Faecal sludge management, latrine safety and budget priorities in a camp

Production: 24,000 × 0.08 = 1,920 m³ per year, i.e. 160 m³ per month.

Emptying frequency: with 1,020 latrines, 24,000 / 1,020 = 23.5 people per latrine; a pit fills in 1.2 / (23.5 × 0.08) = 0.64 years, i.e. about 7.7 months. With 1,200 latrines (20 people per latrine): 1.2 / 1.6 = 0.75 years, i.e. 9 months. The 180 latrines out of order speed up the filling of the others (vicious circle).

Ratio: 20 people per latrine with 1,200 latrines, in line with the Sphere indicator of no more than 20 people per shared toilet; it rises to 23.5 with the 180 out of order.

Teams: 4 × 3 × 22 = 264 pits per month, i.e. 264 × 1.2 = 316.8 m³ per month, well above 160.

Plant: 4 × 26 = 104 m³ per month, i.e. a deficit of 160 − 104 = 56 m³ per month.

Bottleneck: the treatment plant, not desludging. The stock of sludge not emptied grows by 56 m³ per month, i.e. about 47 more full pits each month (56 / 1.2), on top of the backlog of 180 × 1.2 = 216 m³. To clear the backlog in 3 months, 160 + 72 = 232 m³ per month would be needed, i.e. about 8.9 m³ per day: treatment capacity would have to more than double.

Short term: (1) prioritise latrine desludging according to risk (overflow, proximity to water points, latrines in schools and health centres); (2) temporary lime treatment of sludge stored in sealed tanks or buffer pits, with sufficient dosage and contact time (limitations: cost, handling, worker protection); (3) agreement with another plant in the area or another partner with spare capacity; (4) increase the plant's operating hours if the process allows. The desludging teams, which have excess capacity, can be reassigned to rehabilitation and maintenance.

Medium term: extension of the plant (additional modules suited to space constraints and a high water table); reduction of sludge production: repair and maintenance, latrines with sealed pits, practices that limit the input of water and solid waste (awareness-raising, bins); coordination with the WASH sector for joint planning of sludge management at camp level. Constraints: limited space, flooding in the rainy season, permits.

All options require protective equipment, vaccination and medical monitoring of workers, and a ban on any untreated discharge.

Safety and gender: very large gap in night-time use (38% of women against 81% of men); it is explained by the lack of lighting (70% of blocks without lighting), locks (55% of women's latrines) and clear segregation (40%). Adolescent girls reduce their water intake so as not to go out at night: risk of dehydration, urinary infections, and risk of gender-based violence. Menstrual hygiene: 80% of women's latrines have no bin, so menstrual products are thrown into the pits, which speeds up filling and hampers desludging (link with question 1).

Handwashing: 78% report washing their hands with soap, 24% actually do so: social desirability bias; the self-reported indicator must not be used on its own. 59% of latrines have no handwashing point with water and soap: the practice is impossible for many.

Priority actions: (1) (solar) lighting of all blocks and access paths, internal locks, segregation and signage, with safety audits conducted with groups of women and adolescent girls, in coordination with protection and GBV actors; (2) bins and a disposal system for menstrual products, distribution of menstrual hygiene kits in consultation with women; (3) maintained handwashing points with soap at every block; (4) hygiene promotion focused on behaviour change drivers (visual reminders, practical devices), and monitoring through observation; (5) monitoring disaggregated by sex and age.

Principles: first protect what prevents an immediate health risk (water, sludge management), then the safety of facilities; reduce new construction in favour of rehabilitating the 180 latrines out of order, which is cheaper and restores the ratio; reduce fixed costs.

Sample allocation:

Other allocations are acceptable if they total 700,000 and respect the priorities.

Paragraph: "The 30% cut leads us to focus resources on preventing health risks. Sludge management remains the priority: the plant treats 104 m³ per month against a production of 160 m³, and 180 latrines are out of order. We will rehabilitate these latrines instead of building new ones and equip the blocks with lighting and locks, as only 38% of women use the latrines at night. Hygiene promotion will be refocused on handwashing points, and running costs will be halved. Residual risks: fewer volunteers and reduced capacity to respond to an epidemic."

Protection of the volunteer: thank them, keep their identity confidential, do not show the photos to the company in a form that identifies them, and keep them informed of the follow-up.

Rapid verification: check of the delivery slips at the plant (volumes received against declared volumes emptied), GPS tracking of the trucks if available, unannounced visit. The figures from question 1 also show that the plant cannot absorb all the volume emptied: the pressure to dump exists.

Measures: if the dumping is confirmed, it is a serious breach of contract and a public health risk (cholera, water contamination): formal notice, penalties provided for in the contract, informing the WASH sector and the camp authorities; downstream water analysis and informing communities. As the company is the only one authorised, suspending it would cause latrines to overflow: the priority is to impose controls (slips signed at the plant, escorts, unannounced checks), pay for the volume actually delivered to the plant, and start looking for other providers. I also address the root cause: insufficient treatment capacity.