Course 1 Unit 1
Part D
Ecosan for Slum Upgrading
1
Slums world wide
There are about 1 billion slum dwellers; by 2020 this number
is expected to have extended to 1.4 billion(2)
What is a slum?
There is no internationally accepted definition of a slum.
However, an expert group meeting agreed on a generic
definition which is recommended for use as: a settlement
where inhabitants have inadequate housing and basic
services, often not recognized nor addressed by public
authorities as an integral part of the city.(2)
2
Slums are characterized by:
 inadequate access to safe water (if available; cost!)
 inadequate access to sanitation and other
infrastructure;
 poor structural quality of housing;
 overcrowding (high density)
 insecure tenure(2)
3
Sanitation in slums globally
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/no-shelter-refugees-sanitation-and-slums
4
Upgrading of Slums
Slum upgrading is a proactive, efficient and effective way of
achieving MDG 7, Target 11 — to improve significantly the
lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2020.
 This entails physical, social, economic, organizational and
environmental improvements to existing slums.
 Our interest in this course unit are environmental concerns
with a focus on sanitation.
5
Why ecosan for slum upgrading (1/2)?
 Advantages of ecosan systems compared to
conventional sewer-based sanitation (for excreta
management*) include:
– Lower cost
– More flexible – can more easily accomodate rapid changes in
population numbers
– Not reliant on reliable water supply for flushing
– Decentralised approach, easier to involve residents
• More user participation in planning process
• Ownership and O&M can lie with the locals
* For greywater, some form of alternative sewer system may be called for, e.g. Settled sewerage,
or home treatment for greywater, like the greywater (mulch) tower – we will discuss this in the
greywater units
6
Why ecosan for slum upgrading (2/2)?
 Advantages of ecosan systems compared to
conventional pit based sanitation:
– Toilets* can be “portable” therefore providing higher flexibility
– No groundwater pollution from excreta
– No soil required (can be indoors), no odour and flies, no
need to dig
– Costs are similar or only marginally higher
 If space permits: residents can reuse ecosan
products as fertiliser to increase food security (urban
agriculture)
* For example urine diversion dehydration toilets (UDD toilets)
7
CASE STUDY
 SCUSA- stands for Sanitation Challenges for Unsewered
African Mega cities.
 It is a project whose undertakings currently focuses on
Bwaise III, a slum in Kampala Uganda
 The project is pursuing an integrated intervention approach
under 3 disciplines (Sanitation, Hydrology and Socioeconomics)
8
Scusa Project
MSc: Sanitary
Engineering
Objective
selection of
Sustainable
Technology
Options
PhD Sanitary
Engineering
PhD Institutional,
social and
economical aspects
PhD Hydrogeology
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
 Sewers are only for richer areas of Kampala (7.5%)
(more over trickling filters are used which discharges to
L. Victoria)
 Sanitation: Bwaise III >73% pit latrines are unimproved
10
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
 Poor housing due to low income status
 Bwaise III a has a high Pop. density (>27,000Pple/KM2)
11
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
 Often the area experiences floods on heavy rainy days
12
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
 Poor access and unhygienic conditions.
13
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
 The sanitation facilities from the 400 households
sampled are:
-Hanging pit latrines which in most cases are emptied
into drainage channels (55%)
-Traditional pit latrines (18.5%)
-VIP latrines do exist but most of them are public
toilets which are disludged routinely (25%)
- Septic tank systems (1.25%)
-No facilities (0.25%)
14
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
1.25
100%
25
90%
None
80%
Septic tank
70%
VIP latrine
60%
55
50%
Hanging pit latrines
Traditional Pit latrines
40%
30%
18.5
20%
10%
0%
1
15
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
Ownership of Sanitation Facilities in Bwaise III
15%
10%
Public
Self (Private)
Shared
75%
16
Solid Waste Management-Bwaise III
 The Solid waste management practices in Bwaise III
include:
 Burning (39.25%)
 Burying (2.75%)
 Bushes and open dumping (11%)
(The above methods (57%) could pose a health hazard)
 Private sector and Kampala City Council-KCC (46.75%),
do collect and take to a land fill.
17
Solid Waste Management-Bwaise III
Solid waste management practices in Bwaise III
39.25
40
33.25
35
30
Proportion of 25
population (%) 20
13.5
15
7.75
10
2.75
5
3.25
0.25
0
Burn
Bury
Bushes
Dump sites
Private
sector
KCC
No Solid
waste
Management types
18
Suggested Remedies
 For solid waste management:
Separation at source (recycling and possibly co-composting) is
encouraged
 For excreta management:
Use of environmentally friendly solutions with possible re-use
eg. UDDTs, and Bio-latrines could be tried at the periphery of
Bwaise III,
 To check the flooding problem, drainage of the area needs
urgent attention
 Since management structures exist in the area, intensification
of health promotion education (CBOs, Village Health Teams &
WATSAN committees). Behavioural change is very important
19
Course 1 Unit 1
References for this presentation
WHO/UNICEF (2006) Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target – The
Urban and Rural Challenge of the Decade. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation. Available:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2006/en/index.html * (1)
UN-HABITAT (2003) The challenge of slums – Global report on human
settlehttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloads* (2)
A.Y. Katukiza, M. Ronteltap, A. Oleja, C.B. Niwagaba, F. Kansiime, P.N.L. Lens
Selection of sustainable sanitation technologies for urban slums — A case of Bwaise
III in Kampala, Uganda. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 409, Issue 1,
1 December 2010, Pages 52-62.
20
Course 1 Unit 1
Further reading on urban slums
 Karki, M. J. (2005) Integrated infrastructure provision for slum
areas. MSc Thesis IUE 05-08, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education, Delft, the Netherlands
 Kalimba, I. (2007) Integrated urban slum infrastructure
development : case study of Kigali, Rwanda. MSc Thesis MWI
07.20, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the
Netherlands *
 Useful website: www.web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading
 Google keyword combination for this topic: urban slum
upgrading
21