Background

By Blue Planet Network Posted on Thu 13 Aug 2009, almost 17 years ago

Can you describe (apologies for the lateness) the bad condition of existing latrines - what is the problem and what type were they? Why were they not maintained and how will this approach avoid that problem.

At this stage its more for records.

Detail of project

By Agua Para La Salud (APLS) Posted on Thu 23 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

Would you supply the proposal with a detailed list of materials for the double pit latrine and a detail of the design such as cross section showing dimentions etc; Gracias ....Lynn

Detail of project

By El Porvenir Posted on Fri 31 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

These are up now... Thanks,
Rob

Detail of project

By Agua Para La Salud (APLS) Posted on Sat 08 Aug 2009, almost 17 years ago

Rob would you suppy me with a breakdown of cost of materials and labor for one latrine. From the info sent it appears each latrine will cost about $380.00. Could you seperate the labor and materials costs for one latrine and the per item cost of the matrials?

2 reviews/discussions in 1!

By Peer Water Exchange Posted on Fri 24 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

I would like the reviewers to quickly look at this application for 31 Latrines in Quisaurita, Camoapa.

The proposal there is for single-pit latrines. My observation is that these single-pit latrines are unsustainable with no revenue model to build the next one. After it is full, funding is requested for the next.

So why are single pit still being proposed and built and not double?

Gracias,
Rajesh

2 reviews/discussions in 1!

By Agua Para la Vida (APLV) Posted on Fri 24 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

This is G.Corcos from Agua Para la Vida commenting on single vs double pit latrines.
a. It is true that the life of a latrine is much shorter than that of a drinking water system given maintenance of the latter. A problem since latrines cost a lot. It seems that double pit latrines as proposed by El Porvenir provide cover and installation only for one at a time. One double (i.e communal) latrine (a la Bunuel) I am familiar with can be found in the garden of the APLV house in Rio Blanco. But aside from their socially provocative aspects these are essentially twice as expensive. On the other hand to dig a second pit without covering it or covering it with flimsy material is dangerous especially for the community children. Digging a shallow pit and using it temporarily while the first one is transformingt the fecal matter so that it can be removed, (as EP recommends )seems sensible . But it would seem even better to do that when the first pit has been filled, for that requires a minimum of material. Anyway I'd like to see further exchange on that issue.

2 reviews/discussions in 1!

By Agua Para La Salud (APLS) Posted on Sat 25 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

I tend to agree with Giles. The main concern here is the removal of fecal material from the environment. The first formal latrine does this and the construction of a second pit in anticipation of the first filling in 10 years ( our experience). The second pit is a simple affair and can be suggested or taught without the actual construction taking place well in advance of the need. In ten years this second structure could very likely disappear. We need to give locals some credit for figuring out the interim option since it is doubtful many women would put up with an interim option that does not have some degree of formality and privacy.
Rule number #1 in field sanitation is K.I.S.S--- Keep It Simple __________ .

Double vs Single Pit

By El Porvenir Posted on Mon 27 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

Dear Rajesh, Lynn, Gilles,

It's a pleasure to share in this discussion with you. Let me reply to some of the questions/comments:

1. Why continue with single pit at all?

Well, doubles are still more expensive than single VIPs, although more on that in #2, and we still haven't proven (at least to ourselves) that the doubles are best solution - although we are almost convinced. Perhaps they are, and perhaps another solution will come along that is even more sustainable. The main open question is: will the families consistently switch pits without El Porvenir intervention? (after the maintenance training) This we don't know yet. Once we have the model figured out, both physically and educationally, then we can implement more widely.

2. Twice as expensive?

They certainly have been, while not twice as expensive, about 50-60% more expensive than the single pits, in our first pilots. And this has been the main factor that has kept single pits in the game, so to speak.

However, in the pilot, we did 2 pits that were both 3m deep, same as the single pit. So, we are planning to reduce that to 1.5 or 2m in this next pilot, with the logic that there is no need to dig the full 3m since the pits will be switched anyway. By reducing the pit depth, the pits will be simply switched more often and reduce some upfront costs. At 1.5m, the costs are very similar to a single pit. This makes them more viable for many of our donors; and we will see results sooner on if the community members really do switch the pits.

3. Let the community handle the second pit.

Indeed, this is what we are doing with the old single VIPs, train the community members to dig a temporary pit while the original one decomposes. Your question seems to be: are we over-designing with a double-pit? The problem with the temporary pit is that we have only had mixed success with convincing people to do that, although perhaps this will improve with time. On the other hand, having the second pit already available doesn't guarantee action either. Which model will work better in the long run? I am not sure, or at least I have no evidence one way or the other yet; but I would guess that the double pit will have a more likely chance of success in the long run if people have an easier mechanism for recycling their compost safely. It is a more sanitary solution as well, since a temporary pit may not be sealed safely from animals. I am putting my money on the double-pit, but still am waiting on the evidence before giving my final answer.

We welcome your further comments, hopefully I didn't miss anything. Lynn, there is a list of materials up in the app for you.
Rob

Double vs Single Pit

By Blue Planet Network Posted on Mon 03 Aug 2009, almost 17 years ago

Thanks for the clarification and i like how you are trying to push VIDP costs down thru design.

In principle, the people should be able to maintain a single pit and use something temporary while its full and until emptied.

But having seen places with multiple-single-pit latrines (often constructed by different agencies)and requests for funding for second latrines, i think the double-pit is the way to go.

So, can you explain the other VI(S)P proposal? Should we modify that to VIDP too?

Rajesh

Double vs Single Pit

By El Porvenir Posted on Tue 11 Aug 2009, almost 17 years ago

Rajesh,

Staff was against changing the Quisaurita one. I am still not fully clear why, but I suspect that we did some single pits in the same community earlier and the staff want to keep the technology consistent there, whereas here in the cooperativa, it seemed ripe for trying something new.

Definitely we have seen the "cemetery of latrines" problem here in a few communities, but we hoping that we will be able to avoid in the future.

Right now we are also looking at another technology as well, similar to others on here of a hydraulic or septic latrine in Wiwilí. It is one area where we have a lot of water to work with and this solution is possible. This is fairly new for Nicaragua though, although we have seen it is fairly common in Honduras these days.

Rob