Land Use and Water Resources Research

Page 1

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.1

In search of drivers for dry sanitation

Sanna-Leena Rautanen

and Eeva-Liisa Viskari

Institute for Environmental Engineering and Biotechnology,Tampere University of Technology,Tampere, Finland

Tampere Polytechnic University of Applied Sciences,Tampere, Finland

Abstract

There is increasing awareness and concern about water pollution and water scarcity, and sanitation has

been acknowledged as a critical dimension of both. This paper summarises the findings from the 2

International Dry Toilet Conference 2006 (DT2006), held 16–19 August, 2006, in Tampere, Finland.

The main objective is to publicise a range of research and real life experiences dealing with an

uncommon subject: dry sanitation (DS). It was concluded, among other things, that continued technical

and institutional development is needed because DS as a decentralised option calls for innovative

approaches. Dry toilets based on urine diversion were recommended also for urban areas as urine has

high concentrations of both nutrients and such micro-pollutants as pharmaceuticals and oestrogens,

both of which are difficult and costly to remove by conventional wastewater treatment processes. The

Conference urged continued serious and systematic research, also in the real life context, and taking

small but tangible and sustainable steps towards better sanitation.

Introduction: rationale for dry sanitation

The sanitation crisis gets more serious every year: about 2.6

billion people, or 42 per cent of the world population, lack

access to basic sanitation. That is more than double the

number of those who lack access to safe drinking water —

1.1 billion people, or 18 per cent of the world’s population

(WHO/UNICEF, 2005). In 1990, the Millennium

Development Goal (MDG) 7 set the target of halving the

proportion of the population not served by 2015 (The

World Bank, 2004). To achieve this, an additional 1.8

billion people need to be provided with improved sanitation

between 2002 and 2015. Even if that target is achieved,

another 1.8 billion people will still lack adequate sanitation

in 2015 due to population growth (WHO/UNICEF, 2005).

Sanitation and water quality problems are further

aggravated by poor or non-existent wastewater management:

about 90 per cent of sewage in developing countries is

discharged untreated into water courses (International

Decade for Action: Water for Life, 2005–2015). This

problem applies also to so-called developed countries. For

instance, it is estimated that some 74 per cent of Europe’s

rural areas are covered by sanitation, while urban coverage

is 99 per cent. Yet this does not mean that all urban people

are connected to safe and sustainable sanitation systems.

Several European Union member states are yet to satisfy the

requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

(UWWTD; 91/271/EEC) which calls for all agglomerations

of more than 2000 population equivalent to be provided

with collecting systems and appropriate treatment by 2005

(WHO/UNICEF, 2005). These pitfalls in wastewater

treatment do not only pollute the usable water sources, but

water is also wasted when flushing toilets and through leaky

toilets.

The results of poor sanitation and water supply are well

documented. For instance, it has been estimated that more

than 2.2 million people, mostly in developing countries, die

each year from diseases associated with poor water and

sanitary conditions (WHO/UNICEF/WSSCC, 2000). At

any one time, half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied

by patients suffering from water-borne diseases, and every

week an estimated 42 000 people die from diseases related

to low quality drinking water and lack of sanitation. Over 90

per cent of the victims are children under the age of five.

(WHO/UNICEF, 2005).

There is global epidemiological evidence that sanitation

is at least as effective in preventing disease as improved

water supply. Studies have shown that water quality alone

will not reduce diarrhoea. For instance, Jensen et al. (2004)

investigated the association between bacteriological

drinking water quality and incidence of diarrhoea among

Page 2

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.2

children under five years old, and found no correlation

between the incidence of childhood diarrhoea and the

number of Escherichia coli in the drinking water sources

(the public domain). Faecal contamination levels in

household water containers were generally high, even when

the source water was of good quality, pointing towards the

importance of household hygiene and sanitation rather than

water quality at the public tap. Tumwine et al. (2002) had

earlier concluded that determinants of diarrhoea morbidity

included poor hygiene (unsafe disposal of faeces and

wastewater), education level of household head, water

obtained from surface sources or wells and per capita use

of water for cleaning; they also stressed that hygiene practices

are an important complement to improved water supply and

sanitation in reducing diarrhoea morbidity. If this is ‘old’

news, why has the sanitation situation not improved but

instead become increasingly worse?

In recent years awareness and concern about water

pollution and water scarcity has increased, and sanitation

has been acknowledged as a critical dimension of both.

Finally, sanitation has become a burning topic in its own

right, and action worth its own policy and funding.

Unfortunately, many efforts have focused on water-based

sanitation as the ultimate solution which, in practice, has

only increased or intensified water-related problems in

many areas of the world. Therefore, there is an urgent need

to broaden thinking and look beyond the conventional

systems: centralised and water-based sanitation systems

alone cannot solve the sanitation crisis. Decentralised,

integrated on-site and ecological approaches are needed

also in urban and peri-urban areas. Since water supply and

sanitation are inherently integrated and equally important,

they also relate to land use and land-related resources. The

overall system operates in a rather broad framework which

has to do with public health, natural and built environment,

agriculture, soil and water management, and socio-cultural

and economic issues.

Objectives and methodology

This paper summarises the findings from the 2

International

Dry Toilet Conference 2006 (DT2006), held 16–19 August,

2006 in Tampere, Finland. There were 147 registered

delegates from 34 countries who participated in the seven

sessions of the international programme, and a 100

participants attending the additional Finnish-language

sessions. The main objective of this paper is to publicise a

range of research and real life experiences dealing with an

uncommon subject: dry sanitation. This, it is hoped, will

encourage further dialogue on sanitation options and

policies. The literature review also supports the main

objective although it must be admitted that the number of

serious scientific articles on dry sanitation appears extremely

limited. The complete Conference-related documentation

is also available on line at http://www.drytoilet.org/dt06.html

and at http://kirjasto.tpu.fi/DT2006.pdf.

Conceptualising dry sanitation

Ecological sanitation

Public and private toilets are known to have existed in

ancient cities, and the productive use of human excreta is

not new. Waste disposal is as old as civilization. Sijbesma

(2006) cited a well-known story of the Emperor Vespasian

(Rome, 69–79 BC) who levied a tax on the sale of urine

from public toilets for the production of wool and leather,

and silenced his critics by his remark: Pecunia non olet

(money does not smell) (Sijbesma, 2006). Yet serious

scientific research on toilets does not have equally long

roots. Water is popular as a subject of research and a

metaphor, while toilets have inspired neither researchers

nor artists, philosophers or folklorists. Rather, toilets have

been despised and subjects relating to their use avoided as

a taboo. In many cultures the caretakers of latrines are often

considered the lowest class of people. Furthermore, in poor

residential areas, the social status of tenants was determined

by their location: the further one lived from the toilets, the

higher the status (Juuti and Maki, 2006).

Ecological sanitation (ecosan) has its roots in ancient

times when both human and animal excreta were valued as

a fertiliser. Ecosan is a way of thinking, an approach and a

new philosophy, rather than just a technology per se. As

such, the concept is embedded in the Integrated Water

Resource Management (IWRM) framework. The Global

Water Partnership (2000) defines IWRM as “a process

which promotes the coordinated development and

management of water, land and related resources, in order

to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an

equitable manner without compromising the sustainability

of vital ecosystems.” (Global Water Partnership 2000, p.

22), paying attention to downstream vulnerability to

upstream activities. It further calls for integrating water and

wastewater management but does not pay attention to

sanitation specifically and, therefore, to the options of

producing no or only a minimum amount of wastewater. In

essence, sanitation belongs within the IWRM framework,

but as was acknowledged by Werner during her conference

presentation, the mainstream debate on IWRM still focuses

on water resources, ignoring to a large extent ‘land and

related resources’ and the option of minimising wastewater.

Encouragingly, though, the Global Water Partnership

DT2006 conference sessions

The conference sessions in the international programme:

Session 1: From past to future

Session 2: Architecture & Construction

Key note : Andreas G. Koestler – Sanitation for Life

in Natural Disasters

Session 3: Attitudes & Advocacy

Key note: Ron Sawyer – A tale of two systems:

Obstacles & incentives for implementing ecological

sanitation in a periurban town, Tepoztlán, Mexico

Session 4: Separation & Re-use,

Key note: Joachim Behrendt – Appropriate de-central

wastewater technologies for low income regions

Session 5: Dry Toilet Technology & Monitoring,

Key note: Naoyuki Funamizu – Dry toilet: An important

system for controlling micro-pollutants from our daily life

Session 6: Integrated Approaches

Session 7: Sustainability & MDGs,

Key note: Christine van Wijk-Sijbesma – Where softness

matters most: scaling up dry toilets in developing countries

(Sessions F1 to F3: Finnish language session - separate

programme)

See: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a and 2006b

Page 3

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.3

has also recently paid more attention to sanitation. Rees

(2006, p. 31) identified the advantages of a successful

decentralised approach to sanitation: it is demand-responsive

with services tailored to local conditions; it allows a wider

range of technical options to be used; it minimises free rider

problems; it allows phased investments; and it clearly

differentiates between the private and public good segments

of the sanitation service and shares the financial burden at

different geographical levels.

Ecosan could contribute to IWRM in a number of ways.

It has vast potential in areas such as saving drinking water,

protection of water bodies, reduction in health risks, soil

fertility, reduction in costs, use of grey water or wastewater

for irrigation, and flood protection (Werner et al., 2006a).

Ecosan is based on three fundamental principles: (i)

preventing pollution rather than attempting to control it

afterwards,( ii) sanitising urine and faeces, and (iii) using

the safe products for agricultural purposes. This approach

is characterised as ‘sanitise-and-recycle’ and essentially

aims at closing the loop (Winblad and Simpson-Hébert eds.

2004).

Note that ecosan is not necessarily dry, but that in the

best case scenario dry sanitation (DS) falls within the

ecosan framework (Fig. 1). For further detailed conceptual-

isation, see Winblad and Simpson-Hébert (Eds, 2004),

WASTE (2006) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (2006).

Dry sanitation

Dry sanitation (DS) is embedded in ecological sanitation.

Its technological manifestation, the dry toilet (DT), is part

of on-site systemswhere safe disposal of excreta takes place

on or near the housing plot. DS can be defined more

precisely as on-site storage and/or disposal of human urine

and faeces without the use of water as a carrier for flushing.

The most modern version of DS enables, in a controlled

environment, potential recovery and reuse of the nutrients

through the ‘drop-and-store-and-sanitise-and-reuse’

approach which the ‘drop-and-forget’ approach applied to

traditional pit latrines did not allow. A DS system creates a

controlled environment into which, by definition, no water

should be added. The authors of this paper suggest that

further processing and utilisation of the end-product as a

fertiliser or in other uses conceptually falls within the

ecological sanitation framework, and therefore these issues

relating to agriculture and soil management are excluded

from the DS framework. Thus, the operational word in the

definition above is ‘potential’: The nutrients in the DS end-

product can be recovered and reused (Fig. 1).

The technological alternatives available in DS are the

various versions of dry toilets (DT). Traditional on-site

systemshave typically included pit latrines and septic tanks.

Of these two most typical on-site solutions, the pit latrine is

the one closest to DT. Pit latrines are known as relatively

low cost options, consisting of a superstructure which

affords privacy to the user, a hole or a seat set into a slab

which covers the pit, and a pit beneath the slab into which

excreta and anal cleansing materials are deposited. The

ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP latrine) is intended to

make the system more convenient and safe for the users. Pit

latrines are not used in conjunction with conventional flush

toilets. Only a relatively small volume of water enters the

pit, and liquid is allowed to seep from the pit into the

surrounding ground. Under fairly dry conditions excreta in

the pit decomposes into humus-like solids, water and gases.

Because of the long storage time in the pit, disease-causing

organisms (pathogens) are eventually killed (Sanitation

Connection, 2006). Yet, in most situations, the pits are

rarely emptied and what takes place in the pit is rather

uncontrolled. If the culture favours anal cleansing with

water or the pit can be flooded with surface runoff, pit

latrines will soon become anaerobic nuisances. Excess

liquid seeping into the ground can also contaminate ground

water in many geo-hydrological conditions. Indeed, pit

latrines have given composting toilets and other forms of

Figure 1

Definition of dry sanitation within the ecosan framework.

Page 4

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.4

DTs a bad name.

DT options can be roughly divided into those that divert

the substances, usually urine and faeces, and those which

do not. Liquids can also be separated at a later stage, and

some applications allow using water for anal cleansing and

diverting this flow away entirely from the rest of the

substances. Urine diversion is based on the fact that urine

contains most of the nutrients in domestic wastewater but

makes up less than one percent of the total wastewater

volume. Separation of urine at source allows nutrient

recycling from a concentrated nutrient solution, thereby

reducing the need for advanced nutrient removal from the

wastewater (Wilsenach and Van Loosdrecht, 2004, in

Maurer et al., 2006). Maurer et al. (2006) distinguished

between seven main purposes of urine-treatment processes:

hygienisation (storage), volume reduction (evaporation,

freeze–thaw, reverse osmosis), stabilisation (acidification,

nitrification), P-recovery (struvite formation), N-recovery

(ion exchange, ammonia stripping, isobutylaldehyde-diurea

precipitation), nutrient removal (anammox) and handling

of micro-pollutants (electrodialysis, nanofiltration,

ozonation). Their recent review revealed that a wide range

of technical options is available to treat collected urine

effectively, but that none of these single options can

accomplish all seven purposes (Maurer et al., 2006). This

definition of dry sanitation underlining the opportunity for

closing the nutrient loop by treating and reusing the end

product safely takes DS into the context of ecosan: re-use

is within the domain of ecological sanitation.

Results: reflections from the conference

Research and development

The conference sessions gave a holistic view into the

benefits, weaknesses and open questions related to research

in dry toilet technology. Attention was paid especially to

separate collection and treatment of urine and faeces. The

first step in solving the pollution problem is to separate the

various substances and flows (Fig. 1). Urine separation

reduces significantly the ammonia losses from the dry toilet

compost, and at the same time urine can be used for other

purposes than just diluted fertiliser. ‘Divert and rule’ applies,

meaning that urine should be diverted/separated from faeces,

and various waters be kept separate as dry faeces are much

easier to treat: “dry toilet material should be dry”(Behrendt,

2006). This was highlighted for instance in astudy conducted

in Japan concerning the hygienic risk associated with

compost toilets using sawdust as matrix. It was found that

high temperature and low water content enhanced the rate

of decrease in populations of both bacterio-phages and

bacteria, emphasising the importance of keeping dry toilets

dry (Otaki et al., 2006).

The risk of spreading diseases is real but not necessary

very high if the composted faeces and urine are correctly

used. Normally, urine is almost sterile and the risk of

spreading diseases is low. In the tropics, however, there

might be a risk of spreading dangerous diseases, such as

schistosomiasis. Long-term storage destroys most possible

disease causing agents in urine. Microbiological health

risks are, however, not the only health and hygiene issues

to be considered. There also micro-pollutants such as

pharmaceuticals and oestrogens (endocrine disruptors)

which concentrate in urine. The research group from

Hokkaido University recommended source separation of

urine as a solution to controlling the increasing level of

pharmaceuticals and hormones in the aquatic environment

(Funamizu, 2006). As an example, they found that the

degradation rate of amoxicillin was strongly related to the

ammonia concentration in the demonstration plant, and

since phosphate and ammonia accumulate in the composting

toilet matrix, it can be expected that the more the toilet is

used, the faster the reduction in amoxicillin (Kakimoto and

Funamizu, 2006).

Several growth experiments examined the use of urine

alone, urine and composted faeces, or faecal compost alone.

The results show clear increases in yields when sufficient

amounts are used at the right time. Results with maize,

cucumber, carrot and barley were good, and further research

with cabbage and potatoes was under way. The amount,

time and method of adding fertiliser should, however, be

carefully considered to provide a good yield safely (Viskari

et al., 2006; Heinonen-Tanski, 2006; Guzha, 2006). Urine

should not be sprayed onto the plant but over the soil.

Different plants and trees need a slightly different procedure,

and if there are any concerns about safety, non-edible

plants, light construction materials and fibre plants should

be fertilised instead. Generally, the health risk is very low

when urine is used for fruit trees rather than for rootcrops.

The food is very rarely eaten without any processing, and

the processing destroys many pathogens (Heinonen-Tanski,

2006).

There are other uses for separated urine as well. It can

be used to treat green composts, such as straw and corncob,

to balance the C/N ratio and to irrigate composts as needed.

For example, in Thailand, corncob composts, which require

additional N to work properly, are irrigated. Re-using urine

instead of water for moisture content adjustment is

recommended to provide additional nitrogen for composting

(Songthanasak, 2006). On the other hand, urine has been

found to act as a source for P recovery as struvite. Tilley et

al. (2006) concluded that the storage of urine is an essential

step in recovering struvite, and that by removing calcium

and other non-desirable compounds and allowing the pH to

attain an ideal working range naturally, only magnesium

needs to be added to recover a pure struvite product. Further

examples of case studies presented during the Conference

are summarised overleaf. The reader is encouraged to

download the Abstract Book for further study (see

Korkeakoski et al., 2006b).

Construction and architecture matter

Architecture and construction technology will be of utmost

importance should dry toilets ever become as desirable and

convenient an option as the present water closet systems.

The Conference called for more research and real life

applications of various designs: both ‘branded’ high tech

designs and low cost options are needed. Whatever the

design, it should comply with the local requirements: cultural,

social, ecological and economic realities are as varied as

climatic and geo-hydrological environments. Kuria (2006)

stated that architecture continuously evolves to reflect

changing ecological thinking, material development and

changing lifestyles, but that unfortunately sanitary facilities

have received very little attention. In many countries

craftsmen develop, package and market the products.

An ecosan pilot project in Nakuru town in central Kenya

aimed to highlight the ecological, technical and economic

Page 5

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.5

South Africa: More than 40 000 dry toilets have been supplied as basic sanitation facilities in South

Africa. The research showed that most of the users accepted the urine diversion toilets as a toilet

only, but that their acceptance as a sanitation technology was very low and people still expected to

eventually have flush toilets. Only a few users were willing to use the human excreta in their

gardens, or generally have anything to do with it. The general norm of not handling human faeces

is preventing the full implementation of the UD technology. (Duncker, 2006)

Zambia: Madimba is a Lusaka peri-urban area where local dry toilet design was developed to fit

into the given geo-hydrological conditions and cultural environment through paying attention to the

perceived needs of the communities and indigenous knowledge. It was concluded that integrated

community-based environmental sanitation projects should include income generating activities to

encourage people to participate. It was noted that most of the voluntary labour was done by women.

(Kawanga and Phiri, 2006, Session 1)

Mexico: theresearch project in Ciudad Juárez included monitoring 90 composting latrines in a low-

income peri-urban community utilising US-EPA guidelines for the end product. The double vault

provided clear separation and more room for the urinal but increased costs and space. The

dehydrating system was consistently the better choice over the biodegrading system in this study

area (very hot desert area, good for dehydration). A research component included also a study on

hygiene behaviour, and paid attention to hand washing. The research process had also a strong

component for community participation, focusing especially on the youth and general public

awareness concerning health, hygiene and sanitation. Users were satisfied with their latrines.

(Barud-Zubillaga, Corella-Barud and Peña, 2006, Session 7)

Romania: double vault dry urine diverting (u. d.) toilets were constructed in a primary school to

demonstrate how to improve sanitation, the health of the children and to protect ground water

against infiltration of human waste in an affordable way. A year after the implementation the

evaluation results showed that the dry urine diverting toilets were well accepted and operated by

even 6–10 year old children. There were hardly any problems with bad odours or flies. A gender

specific pattern was observed: women preferred ecosan toilets while men preferred water flush

toilets. More than half of the interviewed citizens were willing to use the urine diverting toilet

products for agriculture. They all complained about the odour and flies of their pit latrines. (Samwel

and Gabizon 2006, Session 2)

Mexico: The study covered 75 dry toilets. Of all observed toilets, 67 per cent had no odour and 79

per cent had a generally clean appearance. Sixty per cent did not use the urinal even if it was

installed, and 51 per cent did not follow the maintenance recommendations. Twenty-four per cent

of the ‘negative’ cases suffered from technical problems, such as broken or blocked pipes, five per

cent had turned the structure into a cistern and another five per cent had not finished the construction

at all. The chamber had been filled at least once in 48 per cent of the cases, and 92 per cent considered

using the contents as fertiliser. In terms of pathogens, the end products were more than just

acceptable. It was suggested that the great resistance may have socio-cultural roots. (Ysunza-

Ogazón et al., 2006, Session 3)

United Kingdom: the project with the Beacon Hill Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Society, in

Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, aimed to provide an ecological construction within the commercial

limitations of a commercial build. As a result, the allotment holders have a building that is

interesting both in its purpose and construction. The sanitation facility has made the site more

accessible to women, the disabled and the elderly, and it has encouraged the uptake of allotments

on the site. The dry toilet gave people an opportunity to test the dry toilet technology and understand

its purpose. The construction company learned valuable lessons in ecological design and construction

while providing important vocational training for disadvantaged youth. (Gilroy-Scott and Chilton,

2006, Session 2)

Source: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a and 2006b

value of ecological sanitation through a high quality

architectural design. The design was geared primarily to

evolve a ‘modern mixture’ concept to improve sanitation’s

image, to support entrepreneurship and to strengthen

environmental linkages. Attention was paid to the different

needs of women, men, children and the disabled. The

facility for the disabled was constructed considering three

types of users: the visually impaired, wheelchair users and

those with missing limbs or paralysed. The facility was also

designed to strongly portray the imagery and identity of

Nakuru town, with sculptures depicting the flamingos of

Lake Nakuru in the rock garden and mounted on the internal

façade of the entrance lobby wall (Kuria, 2006).

China has a long and vibrant ecological sanitation

tradition. The China-Sweden Erdos Eco-Town Project

transferred the practices still common in rural areas into an

urban context. This was the first time urine diversion dry

eco-toilets have been applied to large scale multi-storey

buildings in an urban area. The project area comprises

about 800 households in its first phase. The community has

Page 6

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.6

its own independent sanitation system (source separation

and collection of urine and faeces, separate grey water

treatment, sorting and collection of solid waste, composting

and reuse of the resources). It is expected that daily water

consumption can be cut by about athird while providing 24-

hour reliable and sustainable sanitation service. In addition

to its environmental benefits, the housing system also aims

at resolving the housing problem of mid- and low-income

people (Lixia, 2006).

GTZ, the German cooperation agency, has recently

been renovating its headquarters in Eschborn, Germany.

The new office buildings include a modern system for the

separate collection and reuse of urine and a treatment and

reuse system for brown water. The central part of the

building, housing about 300 employees, the conference

rooms and the restaurant, is equipped with a urine separation

system. It is expected that the system will save 900 m

water yearly. The project had four main objectives, including

(1) reduced emission of nutrients, organics, pathogens and

micro pollutants such as pharmaceutical residues and

hormones into the public sewer system and receiving water

bodies; (2) recovery of nutrients for agricultural use; (3)

demonstration of the ecological sanitation concept and

contribution to international dissemination; and (4) research

on important aspects of ecological sanitation systems in

Germany and development of treatment technologies

(Werner et al., 2006).

Dry sanitation in emergencies

Sanitation has an essential role to play in emergencies. It is

the first barrier between the possible pathogens (in excreta)

and the receptors (human beings). The importance of safe

excreta disposal is heightened by an oft-forgotten

consequence of living in chaotic surroundings, namely

stress-related diarrhoea. The local population and

organisations are the primary actors in disasters, and the

non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can empower the

local stakeholders and provide feasible solutions and

equipment to different scenarios and conditions.

The real life example from Iran showed how rapid

action was crucial to prevent spread of diseases: although

the environmental health staff arrived in Bam in less than 24

hours, people had already begun to defecate in various open

areas, thus endangering public health (Amin, 2006). He

further noted that even rapid action should not override

cultural considerations: large refugee camps were built but

people preferred to stay close to their homes.

Another example dealt with a refugee camp in Sudan

where it was found that lack of appropriate sanitation is

only one of a multitude of problems that prevail in a refugee

camp. It was emphasised that a refugee camp forms a

dynamic entity which is not even meant to be permanent;

therefore, any attempts to build permanent infrastructure

are futile. Dr Koestler from the Norwegian Red Cross noted

that sanitation services can best be improved by integrating

public health services with infrastructure rebuilding to be

able to cope with future disasters. This could reduce hygienic

risks after a disaster and reduce vulnerability of communities

in the long run. Dr Koestler called for innovativeness in

using local resources and materials, and trained, well-

functioning sanitation teams to tackle the sanitation problem

from the beginning (Koestler, 2006). The challenge for

developing sustainable and appropriate sanitation systems

for crisis situations is diversity and uncertainty: it is difficult

to get financing for a catastrophe which has not yet happened.

Discussion: to dry or not to dry – is there

a problem?

DS is based on long traditions of managing human urine

and faeces. At the same time, it also represents something

novel for those already used to urinating and defecating into

water closets or in traditional ways of using ‘the bushes’. In

many parts of the world both of these prevailing practices

are challenged by the sheer number of people, water scarcity

and pollution problems. Yet, even if DS were theoretically

and conceptually well developed, it would still be a challenge

to apply it in diverse climatic, geo-hydrological,

environmental, socio-cultural and economic conditions.

Due to a lack of experience and the confidence it could give,

it is difficult, for instance, for local leaders and national

policy makers to take DS seriously. Failed sanitation systems

are difficult to hide.

Sanitation is about dignity, convenience, public health,

clean water and healthy environment, and general well-

being of the citizens, all of which are issues and concerns

for local planning and local governance. A definition states

that “water governance refers to the range of political,

social, economic and administrative systems that are in

place to develop and manage water resources, and the

delivery of water services, at different levels of society”

(Rogers and Hall, 2002, p. 16). We would like to emphasise

that a similar definition should be formulated for sanitation

governance as it relates to protection of public health and

safety, environmental protection, user participation, gender

and equal opportunities, cost efficiency and effectiveness

of performance, financial sustainability and transparency,

and overall accountability. Many of the sanitation-related

problems identified during the conference are related to

these.

Sanitation should be a public concern and advanced

with public resources even if the facilities as such may be

private property. Keeping the environment healthy and

sanitary is certainly a citizen’s obligation as well as a right.

As sanitation is a very local and even a household-specific

dilemma, local government should provide the institutional

frame of reference where these interests could be articulated

and translated into action. To derive the full benefits

sanitation can offer, all households must participate. The

only option is to systematically work towards full coverage,

and this is where local governments as community planners

truly step in (Rautanen, 2006). The importance of

developments in infrastructure planning and housing design,

in addition to continued DT-related product development,

were also acknowledged by Mattila in his recent doctoral

research. Mattila (2005) called for attention to the quality of

activities at all stages: design, contracting, construction,

control, operation, maintenance and repair of on-site

sanitation systems – with special emphasis on the DT.

During the conference a number of present challenges

were identified, including issues such as lack of integrated

vision, capacity and commitment at the local government

level. It was noted that decisions concerning the water and

sanitation sectors are often dominated by political interests

and financial concerns which may not be in the best interest

of the people and the environment nor sustainable. Key

decision-makers are also often unfamiliar with alternative

solutions which is why the official sector is not willing to

Page 7

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.7

invest in research of ‘unconventional’ systems.

Sustainability was also debated during the conference.

The findings of a number of case studies relating to the post-

construction status of dry toilets exposed two key reasons

for poor sustainability. Firstly, technical problems

originating from initial poor construction using low quality

construction materials. Secondly, there was a general lack

of sense of ownership which was reflected in inadequate

operation and maintenance: the users’ had not chosen the

technology and/or did not consider the sanitation facilities

a priority. Countless toilets, both dry and otherwise, have

been abused, abandoned or transformed into something

more useful, such as storage facilities or even kitchens! The

question is: how can something ‘so simple’ be so difficult

to make and maintain? More financial data are also needed:

what is promoted as low cost should truly be so!

During the conference it was noted that people can have

unreasonable wants and needs, or just too high expectations

for the sanitation solution. These can easily lead to

disappointment. The importance of human perceptions,

beliefs and attitudes for the success of ecological sanitation

is evident, and a proper approach for managing — not

manipulating — them positively towards sustainable

solutions is vital. Ecological sanitation education and training

should give people the ability to develop, plan and implement

sustainable sanitation systems that are hygienically safe,

socially acceptable, economically feasible, environmentally

sound and technically appropriate, and convenient to use.

To achieve this we need to modernise current educational

and training systems to inspire all stakeholders. Trans-

sectoral and interdisciplinary co-operation and inputs from

a range of research fields and well-designed educational

materials are of great importance in securing successful

education, training and capacity building.

Conclusions and recommendations – the

dry future

Based on the findings presented in connection with the

DT2006 conference, we recommend that all our fellow

sector professionals:

Continue their serious and systematic research, also in

the real life context. Even if a number of pilot research

and demonstration projects have been carried out, more

research is needed, including a strong advocacy and

educational component to help inspire (political)

confidence to commit to DS.

Emphasise sound technical design, good workmanship

and durable materials. Cheap and poorly constructed

options are not sustainable, and therefore, not cheap at

all. Negative experiences undermine sanitation

improvements in general, whether dry or not. Failed

efforts in sanitation are difficult to hide!

Make it their aim to bring DS technology to the same

level of convenience as the water closet systems now

provide. Sustainability and tailor-made products need

community involvement and listening to the real users,

but also an enabling environment from the local planners

and decision makers.

Always ensure that the recommended options are safe

from the public health point of view. To make faecal

material hygienically safe, thorough thermal composting

and/or after treatment or storage are needed – there are

rarely shortcuts. It is also important to pay attention to

timing and the type of plants being fertilised: the health

risk is very low when urine is used for fruit trees rather

than for root crops.

Dare to suggest urine diversion toilets also in urban

areas. Urine has high concentrations of both nutrients

and such micro-pollutants as pharmaceuticals and

oestrogens (endocrine disruptors). All these are difficult

and costly to remove through conventional wastewater

treatment processes and, therefore, are found in

increasing concentrations in the aquatic environment.

Strive for long term monitoring of the existing pilots as

there is a need for more real life performance data which

spans several years into the ‘post-programme’ period.

Anything will work as long as there are enough academics

and committed local professionals involved, but what

happens when the latrine owners are left to themselves?

Replication, local adaptation and scaling up of lessons

learnt remain limited. Good practices should be

institutionalised in each community as a standard code

of practice, similarly to flushing the flush toilet now.

Do systematic cost and value analysis in a real life

context: which are actually the low cost but high quality

and sustainable options? What is not proven to be truly

low cost, should not be advocated as such!

Search for new institutional settings. DS as a

decentralised option calls for innovative approaches to

private sector involvement to ensure the necessary

technical services: it should not be expected that

individual house owners are willing to maintain the

systems themselves or have an interest in gardening.

Step outside their sanitation and ecosan circles and dare

to approach other sectors (water, public health,

environmental, social), and actively seek to integrate

the principles of ecosan into, for instance, the agricultural

and energy sectors.

Actively contribute to policy and political dialogues at

all levels in search for solutions to the sanitation crisis.

It is politically difficult to commit to unconventional

options if there is no reliable, first-hand experience

from their real life performance: therefore experiences

have to be effectively shared!

Consider what are the incentives for sanitation

improvements at various levels, from the national policy

level to local action level. This calls for an enabling

environment and good governance, a system where a

positive outcome can be fed back into the broader

system.

Remember that incentives and other drivers for change

are community-specific, even within one country or

region. Small, tangible and sustainable steps are needed

in each to show the direction.

Acknowledgements

Financial support from Academy of Finland (210816) and

Maj & Tor Nessling Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

The authors wish to extend their warmest regards to all key

note speakers, delegates, chairpersons, rapporteurs and

sponsors for making the DT2006 a successful and fruitful

event.

Page 8

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.8

References

Global Water Partnership, 2000, Integrated Water Resources

Management. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),

TAC Background Papers No. 4, Global Water

Partnership, Stockholm. 67 p. ISSN: 1403-5324, ISBN:

91-630-9229-8, viewed 1 October 2006, <http://

www.gwpforum.org>.

Jensen, P.K., Jayasinghe, G., van der Hoek, W., Cairncross,

S. and Dalsgaard, A., 2004. Is there an association

between bacteriological drinking water quality and

childhood diarrhoea in developing countries? Trop.

Med. Int. Health,9, 1210–1215. Blackwell Publishing

Ltd

Korkeakoski, M., Rautanen, S.-L. and Viskari, E.-L., 2006a.

Proceedings of Dry Toilet 2006 held at Tampere

Polytechnic University of Applied Sciences 16-19

August, 2006, Tampere, Finland. CD-ROM.

Korkeakoski, M., Rautanen, S.-L. and Viskari, E.-L., 2006b,

The book of abstracts, Tampere Polytechnic University

of Applied Sciences Publications, Series A Research

Reports 6, Tampere, viewed 1 October 2006, http://

kirjasto.tpu.fi/DT2006.pdf.

Mattila, H., 2005. Appropriate management of on-site

sanitation. D. Tech. thesis, Publication 537, Tampere

University of Technology. Tampere, Finland. 151pp.

Maurer, M., Pronk, W. and Larsen, T.A., 2006, Treatment

processes for source-separated urine. Review. Water

Res., 40, 3151–3166, viewed 1 October 2006, <http:/

/www.sciencedirect.com>.

Rees, J.A., 2006, Urban water and sanitation services: an

IWRM approach. TEC Background Papers No. 11,

Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC),

Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, 44pp, viewed 1

October 2006, <http://www.gwpforum.org>.

Rogers, P. and Hall, A.W., 2003, Effective water

governance. TEC Background Papers No. 7, Global

Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC), Global

Water Partnership, Stockholm, 44pp, viewed 1 October

2006, <http://www.gwpforum.org>.

Tumwine, J.K., Thompson, J., Katua-Katua, M., Mujwajuzi,

M., Johnstone, N., Wood, E. and Porras, I., 2002,

Diarrhoea and effects of different water sources,

sanitation and hygiene behaviour in East Africa. Trop.

Med. Int. Health, 7, 750–756. =

WASTE, 2006, Smart sanitation solutions – examples of

innovative, low-cost technologies for toilets, collection,

transportation, treatment and use of sanitation

products. Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP),

WASTE advisers on urban environment and

development, International Resource Centre (IRC),

Simavi and Partners for Water, viewed 14 September

2006, < http://www.waste.nl>.

WHO/UNICEF, 2005, Water for life – making it happen.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water

Supply and Sanitation. WHO Press, Geneva. 38pp.

ISBN 92 4 156293 5. viewed 14 September 2006,

<http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/

waterforlife.pdf>.

WHO/UNICEF/WSSCC, 2000, Global water supply and

sanitation assessment, 2000 Report. WHO/UNICEF

Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and

Sanitation. WHO Press, Geneva. 80pp, viewed 10

October 2006,<http://www.who.int/water_

sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2000.pdf>.

Winblad, U. and Simpson-Hébert, M. (editors), 2004,

Ecological Sanitation, 2

edition. Stockholm

Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 141pp,

viewed 5 September 2006, <http://www.ecosanres.org/

news-publications.htm>.

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS CITED

Amin, M.M., 2006, Pit Latrine as a strategy for excreta

disposal in emergencies - A case study in Bam

Earthquake (Bam Town-Iran). In: Korkeakoski et al.

2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at Session 2.

Barud-Zubillaga, A., Corella-Barud, V., & Peña, P. 2006,

Dry-sanitation Toilets and Grey-water Filters in Juárez,

México. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper

presented at Session 6.

Borght van der, P. & Orszagh, J., 2006, The TRAISELECT

system: Another Way to See the Autonomous

Sanitation. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b.

Paper presented at Session 6.

Duncker, L.C., 2006, Prejudices and Attitude Change to

Dry Toilets in South Africa. In: Korkeakoski et al.

2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at Session 3.

Funamizu, N., 2006, Dry toilet: An important system for

controlling micro-pollutants from our daily life. In:

Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b.Paper presented at

Session 5.

Juuti, P. & Mäki, H., 2006, Early experiences of toilets and

sanitation in South African and Finnish cities -a short

comparative story. Paper presented at Session 1.

Kawanga, O. & Phiri, T.K., 2006, Integrated indigenous

knowledge for dry sanitation in Madimba; case of

Lusaka – Zambia. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a &

2006b.Paper presented at Session 1.

Koestler, A.G., 2006, “Sanitation for Life” in Natural

Disasters. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b.

Paper presented at Session 2.

Kuria, D., 2006. Architecture - Modern Mixtures for Public

Dry Toilets “Concepts and Realities”. In:Korkeakoski

et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at Session 2.

Kakimoto, T. & Funamizu, N., 2006, Degradation of

amoxicillin in composting toilet. In:Korkeakoski et al.

2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at Session 5.

Otaki, M., Nakagawa, N., Akaishi, F., Kubo, K. & Tameike,

S., 2006. The fate of micro-organisms in the composting

toilet from the point of hygienic risk. In: Korkeakoski

et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at Session 5.

Funamizu, N., 2006, Dry toilet: An important system for

controlling micro-pollutants from our daily life. Paper

presented at Session 5.

Rautanen, S.-L., 2006, Calling for Good Governance for

Better Sanitation in Nepal – How Do the Dry Toilets

Fit In?In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper

presented at Session 1.

Samwel, M. & Gabizon, S., 2006, From Pit Latrine to Dry

Urine Diverting Toilet – Protecting Groundwater and

Improving Sanitary Facilities in a Romanian Village.

In:Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper presented

at Session 2.

Sijbesma, C., 2006, Where softness matters most: Scaling

up dry toilet programmes in developing countries. In

Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at

Session 7.

Page 9

Land Use and Water Resources Research

Land Use and Water Resources Research 6 (2006) 4.1–4.9

(http://www.luwrr.com)

4.9

Tsvietkova, G., Berezha, Y. & Gudkova, N., 2006, Ecosan

technologies for rural schools in Ukraine - The

experience of NGO MAMA-86 in eco-sanitation

project implementation. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a

& 2006b. Poster presented at Session 2

Werner, C. Klingel, F. & Räth, N., 2006, Ecological

Sanitation: Its Conceptual Meaning for IWRM and

Implementation. In:Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b.

Paper presented at Session 6.

Werner, C., Klingel, F., Räth, N. & Panesar, A., 2006,

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GTZ), Eschborn – Germany: GTZ Ecosan Sourcebook

and UNESCO-GTZ Publication on Concepts for

Ecologically Sustainable Sanitation in Formal and

Continuing Education. In: Korkeakoski et al. 2006a &

2006b. Paper presented at Session 3.

Ysunza-Ogazón, A., Leyva, J., Martínez, E., Díez-Urdanivia,

S. & López, L., 2006, Use and Maintenance of Dry

Toilet as a Result of the Community Perception of

Human Excreta Management in Rural Mexico. In:

Korkeakoski et al. 2006a & 2006b. Paper presented at

Session 3.

WEB

International Decade for Action: Water For Life 2005-

2015, Fact Sheet, United Nations, viewed 1 October

2006, <http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/

factsheet.html>.

The World Bank. 2004. Millennium Development Goals.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. The World

Bank Group, viewed 14 September 2006, <http://

www.developmentgoals.org/Environment.htm>.

Sanitation Connection. 2006, An Environmental Sanitation

Network IWA/UNEP/WSP/WSSCC/WHO/CSIR/

EW/EHP/Hydrophil, viewed 14 September 2006,

<http://www.sanicon.net>.

Dry Toilet 2006, the 2nd International Dry Toilet

Conference. 16-19 August, 2006. Conference website

available at <http://kirjasto.tpu.fi/DT2006.pdf>.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GTZ) GmbH, 2006. CD-ROM “Capacity building

for ecological sanitation – ecosan resource material”,

GTZ Ecological Sanitation Programme, Division 44 –

environment and infrastructure. 2006, version 1

February 2006, <http://www.gtz.de/ecosan>.