community members who do not participate in the scheme from using the now
semi-private toilets. Comparisons were made of the cleanliness of the pay-per-use toilet and
the pay-monthly toilet. The latter was cleaner the former and informal talks with users found
that they had a sense of ownership of the toilets.

In both cases the management issues were not reported to Concern Liberia, even though
directives are given to the Committees on when and how to report issues with the
management of the latrines. Key informants report that the reporting system is inadequate
because many people in the communities are related to one another and it becomes difficult
to make complaints. As this is a post-conflict setting with a relatively weak government,

30
people have also experienced making complaints to the local authorities with no results. It is
reported that many community members view making complaints as a waste of time.
Concern Liberias informal reporting/monitoring mechanism has therefore not been
responsive to realities in the community. Concern Liberia is piloting a Complaints Response
Mechanism (CRM) in target communities, which will provide participant populations with
ways to communicate problems with Concern Liberia and partners. This should assist with
the monitoring and support of community-managed communal latrines.

Environmental
The current design of Concern Liberia communal latrines is not environmentally sustainable
as emptying the septic tanks means that raw sewage must be emptied into the environment,
because the sewer network does not function properly. Although expansion of the sewerage
network is not the mandate of Concern Liberia, choosing sanitation technologies that do not
further degrade the environment is the responsibility of the organisation. Other technologies
such as composting toilets, for example, a double-vault VIP latrine (built up in case of high
water tables), or an Arborloo toilet.

Given the above findings and studies highlighted in the literature search, it would seem
sensible to conduct a qualitative study on the sanitation knowledge, attitudes and practices
of the target population to better inform the INGO response to sanitation provision in the
slums. This study was not able to assess the financial sustainability of the latrines but it
would be appropriate to thoroughly investigate the Umande Trust (Nairobi) and Greater
Mumbai Slum Sanitation Project for transferability to the Monrovia context.

8.3 Limitations of the study


The household survey was conducted with six community-based enumerators: three were
capable performers and three were not. None of the enumerators had previous survey
experience as specified in the agreement with the host organisation. This was partially
mitigated with practice gained from piloting the household surveys and an additional day of
training to allow more time for practice. If I were to repeat this study I would insist on
experienced enumerators and allow for a longer period of training in the chronogram.

All diarrhoea cases and sanitation behaviour relied on self-reports and were subject to
courtesy bias. The enumerators were not blinded to the research question and triangulation
revealed variations between the responses in the household survey and individual/group

31
interviews. Logistical restraints prevented the focus-group discussions with users and non-
users from taking place. This wouldve provided more in-depth analysis of user satisfaction
and insights into the management of the latrines.

Published information on WASH in Liberia is limited, as many of the ministries do not have
Internet access and the country. While the literature search was done in a systematic way, I
did not do a systematic review of communal sanitation provision in Africa slums. This would
have yielded mixed results as many African countries face the same limitations to
information provision as the ministries in Liberia.

Some information and methods included in the protocol were not included in the study. The
exit surveys were not included because transport to the survey sites was delayed and teams
arrived after the peak time to conduct interviews. This limited the ability to assess user
satisfaction and the extent that the latrines provide for the daily sanitation needs of the target
population. An examination of other-low cost technologies was excluded because it would
have made the focus of the study too broad.

9. Conclusions
The findings from this report are based on a small sample in the capital city of Liberia. More
research is needed to determine whether the findings are generalisable to other settings.
While some people in the target population are using the communal latrines, the manner and
scale that facilities have been provided is not sufficient to stop open defecation. There were
disparities in access within and across intervention communities, with children most often
excluded.

The health implications of the communal latrines inability to stop open defecation and
decrease cholera have severe consequences for child survival. Children in slums tend to
have poorer nutritional status and overall health and are highly susceptible to diarrhoea,
which kills nearly 1.5 million children U5 each year.43 Childrens faeces also have a higher
prevalence and intensity of intestinal worms and both stages of the transmission cycle (the
excretion of worm eggs, and the infection of the next host44 frequently occur when children
stools lie on the ground, particularly in the yard. Communal latrine provision as a response to
cholera will not prevent the endemic presence of the bacteria because a majority of the
population does not use the facilities and hand-washing basins with soap are unavailable.45

32
The level of communal latrine use and sustainability are inextricably linked. The findings
suggest that the community-management of communal latrines in Monrovian slums is not
sustainable under the current model. User fees have been barely enough to operate the
structures and alternative financing mechanisms have not been identified. Furthermore, the
absence of the caretakers during operational hours implies that not all users are paying the
fee. The capacity of the various WASH Committees is disparate and Concern Liberia has not
found a way to address the dearth of knowledge and skills in the community.

Sustainability also requires the engagement and participation of all stakeholders. The lock-
down of two communal latrines in New Kru Town is proof that not all actors have been
mobilised to value the importance of sanitation in the health and human rights of the
community and the WASH Committees do not have enough power to assert these rights.
While the technical design is responsive to the soil conditions, the septic tanks are not
environmentally friendly because the waste is being dumped untreated into the sea. While
water is abundant in Liberia, the absence of nearby water sources has proven burdensome
to those who must walk distances to fetch water to flush the toilet.

Communal latrines as a response to inadequate sanitation and cholera in Monrovias slums


has major shortcomings that can only be mitigated through revising the management
structure of the latrines, ensuring that all factors for sustainability are systematically
addressed.

10. Recommendations
Findings from the study were presented to the Liberia WASH Consortium and stakeholders
at Oxfam GB Liberia on 29 July 2011 in Monrovia, Liberia. The recommendations are aimed
at Concern Liberia and Consortium partners.

The key recommendations are to:

Ensure that all communal latrines are built with hand-washing facilities with soap.
Advocate with municipalities for a reduced rate to empty septic tanks in slum
communities.
Create a demand for sanitation through well-planned hygiene promotion activities in slum
communities as part of the Concern Liberia WASH programme.
Explore low-cost ecological sanitation options composting toilets such as double-vault

33
VIP latrine (built up in case of high water tables) and/or Arborloo toilets.
Educate and build the capacity of WASH Committees through standardised trainings to
ensure a basic level of skills. Curricula should include trainings (and refresher trainings)
on handling complaints, responding to feedback, O&M requirements and bookkeeping.
Promote gender equity on the WASH Committees.

34
1 Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water 2010 Update. 2010. WHO/UNICEF JMP,
Genenva.
2 Toubkiss, J 2008. Financing sanitation in sub-Saharan cities: a local challenge. IRC
Symposium: Sanitation for the Urban Poor Partnerships and Governance Delft, The
Netherlands. IN: IRC Symposium: Sanitation for the Urban Poor Partnerships and
Governance, Delft, The Netherlands.
3 Uwejamomere, T 2008. Turning Slums Around: The case for water and sanitation.
London: WaterAid.
4 "United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Urban Indicators Secure Tenure, Slums and
Global Sample of Cities, 2002." Nairobi: UN Habitat, 21.
5 Cairncross, S 2004. The case for marketing sanitation. WSP-AF (Water and Sanitation
Program for Africa) Field Notes, Nairobi, Kenya, digitally available at: http://www. wsp.
org/publications/af_marketing. pdf.
6 Rahman, S., S. Banu, and F. Nessa, Health situation of slum dwellers of metropolitan
area of Dhaka. Bangladesh Medical Research Council bulletin, 1989. 15(2): p. 90.
7 Gulis, G., et al., Health status of people of slums in Nairobi, Kenya. Environmental
research, 2004. 96(2): p. 219-227.
8 Allen, A, Hofmann, P and Griffiths, H. "Moving Down the Ladder: Governance and
Sanitation That Works for the Urban Poor." In IRC Symposiyn: Sanitation for the Urban
Poor, Partnerships and Governance. Delft, The Netherlands, 2006, 4.
9 Schaub-Jones, D 2005. Sanitation Partnerships: Beyond storage:. BPD Sanitation Series
10 Eales, K. "Partnerships for Sanitation for the Urban Poor: Is It Time to Shift Paradigm?"
Paper presented at the IRC Symposium: Sanitation for the Urban Poor Partnerships and
Governance Delft, The Netherlands, 2008
11 Op cit, Eales (2008), 6.
12 Morella, E., V. Foster, and S.G. Banerjee. "Climbing the Ladder: The State of Sanitation in Sub-Saharan
Africa." Background Paper 13 (2008).
13 Allen, A, Hofmann, P & Griffiths, H 2006. Moving down the ladder: governance and
sanitation that works for the urban poor. IRC Symposiyn: Sanitation for the Urban Poor,
Partnerships and Governance. Delft, The Netherlands.
14 Odongo, G 2010. Insecurity and indignity : womens experiences in the slums of Nairobi,
Kenya. London, UK, Amnesty International Publications. London: Amnesty International.
15 Gil, A., C.F. Lanata, E. Kleinau, and M. Penny. "Children's Feces Disposal Practices in
Developing Countries and Interventions to Prevent Diarrheal Diseases: A Literature
Review (Strategic Report 11)." Washington, DC: Environmental Health Project, USAID
(2004).
16 "Good Practices Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation: Bio
Sanitation in Nairobis Peoples Settlements." Nairobi: UNHCR, 2010.
17 "Kenya: Cooking on Biogas from Toilets in Kibera." WordPress.com,
washafrica.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/kenya-cooking-on-biogas-from-toilets-in-\
kiberia/entries
18 Sarkar, S , and S Moulik. "The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering with Slum
Communities for Sustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis. ." Washington, DC: World
Bank, 2006.
19 Schaub-Jones, D. "Sanitation Partnerships: Beyond Storage:." BPD Sanitation Series
(2005).
20 Lamb, J 2009. Monrovia Urban Slum WASH Assessment, Liberia Oxfam GB.
21 Topographic Map of Liberia. Retrieved 28 April 2011, from
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Topographic_map_of_Liberia-en.svg/2000px-
Topographic_map_of_Liberia-en.svg.png
22 Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2009) Government of Liberia, Ministry of Lands,
Mines and Energy in Collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOH),
Ministry of Public Works (MPW), Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC),
UNICEF, WaterAid and the Liberia WASH Consortium.
23 Liberia Sanitation and Water Agenda (LISWA). 2010. Monrovia.
24 Statement of Work Joint Mission: Government of Liberia and its Development Partners
Improved National Planning for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Monrovia, United
Nations Development Programme and Government of Liberia.
25 Sitali, M 2010. Life and Dignity at Risk: The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector in
Liberia. Oxfam.

35
26 Beyond Squatters Rights - Durable solutions and development induced displacement.
2011.Oslo: Norwegian Refugee Council, 22.
27 LIBERIA: Disease rife as more people squeeze into fewer toilets. 2009. Integrated
Regional Information Network. Available:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportide=87110. [Accessed 23 August 2011].
28 "Safer Water Better Health." Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.
29 Lamb, J 2009. Monrovia Urban Slum WASH Assessment, Liberia Oxfam GB.
30 Interview. Patrick OKoth, Public Health Officer, Oxfam GB Liberia, Monrovia, 28 June
2011.
31 Interview. Morris Sherman, Construction Engineer Concern Worldwide Liberia, Monrovia,
28 June 2011.
32 Based on figures from CONCERN Montserrado WASH programme.
33 Based on caretaker financial records.
34 The State of Food and Nutrition Insecurity in Liberia: Liberia Comprehensive Food and
Nutrition Survey. Ministry of Agriculture and World Food Programme, VAM Food Security
Analysis, Monrovia, 2010, 57.
35 11 July 2011, Focus Group Discussion with Logan Town Women Development
Association, Zinc Kamp, Logan Town, Monrovia.
36 Focus Group Discussion with Logan Town Women Development Association. 11 July
2011. Zinc Kamp, Logan Town, Monrovia.
37 Transect Walk. 6 July 2011. Zinc Kamp, Logan Town. Chairman Alex W.
38 Focus Group Discussion with Logan Town Women Development Association. 11 July
2011, Zinc Kamp, Logan Town, Monrovia.
38 1 July, 6 July (2011)
39 Gil, A., C.F. Lanata, E. Kleinau, and M. Penny. "Children's Feces Disposal Practices in
Developing Countries and Interventions to Prevent Diarrheal Diseases: A Literature
Review (Strategic Report 11)." Washington, DC: Environmental Health Project, USAID
(2004).
40 Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability [Online]. New York: United Nations
Development Programme. Available: www.undp.org/mdg/goal7.shtml [Accessed 23
August 2011].
41 EcoSanRes. 2009. Stockholm: Stockholm Environmental Institute. Available:
www.ecosanres.org. [Accessed 30 August 2011].
42 Interview. Morris Sherman, Construction Engineer Concern Worldwide Liberia, Monrovia,
28 June 2011.
43 "Diarrhoea: Why Children Are Still Dying and What Can Be Done?". 68. New York
City: UNICEF/WHO, 2009.
44 Cairncross, S., and U. Blumenthal, et al. "The Public and Domestic Domains in
the Transmission of Disease." Trop Med Int Health 1, no. 1 (1996): 27-34, p. 28.
45 Said, B & Drasar, B (1996) IN Curtis, V., S. Cairncross, and R. Yonli. "Domestic Hygiene
and Diarrhoea - Pinpointing the Problem." Trop Med Int Health 5, no. 1 (2000): 22-32.

36

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi