Immediate and short-term Emergency Sanitation

Adapted from HARVEY (2007)

The first emergency phase covers the immediate interventions and typically lasts from one to three months. They aim at providing basic facilities to contain and separate excreta, to prevent transmission of faecal-oral diseases and the contamination of water sources (see also sanitation in emergencies). Emergency situations do not follow a linear progression: some situations may become more acute after improvements, e.g. when the affected population increases, an epidemic occurs, or the security deteriorates.

The priority in the immediate phase is the speed of installing the technologies to contain excreta. The transport system, available resources on the ground, and possibly an on-going disaster event are challenging constraints (HARVEY 2007).

Immediate interventions are implemented rapidly and designed for short-term use. Because the options may have limited socio-cultural acceptability and sustainability, members of the affected community should be consulted regarding the distribution and type of facilities. However, it is important that future disposal options are considered already at this stage to ensure that they do not have detrimental effects on medium or longer term emergency sanitation (HARVEY 2007).

Priorities, stakeholder involvement and technology choice for the immediate sanitation actions in an emergency response. Source: Adapted from JOHANNESSEN & BIKABA (2009)

While certain emergency phases can be defined, the choice of the actual sanitation system for each phase depends on the particular situation e.g. if people live scattered, in urban areas, and the actual needs related to sanitation. The following options have been used in the past during the immediate emergency response, most of the options use on-site excreta disposal without treatment.

In most emergency situations it is possible to use on-site excreta disposal systems whereby human wastes are disposed of without treatment. These facilities include open defecation fields, trench latrines, borehole latrines, or pit latrines. Other options exist where infiltration is not possible, e.g. in urban environments, high water levels, rocky terrains that do not allow pits to be dug, or where prevention of groundwater contamination is crucial (HARVEY et al. 2002; HARVEY 2007). Some of these constraints and other reasons (fill up time of a latrine) make urine diverting toilets or other options such as arborloo preferable, even in the immediate emergency phase (OXFAM 2009; RUBERTO & JOHANNESSEN 2009).

Dense Target Populations (Displaced): Managed Open Defecation and Trench Latrines

In displacement situations and presence of a large number of people, managed open defecation can be an extreme but feasible short-term solution given that enough space is available. Groundwater contamination has to be avoided by any means by choosing an appropriate site. Hand washing facilities and supervision should be organised and all excreta should be covered with soil as soon as possible (HARVEY 2007). In practice, this method does not seem to be very widely implemented (JOHANNESSEN & BIKABA 2009).

Trench latrines are a simple improvement of open defecation fields and seem to be used more frequently in emergencies (JOHANNESSEN & BIKABA 2009). They allow users to cover faeces and improve the overall hygiene and convenience of an open defecation system. Where large amounts of flies (potential carriers of vector-borne diseases) pose a problem, vector control equipment can be used (see OXFAM 2000). Trenches only need to be 20 to 30cm wide and 15cm deep for shallow trench latrines or up to 2 metres deep for deep trench latrines. They should be located at a distance of 15-30 meters of any groundwater source and the bottom of any latrine at least 1.5 metres above the water table. Latrines should be backfilled before they are filled up completely (20cm beneath the slab) (HARVEY 2007; JOHANNESSEN & BIKABA 2009).

Since deep trench latrines need some kind of lining, they are often enhanced with a timber superstructure or even a pour-flush toilet (wet latrine systems, if water available). Trench latrines can be constructed for many people or for families (see HARVEY et al. 2002).

Some other options for the immediate emergency phase include bucket or container latrines, storage tank latrines, (plastic) packet latrines or chemical toilets (HARVEY et al. 2002; HARVEY 2007).

In-situ Target Population: Wrap, Contain and Collect

For “in-situ” situations, repair of existing toilet facilities may be the best option. During floods, household toilets repair might not be possible and to prevent further contamination of flood and ground water, the “wrap, contain and collect” technique can be applied. Excreta is stored in buckets or bags and collected (e.g. by a “sanitation boat”) and brought to a treatment site (PEN 2010).

Latrines

Simple, squatting pit latrines without flushing devices are by far the most common technology choice adopted in emergency situations. This is because they are simple, quick to construct and generally inexpensive. But they are unsuitable where water table is high or soil is too unstable or too rocky.

Depending on the situation, immediate action could be to build shallow communal, shared or family latrines, depending on the available space and time (supervision). Whenever possible, experience in latrine construction and motivation of people should be taken in account. While family trench latrines increase privacy compared to community latrines, they are difficult to manage. A shallow pit is approx. 0.3m x 0.5m and 1m deep; yet, the size depends on the number of users. All pits should be safely sealed with a top.

Multifunctional slabs for pit latrines are promoted by emergency organisations. They are preferably designed for the use as urine diverting slabs. It allows for immediate separation of urine, which prolongs the life of shallow, trench or pit latrines (JOHANNESSEN 2011). When considering an upgrading of emergency sanitation in subsequent phases, the further use of urine diversion toilets can be considered (see medium term emergency sanitation). When pits are used for longer time (which is most often the case), the emptying of pits should be taken into account (HARVEY et al. 2002; JOHANNESSEN 2011);see also human powered and motorised emptying and different options for sludge treatment: small scale and large scale composting, anaerobic digestion, drying beds, settling ponds, or pequeño and large scale incineration.

Borehole latrines are an alternative where ground conditions allow it and tools and labour are immediately available locally.

Peepoo Bag

In emergencies, the use of normal plastic bags or peepoo bags is advisable in immediate intervention at the household level until community or proper toilets can be built, when settlements experience chronic space or land-use limitations, where de-sludging is difficult, or where certain (vulnerable) groups prefer to defecate in personal shelters. Both, plastic or biodegradable bags, contribute to reducing open defecation and “flying toilets” in an urban disaster (PATEL et al. 2011).

The peepoo bag is a personal, single-use toilet that sanitises human excreta shortly after defecation. This is done within a degradable bioplastic bag coated with urea. It requires no water except for hand washing. The System has proven to be useful during the acute intervention phase (until more appropriate toilets are built), during flooding, and for night time use, especially by women (VON MUENCH et al. 2009).

Raised or Elevated Latrines

Elevated latrines (also: raised latrines) are useful when groundwater level is high, when digging is not possible due to hard soil or lacking landownership. Water-sealed latrines or latrines on higher ground could be alternatives (JOHANNESSEN & BIKABA 2009). Challenges of raised latrines include slow and costly installation and the need for more frequent desludging (see human powered and motorised emptying) (see also OXFAM 2009). Diversion of urine prevents excreta collection chambers to fill up too quickly (see also urine diversion toilets and urine diversion components).

Although requiring some construction time, the elevation concept can be applied to a floating version if dry land for construction is scarce. In the Philippines, the floating version has been enhanced with digestion chambers where anaerobic decomposition occurs (Floating Sanitary Toilet, FST). The effluent then goes to the treatment chamber, which further improves the quality of the wastewater to an acceptable level (NORTHERN WATCH 2009).