Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

latrines are an essential component, along with safe water and proper hygene education, in any sustainable solution. it is of concern that the proposal calls for the replacement of a number of exhausted units and the users have not planned for this on their own. the proposal would be stronger if this was not an issue.

Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

I am not convinced that this modification of the original intent to provide a means of disposal of human feces. The VIP (single) has worked very well in my experience. If the superstructure is built of light weight materials and all elements are easily movable then the latrine can be moved to a new location over a new dig pit after the first is full. Trying to divine the future with a second pit simply tells me that the project is not sustainable using the single pit and ties up funds that could be used for another community. If agencies are funding a second latrine project in a community then this indicates to me that the first project was not sustainable mainly due to prevailing attitude of the community and makes the double concept even more un - sustainable. Keep in mind that the single pit latrine got the US frontier through several hundred years of development. The main emphasis should be on educating people to confine human waste in a proper manner not of increased complexity of the design.

From the picture I have seen the cabin , floor and pot of the latrine should be easily movable.I our area families do do this when the latrine is full covering the first full pit with soil and depending on the customs of the area use the material in the pit for compost is they wish.

Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

The interesting and extensive exchanges on this project suggest the following:

1. Building latrines is vexingly expensive, a heavy component of any water delivery system, even of the most ones. And yet I think we all agree that they are mandatory.
2. The central issue of their longevity vs added cost is not totally resolved, tied up as it is with the ability and willingness of the community to undertake a few years after first use the work involved in changing pit. But we have read some interesting suggestions to which we should be open. This certainly seems the case with El Porvenir which is doing quite a bit of experimentation.
3. In as much as the issues are not fully resolved and may depend on local conditions is seems sensible to approve various versions until or unless a clear winner emerges.

Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

This has been part of a good discussion and it looks like this project by itself will be successful.

However, when the 2 latrine projects are put side by side, the community education and learnings seem to be missing.

The main problem is lack of a model to have communities be able to sustain sanitation. This project itself talks about 12 latrines in bad condition. What happened? How are you avoiding the same problem?

Putting the 2 latrine projects: single-pit and double-pit in perspective, we need to spend a bit of time taking stock of all our learnings over the years and going forward more decisively.

Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

Though I am not aware about the situation and the technical details about double pit toilet, I feel that instead of having individual toilets for the entire community of 30 households, why not propose for a community toilet. The establishment of a training centre to promote the technology should be the need.

Review By (only shown to PWX members) over 2 years ago

This looks like a good and well-thought out project. I am still slightly unsure how the community meets the $100 annual maintenance fee, but I still think this is a very good project.