teCHNoLoGY suMMARY

image

in the process of the development of the toolkit, we identified some of the most representative settlement and user profiles for Kampala and Uganda in general, which then were matched with recommended sanitation options. We categorized them into the so-called “packages”, which include selection of appropriate technologies, cost estimates, sample designs with floor plans for low-cost structures, recommendations on maintenance and ideas for additional income generating functions. The packages are categorized based on a number of criteria, including the density of a settlement (high, medium and low), water table level (high, low)

[the table shows in with situations the different packages in the toolkit are appropriate]

and the profile of users served (i.e. private households, communal toilets).

The purpose of this section is to help communities find appropriate option that is affordable, has appropriate scale, is financially feasible and provides a realistic scheme for maintenance and management. It needs to be noted here that the solutions described here are flexible, and the readers may consider combining some of the ideas from different packages into one option that meets their needs best.

situations

Flood-prone high-density Low-density Need for desludging Environmental benefits Economic benefits Can be connected to sewer market/Public residential temporary/eviction prone Fragile community

one two three Four Five Six Seven Eight

For DIFFErENt SEttLEmENt tyPES aND USEr profiles

Having in mind all the lessons learned from our site visits and the analysis of the available technology solutions, the next step was to propose applicable sanitation options for slums in Kampala. This was done by matching appropriate technologies and proposed unit designs to a set of representative informal settlement types and user profiles in Kampala and Uganda in general.

The diagram is a very simplified model that explains how those characteristic categories of settlements or users could be identified and shows example of proposed solutions. For example, if we were commissioned to design a toilet for private households in a high density informal settlement with a low eviction risk and high water table that is not connected to sewer, we would probably need to limit our options to elevated ViP toilets or elevated pour flush with pit. Biogas or composting toilets may be a better fit for more stable community that lives in a lower density area. It is important that the designs for all of those options should allow for the possibility for upgrading, especially in areas that are not connected to sewer or with lack of security of tenure. The table summarizes the results of our analysis. It includes example locations for private and public toilets, main issues, proposed technology options as well as some recommendations for maintenance and management.

User Profile

Residents (Private)

Density Low

High Medium

Water Table

High Low Low Illegal Squatters

Eviction Risk Public (Open)

Type

High Community Institutions Markets

Recommended Sanitation Options

Settlement

Types

High density

Informal

High water table

Swamps

Residential (Private) High density Informal Low water table Slope

High or Medium density Illegal Squatter Settlements Low or Medium density Informal

identified Areas Key Issues

Low-laying Slums, e.g. Bwaise, Kalerwe, Katanga, Kisenyi, Katwe, Butabika • Frequent Floods • Sinking soil • Wastewater pooling • Rubbish dumping • Poor pit maintenance • Water affordability • Transient community • Groundwater contamination • Poor drainage

High-laying slums: Kinawataka, Kagugube Kivulu, Kasubi, Nankulabye, Nyago • Limited space • Occasional flooding • Garbage dumping • Poor infrastructure and accessibility • Water affordability • Transient community

Undeveloped mailo land, Open ‘free’ space Public land

Kampala suburbs, other municipalities in Uganda • Eviction risk • Clustered settlements • Water access and affordability • Transient community • Unsafe construction • Poor infrastructure • Water access and affordability • Limited sewerage access

Public communal Taxi parks Public parks

institutions Schools churches community centres Work places Market Marketplaces, e.g. Kinawataka, Kalerwe, Nakawa • Large number of users • Maintenance issues • Security & vandalism • Large number of users • Need for exceptional hygiene

• Large number of users • Non-regular users • Accessibility to water

Technology Options Maintenance General Recommendations

• Elevated ViP • Elevated pour flush toilets with pit • Low flush waterborne toilets connected to sewerage and rain water harvesting system for flushing • Four households per stance, with key access • Shared ownership • Hygienic (vacuum) pit or tank emptying • Refuse collection areas to prevent mixture of solid waste in pits • Dry surface cleaning • Strategic location for pit emptying (truck access) • Pit lining to prevent ground water pollution • Use illustrations to sensitize • Easy to clean surfaces • Negotiation with authorities for emptying subsidies

• Pour flush toilets connected to shared septic tanks • Low flush waterborne with sewerage and rain water harvesting

• Cheap and easy to construct with possibility for upgrading • Regular cleaning • Hygienic (i.e. vacuum) tank emptying system through chamber

• Regular cleaning • ideal ownership by local authority (e.g. KCCA) • Smaller units due to space limitation (min 2 stance) • Strategic location for truck accessibility • Easy to clean surfaces • Connect to sewer if possible

• Undertaken with the local authority and community to ensure adequate lifespan of the facility and secure ownership

• EcoSan (UDDT) • Bio gas • Low flush waterborne with sewerage or shared septic tank

• Bio gas • Low flush waterborne with sewerage •Low flush waterborne with sewerage or shared septic tanks •Ecosan • Low flush waterborne with sewerage or shared septic tank • Regular cleaning • Hygienic emptying and transfer system

• Regular cleaning • Onsite caretaker • Require payment on use • Regular cleaning • Need for responsible person for cleaning and education

• Pay per use • Onsite caretaker • Regular provision of technical information and advice • Marketing strategies to find markets for compost and bio gas • Skilled construction labour

• Usage monitoring required • Ensure long opening hours • Lighting for security • include community hall • institution responsibility for maintenance • Combine with environmental education and sensitization • include space for laundry or kiosk

PERMANENT SUPERSTRUcTURE Burnt or interlocking brick Pit Burnt or interlocking brick with concrete slab UNIT SIzE 5 stances, assumed 120 users per unit

(4 families per stance)

PIT lIfE 2 years PIT dEPTh 3,6 meters

cost DoUBLE PIt ComPoStINg

Intital cost 4,5 to 5,5 mill Annual costs 0 UGS( self-emptying and re-use 10 year cost 4,5 to 5,5 mill

This composting toilet has a permanent superstructure and connected pits separated by a solid wall. Each toilet stance has two toilet holes and the community must take care to close the toilet holes not in use. Pits fill in two years, giving enough time for the filled pit to safely decompose. The pit has an accessible manhole and depth of only 3.6 meters facilitating self-emptying with traditional methods. Cost differences are due to different material options, with burnt brick increasing initial cost by more than 20 percent. These toilets can be easily modified to separate waste, by diverting urine into a barrel. This increases the efficiency of solid waste composition and produces an additional source of liquid fertilizer.

TEMPoRARy SUPERSTRUcTURE Plywood, papyrus, recycled jerrycans, ferrocement, canvas, etc. stretched on a wooden frame Pit Burnt or interlocking brick with concrete slab UNIT SIzE 5 stances, assumed 120 users per unit

(4 families per stance)

PIT lIfE 2 years PIT dEPTh 2,5 meters

cost DoUBLE PIt ComPoStINg

Intital cost 3,8 to 4,9 mill Annual costs 0 UGS( self-emptying and re-use 10 year cost 3,8 to 4,9 mill

Similar to the double-pit permanent, this option offers a less expensive alternative that is faster and easier to build. The temporary superstructure is moved from pit to pit as they fill and each pit has a permanent slab with manhole and pit hole covers. It is especially applicable for communities at risk for eviction, because superstructures can be easily dismantled and moved to another location. community contracting is particularly useful in these situations because toilet building and maintenance knowledge and training can be easily transported and used to self-build latrines in new locations. Materials for the superstructure are chosen to be light-weight, inexpensive, locally available and easily fit to a wooden frame.

PERMANENT SUPERSTRUcTURE Burnt or interlocking brick Pit Burnt or interlocking brick with concrete slab UNIT SIzE 5 stances, assumed 120 users per unit

(4 families per stance)

PIT lIfE 5 years PIT dEPTh 3,6 m PIT dIMENSIoNS 2,6*6 m

CoSt ( UgS)

Intital cost (community contracting) Intital cost ( municipal contracting) Annual costs

10 year cost

Vip

4,1 to 5,0 mill

5,5 to 6,6 mill

675 000 UGS

38 to 39 mill

The ViP is an ungraded latrine with a deep, lined pit that protects surface water from waste and has a ventilation pipe to reduce insects and smell. The deep pit only requires emptying every five years, reducing running costs. However, because it is emptied before waste has safely decomposed, it should be removed by an external company, incurring higher running costs. Still, this is an option for communities not interested or willing to participate in pit emptying and waste reuse or where the community is transient and training and sensitization is difficult. it could also be used as an immediate intermediate solution.