Question on Coupling Water and Sanitation

By Lifewater International Posted on Sun 26 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

This is Sam Moore, from Lifewater International, and I also found your application to be well written and informative. Being previously unfamiliar with your organization, I was able to spend some time on your PWX profile, your web page, and look at past projects. I am impressed with your 100% community involvement and coverage approach and hope that Lifewater can also learn from some of your methods. I have a question about how you couple sanitation with water approaches: My experience (mostly Africa and Latin America) has been that combining water and sanitation programs on the same timetable can be problematic in that sanitation and hygiene typically take longer in terms of building community demand. I have seen projects where the community seems very willing and motivated to build latrines so that they will benefit from the planned water scheme. However, once the water scheme is complete, the latrines quickly fall into disrepair. In fact, many were not built to high standards in the first place. In one of your past project reports, you state that because people in your program area use water for cleaning after defecation, there is a greater need to couple both of the sanitation and water components. Because of the need for water in the latrine, have you seen ‘sustained’ demand for the latrine well beyond the life of the initial project? Is there a risk in having sanitation facilities that require water to be constructed before the water source is in place? How do you mitigate that risk? One last question on this thread: It doesn’t sound like you are using specific Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) methodology, but are having some good success. Has there been any attempt to use CLTS in your program area? Why or why not? I look forward to this dialogue and appreciate your time in responding. Best regards, Sam Moore, Lifewater Intl

Question on Coupling Water and Sanitation

By Gram Vikas Posted on Tue 28 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

Dear Sam,

In the vast majority of villages, there is always a long-term sustained demand for toilets, which we believe is due to a number of reasons:

• The community have to meet some of the construction costs of these facilities through cash contribution, providing labour and collecting locally available materials. As a result there is a genuine sense of community ownership of these facilities
• Having a piped water supply to each individual toilet ensures they are practical to use, as water does not have to be carried to the toilet. This is actually the key reason for many established toilets falling into disrepair throughout Orissa. If water still needs to be fetched to use them, it is too much of an additional burden on the women, therefore they soon stop being used. An additional reason for toilets not being used is the low quality of construction, often they don’t even have a shelter, therefore providing no privacy.
• The facilities built are high quality, making them very practical, as well as generating a genuine sense of pride amongst the community.
• The community, in particular the women very quickly appreciate the benefits of these facilities. Women can now wash and attend to their personal needs with complete privacy and dignity. Very quickly the incidence of water-borne diseases is reduced, providing great benefits to the entire village.
• Much emphasis is placed on the importance of behavioural and attitude change towards sanitation and hygiene to ensure long term use and sustainability of these facilities. Hygiene and sanitation education is conducted at both the village level and in schools. Between the mothers and the children, there is often a mutually reinforcing cycle at work, making the need for personal hygiene an ingrained one. In addition, by children learning these practices, and using a toilet they will grow up comfortable with the concept of a toilet, signifying the first step in an evolution of the sanitary expectations in the community.
• The villagers themselves are empowered to gradually take over the entire management of the project. This includes deciding upon the amount of the monthly maintenance fee that each household has to pay to ensure the upkeep of these facilities, and collecting this fee. The management committee themselves also impose fines on anybody found defecating in the open, or not keeping their toilet clean. The fact this enforcement comes from the villagers, and not an ‘outside body’ adds to the success of it.

By the time Gram Vikas withdraw from the village, in the vast majority of cases a complete belief in the facilities and change in attitudes towards hygiene and sanitation is underway. In addition, the community themselves are completely equipped to deal with any problems and manage the project, thereby ensuring the long-term sustainability and use of the facilities.

Where the water supply systems have been constructed as soon as the sanitation facilities are constructed, we have found there to be no risk in terms of their use. Where we have found it difficult to fund water supply systems, particularly after the downgrading of the government’s Swajaldhara scheme, there have been cases of time needing to be spent to re-motivate the community. However, establishing the sanitation systems first is crucial to a successful complete village water and sanitation system. If the water supply systems were in place, it would be far more difficult, and many villages would fail to complete the sanitation system. In addition, Gram Vikas never leave the village while waiting for the water supply system to be constructed, therefore there are always ongoing motivation, training, and livelihood enhancement activities, ensuring the ongoing participation of the village.

No we do not use specific CLTS methodology. Although this is a good, innovative methodology, because of our non-negotiable requirement of 100% inclusion, the CLTS methodology does not quite fit our needs. We also place a lot of emphasis on using dignity as a motivating factor to achieve 100% inclusion.

Details on the gravity flow system used.

By Agua Para la Vida (APLV) Posted on Tue 28 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

I have a few questions about the techniques used for this gravity system.
a) Water source is a large well. Right? Is it completely covered by a roof?
b) how is the water brought up from the well to the tank? Hand pump, mechanical pump?
c) Is the storage tank near the well a 3cubic meter tank?
d) does each village have its own holding tank or are the water stands directly connected to the head tank through a distribution network?
e) are the 4 villages at the same elevation? If not how is the distribution amongst the 4 villages controlled? Within one village how is the consumption controlled? Is there a central distribution location? or multiple water stands?
5) what is the design allocation of water per family?
6) Is the well water uncontaminated or does it require treatment ?

Many thanks for the answer,
GC

Details on the gravity flow system used.

By Gram Vikas Posted on Tue 28 Jul 2009, almost 17 years ago

Dear Giles,

Please find the answers to your questions.

a) The water source is either a sanitary-well storing percolated water or a tapped perennial spring. Where it is a well, the entire well is completely protected by a concrete cover
b) No pumping is required, as the water source is either a perennial spring or a well, which stores percolated water.
c) The only storage tank is the village overhead water tank, situated in the village. The capacity is dependant on the size of the village. We base this on the calculation of 40litres of water per person per day
d + e) The four villages will each have their own gravity flow system, therefore the elevation in comparison to each other is irrelevant.
f) 40 litres per person per day
g) The well water is tested for contamination before use, and is continued to be tested. In addition the village water tanks are cleaned on a monthly basis.