Memoire Online - Sanitation in urban and peri-urban areas of Cap-Haitien: the promotion of different latrine options through a social marketing approach

During the research, it appeared that the current practices in sanitation are inappropriate

in several aspects: the technology choices were considered as «not sustainable» during

the workshop with partner organisations; the past project in Mansui was evaluated by using survey results, showing that its positive effects are in fact very limited and that

it had potentially negative effects, such as discouraging non-beneficiaries to build their own latrine; finally, current practices and technologies are compared with the Millenium Development Goals.

During the workshop, the participants were presented with the different defecation prac- tices currently in use in Cap-Haitien, after which some of the latrine options were exam- ined in relation to their sustainability; the criteria for sustainability were the five given

in Appendix D on page 70. The results are shown on Table 5.3, examining the sustain- ability of overhung latrines, public latrines and USAID-financed private latrines. There were some disagreements: for instance, the impact on health of a private latrine is posi- tive, until it has to be emptied. As no reliable and safe emptying system exists currently, results are mitigated.

It is interesting to note that overhung latrines, even if they appear «disgusting» and «unsafe», are not necessarily «less sustainable» than other systems: as they are built by inhabitants, they are more likely to suit their immediate needs, and are more likely to

be built again during the next 20 years. It was the only system for which there could be

a small chance of having a high coverage maintained, and which could be maintained over a prolonged period of time.

One of the outcomes of the workshop was to show that current latrine options are not sustainable; objections were raised, that a bit more money would be enough to make a

subsidised programme sustainable, and that latrine building programmes at least have a

positive impact even if they are not sustainable. The next part address these objections.

Table 5.3: Sustainability of current sanitation options, result from the Oxfam-GTIH- MSPP workshop

Criteria \ Type of latrine	A	B	C
Consistently used	Y/N	N	Y
100% coverage maintained	y/N	N	N
No significant risk for health	N	Y/n	Y/n
No significant degradation of environment	N	Y/n	Y/n
Maintained over 20 years	Y	N	N/y

· Column A designates overhung latrines; column B are public latrines; Column C

· Y means that the criteria is met, N that it is not met, and a mixture of both ex- presses a disagreement between participants

One of the private latrine building programmes could be evaluated through the survey results: the USAID-financed project was conducted in the zone of Mansui in 2004, which means that all latrines were still in operation. The project was run by a local organisation, AMPB (Association des Militants Progressistes de Bel-Air), concerned with development of the area around Bel-Air, including Mansui. According to members

of the organisation³, 40 latrines had been built in the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004,

about half of them in Mansui. All materials were paid for by the project, as well as labour; beneficiaries only had to dig a pit and help transport the materials uphill from

It is still unclear how beneficiaries were chosen, as nobody could explain the selection process. Most of these latrines were located in the lower part of Mansui called Cité Ma Gloire, with the higher part of Mansui obviously ignored. During the survey, 6 persons (out of 14 without a latrine) had dug a pit and were «waiting for the project to come and give [them] materials»; none of them had the intention to go further without a project to help them. Some more pits could be spotted in the area, often filled with solid waste - but without a latrine over them.

³The organisation manager could not be reached, he is supposed to be in Miami now. The new manager

did not know much about the financial details of the latrine building project, but was able to indicate how the project was conducted.

As part of the survey, beneficiaries were identified and interviewed about their latrine.

12 families were available and were asked whether they were satisfied with their latrine, using a 5-point scale⁴. Results were:

· 2 interviewees were «very happy», with comments like «we avoid all microbes»

or «it is our greatest treasure» (this latrine was even decorated and fitted with a curtain);

· 2 were «happy», commenting with «we wouldn't have come if there had not been

· 3 had an average or no opinion, with comments like «we have to use it anyway; it smells bad but we put ash and lime in the pit to disinfect.»

- «As we have to share it with neighbours, there was an argument, then a fight and as a result a part of the latrine was broken; we still use it because we have no choice»;

put solid waste in it, as we have nowhere else to put it»; «the pit will be full

- «We already had a big latrine, which is unfinished [no roof and doors] but which suits us; we received one of these new latrines from the project but their pit is too small, we prefer the old one»;

- «I have to share with another family, but the latrine is close to their house

and not mine; it is too far to go at night, especially as I am an old person living on my own».

This frustration was shared by other interviewees without a latrine, who claimed that

the project leaders were «corrupt», rumours could be heard that «only 5 latrines had been constructed, and only for the elite», «someone told me that one family received three latrines», and so on. The researcher's findings tend to show that these rumours are wrong, yet their existence shows potential problems.

On the other hand, two respondents of the survey had their own latrine, which did not come from the project. One of these was a simple wooden latrine on a large pit, clearly unfinished, and the other was a more «classic» latrine, complete but showing signs of amateur construction; both were built 3 years ago, one year before the programme. The owners both said that they were frustrated that they had done so much efforts, when

they could have waited one year and «get one almost for free»; yet, they said they were

⁴In Creole, the question asked can be roughly translated as «How happy are you with your latrine?»,

the 5-point scale corresponding to «very happy», «happy», «average / no opinion», «unhappy», «very»

happy with their latrine. Comments were «Whatever we have, it is better than going

It would be tempting to draw conclusions solely from those results, but more evidence from similar projects would be needed in order to confirm the analysis. The fact that only two interviewees had a latrine outside of this project is not representative enough.

It is still striking to note that 8 out of 12 beneficiaries were neither «very happy» nor «happy» with their latrine, despite the fact that they received it almost for free. The reasons expressed were mostly about the difficulties to share and the small size of the pit. According to Bernard Pierre, the new head of AMPB, sharing was imposed in order

The flaws of this project can be seen as follows: the lack of consultation and partic- ipation have led to an inappropriate choice of beneficiaries; poor communication has

led many people to «prepare for the project» without benefiting, causing much frustra- tion; the supply-led approach (i.e. imposing the type of latrine) does not fit particular needs and does not correspond to the desire of owning a latrine rather than receiving

it, as proven by comments like «I own it» or «we prefer the old one». People who had made efforts beforehand, such as those who had already built their latrine, have not been rewarded and may well end up being discouraged from doing it another time.

Finally, the project did not consider sustainability: most pits will be full in the coming years, and poor access mean that bayakous would not be able to access the area; even if they could access, the pit contents would be very hard to transport and would probably end on the slopes, negating any health benefits of the latrines. The heavy superstructures would be also hard to move above a new pit, which means that most of the project's investment would have been useless.

The overall aim of the EU-funded project run by Oxfam, GTIH and PROTOS states: Contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development through achiev-

ing the MDG and WSSD⁵objectives specific to water and sanitation in poor areas of Cap-Haitien.

Estimates have been made to know what would be needed to achieve the MDG related

to sanitation, in the city of Cap-Haitien; calculations are detailed in Appendix E. About

30,000 families will need to have access to «improved sanitation» by 2015, which ex- cludes communal and public latrines (see Table E.1); Figure 5.7 below presents a graph

comparing the population and coverage in 1990 and 2003, with estimates for 2015. If a

«traditional» approach is chosen, where materials and labour are paid, the total cost of a latrine is around US$ 300 (Table E.2); this figure has been confirmed when investigating past projects and by GTIH engineers.

the construction of those 30,000 latrines. Even then, there would still be 36 % of the population of Cap-Haitien i.e. 187,000 inhabitants without latrines, and the absence of

a reliable emptying system means that most pits would be full after 5 to 10 years⁶. The

EU-funded project currently has US$ 30,000 available for latrine building. This can also

be compared with the original ideas proposed by local engineers, featuring communal latrines with raised chambers to avoid floods: they cost 18,640 Gdes each (US$ 466) according to previous experiments in the city of Gonaïves, without consideration for their emptying or daily maintenance.

Sanitation in urban and peri-urban areas of Cap-Haitien: the promotion of different latrine options through a social marketing approach

5.3 Inappropriate practices