It would be nonsensical to believe that the quality and type
of sanitation in Africa is uniform across all 54 nations. Nevertheless, figure
1 portrays an image that most of us are probably used to seeing when sanitation
facilities in Africa are discussed. Despite what the media tends to depict, the reality of sanitation in Africa is not
limited to only a simple hole dug into the ground, it ranges across many types of facilities, from intermediate technologies to those that are more advanced.
 |
| Figure 1. Hand flushed sanitation pit (Image Source) |
In the case of figure 1, this toilet is a simple open pit, which could be ambitiously classed as a latrine. This would be deemed an unimproved sanitation facility by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Unimproved and improved sanitation facilities will be discussed in a later post but for now we will be looking at the types of sanitation facilities across Africa, how they work, and the costs and benefits associated with their use. This post will focus on dry toilets, facilities without the need for water (Unicef), with the next looking at wet.
Open Defecation
Whilst open defecation is not strictly a sanitation facility, it is the lack there of which results in this method of defecation. Described as 'the greatest nightmare of Africa' (Face2Face Africa, 2016), open defecation is, put quite simply and intuitively, the act of defecating in open spaces such as bushes, bodies of water and forests.
The obvious benefits to this method of excretion are that it is easy and cost-free, at least monetarily, however the health costs associated with open defecation are fatal.
This practice aids the transmission of diarrhoeal diseases, such as cholera and e.coli, which are one of the key causes of child mortality. As the waste is not contained, diseases spread easily through contamination of water sources. Defecation carried out upstream will travel downstream and tarnish water supplies which may be for drinking or irrigation. Additionally, rain water may become laced with fecal matter once it generates surface runoff, distributing contaminated water wherever it flows.
Latrines
 |
| Figure 2. A group of girls on their way to use the pit latrines (Image Source) |
There are multiple variations of latrines, a simple pit latrine (figure 2), is the simplest method of creating a sanitation solution (WEDC). It is a hand dug pit, usually several feet deep, covered by a platform with an opening to excrete through. The structure is enclosed for shelter from the elements and privacy (figure 2). Once defecation has taken place, the excrement decomposes aerobically with older matter decomposing anaerobically.
The benefits of implementing simple pit latrines are that they are low cost, can be built by the locals, and are easy to maintain. Additionally, the conditions of the pit do not sustain pathogen survival, killing the organisms that cause disease. An overarching positive aspect of all dry toilet facilities is that no input of water is required and so they can be used in times of water scarcity or allow for water sources to be utilised in a different feature of the community.
Whilst latrines are an appropriate technology, they posses a contested reputation due to the costs associated with them. As the faeces is left to decompose, rather than being removed, latrines can have a foul odour and it is very common for flies, mosquitoes and even cockroaches to be abundant within and around latrines. Despite being a nuisance in general, mosquitoes and cockroaches can carry diseases, posing a threat to sanitation of latrines. Moreover, it is not easy to empty these pits and most often they are abandoned and a new latrine is built, occupying space. A further issue is that, if not lined properly, the faecal matter can seep into groundwater supplies. It is also possible that, if misused or not constructed properly, people may fall into the pit and potentially drown.
Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (VIP) are fundamentally the same as simple pit latrines, however they are fitted with a vent pipe and a fly trap/screen (figure 3). The pipe allows for continuous airflow, to fuel decomposition of faeces and removal of odours. The fly screen/trap prevents the nuisance of flies and their spread of diseases. Whilst theses factors show the advantage of using a VIP, the advancement in equipment required for VIPs makes them more challenging and costly to maintain, as specific parts are required. Shared with the simple pits, VIPs also have the risk of potential injury in the pit and also the possibility of leakage into groundwater supplies.
 |
| Figure 3. How a pit latrine works (Image Source) |
A clear benefit of using a dual-pit facility is that, although it is initially expensive to build a larger facility, they are easily reused and fewer pits will need to be built, saving greatly on costs. On the other hand, with two pits comes double the risk of groundwater contamination and injury by falling into the pits.
It is evident that there are a range of costs and benefits associated with the use of dry toilet facilities. With the next post, I will be looking into the methods behind and costs and benefits associated with wet systems.
