30 May 2013

Modified Blair Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrine for a

Village in Timor Leste

Jay Arthur

InderAtwal

Abhijeet Nair

Olivia McCombe

Dinindu Meth CharukaHewage

AleksandarAdamovic

Kayden Johnson

Taylor Wright

RMIT University

2

Executive Summary

This group aims to alleviate the health risks of open defecation in the village of Codo, Timor

Leste. The use of toilets to sequester sewerage has been found to be a major preventer of

health conditions caused by faecal bacteria and parasites. The proposed project is to build a

Blair Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrine, modified for the village’s budget and local

materials, for each of its 108 households to encourage widespread use. The advantages of

this toilet model are that it is simple and yet it both removes odour and prevents insects

dispersing bacteria. Materials used during menstruation can also be disposed of in the pit.

The possibility of modifying the design further in order to generate fuel and fertiliser was

investigated but found to be unsafe and too expensive.The pits should not penetrate the

water table and even so, they should be located as far away from water sources as possible.

A heavy lid over the small squat hole should prevent rainfall flooding the pit. If a pit

becomes full, it has been judged that the modified pit structure is too unstable to empty

manually, hence a new pit will need to be built but the superstructure can be transferred

across. Our modified design would save the whole village US $68 000 compared to the

original design by substituting rocksforbricks, but the total cost of US $4392 will still need to

be covered. If Codo residents accept the project, they would be trained by an Engineers

Without Borders (EWB) professional in situ, with the aid of images, to become the chief

builders. To increase motivation it is suggested that there is a competition between two

building teams.

3

Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Location ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Justification for the Project ................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Justification for the Altered Design ....................................................................................... 4

2 Original Design .............................................................................................................................. 5

3 Design Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Modification for Fertiliser Output ......................................................................................... 6

3.2 Modification for Biogas Output ............................................................................................. 7

3.3 Protection from Flooding & Pollution ................................................................................. 10

3.4 Disposal of Menstrual Blood ............................................................................................... 12

4 Cost Reduction ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Cost of Original Design: ....................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Cost of modified design: ..................................................................................................... 13

5 Final Design for the Modified Blair VIP Latrine ........................................................................... 14

6 Construction ............................................................................................................................... 15

7 Construction Training Program ................................................................................................... 18

8 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 18

9 Promotion ................................................................................................................................... 18

10 Ethics ....................................................................................................................................... 20

11 Expected Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 20

12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 20

13 Group Reflection ..................................................................................................................... 21

14 References .............................................................................................................................. 23

4

1 Introduction

1.1 Location This project is intended for the village of Codo, in the mountainous district of Lautem which

is located in tropical Timor Leste. Timor Leste is one of Asia’s poorest countries [1]. Of the

population of approximately one million, 59 percent have no improved sanitation [1]. Due

to the inaccessibility of Lautem and its remoteness from the capital, Dili, the district is often

left out of water and sanitation programs [1].

1.2 Justification for the Project The village has a few pit toilets but currently, the main place of defecation is in the open [2].

Exposed faeces can lead to the spread of bacteria which makes the community vulnerable

to dangerous health conditions such as diarrhoea, intestinal parasites, typhoid and cholera

[3]. 46 percent of all children in Timor Leste under the age of six are currently underweight

and a significant reason for this is the high prevalence of diarrhoea and intestinal parasites,

which are causally associated with a lack of human waste disposal [1]. Therefore, a project

aiming to improve sanitation is particularly relevant to Plan, the development organisation

under which this project would be implemented, because it has a particular focus on

children and sanitation [2]. A study by Root in Zimbabwe suggests that the sequestration of

sewerage should significantly reduce the spread of faecal bacteria [3]. Hence, the aim is to

thoroughly resolve the health risks related to open defecation by building a pit toilet for

each of the 108 households in the village [4] – according to the Australian Red Cross, toilets

are more likely to be maintained and used by people if they belong to their household [5].

Furthermore, pit toilets have been successfully constructed in Timor Leste before [6].

1.3 Justification for the Altered Design Pit toilets are a practical model for the village, because they are able to be constructed out

of locally sourced materials such as stones and bamboo [7], meaning that they will be

cheaper. They are also simpler to construct and maintain than plumbed toilets, which

produce polluted water [8]. The proposed toilet will be a customised version of the Blair VIP

Latrine; the unique benefits of the Latrineinclude its ability to trap insects that have entered

the pit, thus reducing the dispersion of bacteria, and the fact that they are odourless, which

makes them more appealing to use [8].

5

2 Original Design

The Blair VIP Latrine was designed in the 1970s in Zimbabwe by Dr Peter Morgan and has

become commonplace there. The primary advantages of the Blair VIP Latrine over simpler

designs are that, combined with the use of a lid on the squat hole, odour-producing gases

can be drawn up the ventilation pipe and released at a height at which they are not likely to

be detected. The pipe is fitted with a flyscreen to prevent the insects entering or exiting

through this opening [9].

The Latrine is conventionally built over a pit that is approximately 3 metres deep by

maximum 1.5 metres wide [10]. The pit is constructed with bricks and cement mortar and

then lined with cement. The platform is also made of cement and sometimes reinforced

with mesh or sheets of metal. The ventilation pipe is typically a PVC pipe with flywire

covering the opening. The squat hole is then usually surrounded by a small brick and cement

mortar building with metal sheet roofing [10]. If the toilet is being used by four to five

people, the natural decomposition of the sewerage should reduce its volume to the extent

that it may take up to ten years to fill completely [10].

Figure 1 The original Blair VIP Latrine [7]

6

3 Design Alternatives

3.1 Modification for Fertiliser Output Ecological sanitation refers to the practice of using decomposed human waste for fertilising

purposes (Figure 2). Once decomposed, the waste is rich in nutrients which promote the

growth of plants. The waste could therefore be used by the people of Codo on their crops.

Figure 2 The Ecological sanitation cycle [11]

To produce suitable compost, the sludge from the toilet must be mixed with two or three

times its volume of vegetable waste [12]. In order to promote further composition the

compost must be kept aerobic by being turned several times in the first few weeks. After

this it can then be piled it into windrows (which are long heaps, often about two metres

wide and two metres high, with sides sloping at about 45 degrees) for several weeks [12].

After this it can then be used as a land-conditioner and fertiliser [12].

However, first the waste must be extracted from the pit latrines: given the limited budget,

this would have to be done manually with a shovel and eventually the lucky labourer would

be in the pit. Even if the pit was built with the ideal materials of bricks and cement, after

several years the walls may come to rely on the pit contents for support and removing the

waste could cause them to collapse [12]. Furthermore, there are no funds to extend to the

recommended wear of gloves, a suit and a mask to protect the workers from remnant

bacteria – in particular in the top layer of sewerage which will be recent; nor could the

villagers pay for chemical treatment of the sewerage to ensure it is absolutely safe for crops

7

for human consumption [12].

There is another solution that at least minimises human contact with recent waste: two pits

can be built and users can alternate between them every time one is full, transferring the

superstructure back and forth (Figure 3). When one pit fills, it is covered and ideally remains

untouched for two years, while the other empty pit is filled [13]. After two years of storage

the excreta should have decomposed and the disease-causing organisms should have died

off sufficiently so that the excreta can be manually emptied; the empty pit can then be

reused [13]. This solution would alleviate the health risk but the risk of the pit walls

collapsing still remains, and the two pits double the construction cost for each household.

Figure 3 Alternating pit latrines [13]

In light of all this, it has been decided that the design will not include the generation of

fertiliser because it is too dangerous to extract cheaply.

3.2 Modification for Biogas Output Anaerobic digestion is the process of converting different waste products into a gaseous

mixture of carbon dioxide and methane, commonly known as ‘biogas’. The gas output from

anaerobic digestion can be used for many different purposes such as cooking, heating,

lighting, electricity or fuel [14]. As well as the biogas output, the digestion process will also

decrease the amount of pathogens and bacteria in the waste and produce a less harmful

material that has the potential for use as compost [15]. Another advantage that comes from

the use of biogas is that the process involves reusing carbon dioxide and as such, the use of

biogas as an alternative to natural gas will result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.

8

These benefits from the use of biogas were enough of an incentive for our team to consider

implementing the process of anaerobic digestion in our final solution.

The process of converting waste material into biogas requires a large, airtight digester that

will hold the waste material as well as the gas. The two most common designs for digesters

are the Chinese fixed dome and the Indian floating cover style [16]. A less common design,

the Insitu (Figure 4), is designed to gather waste straight from a latrine, as well as other

matter from a secondary inlet that can be used for the mixture of animal waste. It would be

possible to modify our own solution to include an anaerobic digestion tank instead of a pit.

This would give each household in Codo an opportunity to have a partly self-sufficient gas

supply and the digester could thus supply every household with heating, lighting and gas for

cooking. Most biogas digesters do not operate solely on human excrement due to the fact

that human excrement has a relatively low gas potential compared to the faeces of other

animals [17]. A biogas digester requires a minimum input equal to the waste output of a

family as well as a cow [18]. This would mean that each household in Codo that uses a

digester would require an abundant source of alternative waste materials (such as animal

manure or vegetable matter).

Figure 4 Insitu biogas digester [19]

9

A biogas digester also requires maintenance when the collecting tank becomes full and

although the anaerobic digestion process does reduce the pathogens in the waste, some

hazardous bacteria can remain and pose a health risk to the Codo population [15].

Table 1 The equivalent power output provided by 1 m3 of biogas [20]

Table 1 shows the equivalent power output drawn from the use of 1m3 of biogas. As human

faeces only have a biogas potential of 0.02 m3 / kg [17], 50 kg of faeces alone would be

required to provide this equivalent power. It is therefore suggested that other materials

with a higher gas potential are used in the anaerobic process. Vegetable matter as well as

animal faeces can be used for a much higher gas output, although not every household in

Codo will have access to these alternative materials which is a major constraint in this

design alternative.

Biogas digesters also generally have a very high upfront construction cost, but can save what

they use in their gas production. The Insitu model that could be used as a modification of

the Blair VIP Latrine has an estimated minimum cost of US $500, using cheap materials such

as bricks and concrete and without the inclusion of the cost of gas piping. The main costs

are due to six bags of concrete (one for mortar, one for the inlet slab and four for the

digester base) which cost US $36, as well as 700 bricks for the digester which cost US

$455.This would massively increase the cost of our final design, which cannot be afforded

due to the lack of funding the project will receive.

Although the implementation of biogas would have many advantages for the community of

Codo, our group has decided not to use it in our final design. This is due to unavoidable

constraints such as the high set-up costs, maintenance, and safety hazards, as well as the

limited biogas derived from human waste.

10

3.3 Protection from Flooding & Pollution Pit latrines are widely regarded as environmentally friendly structures [10]. However, if

they are not carefully planned and designed they can have a negative impact on the

environment. The most serious problem caused by pit latrines is the chemical and

microbiological contamination of ground water that may be used for drinking [21].

Chemical contaminants

In most cases, contaminants are at peak levels within 20 metres of the base of the latrine;

however this obviously leads to an eventual spread of the contaminants [22]. Many studies

show that nitrate and chloride are the most abundant chemical contaminants in ground

water surrounding pit latrines [22]. Due to its negative impacts on human health and its use

as an indicator of faecal contamination, nitrate has been the most widely-studied

contaminant associated with pit latrines [22]. The consumption of water containing elevated

levels of nitrate has been known to cause serious illnesses in humans [20]. The World Health

Organisation (WHO) recommends that there be no more than 50 milligrams of nitrate per

litre of drinking water [22]. Studies regardingthe concentration of nitrate in wells

surrounding pit latrines have produced highly variable results: some studies have not

detected elevated levels of nitrate in the wells, other have shown elevated levels of nitrate

[22]. However, WHO studies also show that nitrate concentration is mainly increased by

animal manure [22].

Although there are no known health issues associated with the consumption of excess levels

of chloride, studies conducted by WHO show that a concentration of greater than two

hundred and fifty milligrams per litre causes a salty and repulsive taste in the water [22].

Proposed design modifications

Design modifications can reduce the mobility of both dangerous chemicals and pathogens:

for example, pit liners can be used to prevent them travelling into the ground water and the

pit can be elevated above ground to distance the sewerage from the ground [21].

Another example is the use of a ‘zone’ of fine-grain soil which can filter pathogens at the

bottom of the pit from the ground water. This option is dependent on the availability of this

type of soil (Figure 5) [21].

11

Figure 5 Filtering properties of large and fine-grain soils [21]

However, even with the presence of a filter there is still a chance that pathogens and

chemicals could travel into the groundwater and hence the latrine would ideally be placed

far away from any water source; furthermore, if the depth of the water table (the depth at

which the soil is saturated with groundwater) cannot be determined, the pit should be no

deeper than 2 – 2.5 metres [21].

In order to assess whether a particular latrine is far enough away from a water source, two

clean sample pools of water can be set up at a similar distance from the latrine as the water

source [21]. If pathogens or chemicals take less than 25 days to reach a pool,this suggests

that the pit toilet poses a significant risk and needs to be moved further away from the

water source. If pathogens and chemicals take more than 25 days to reach a pool, the

toilet’s location and design are relatively safe [21]. Given that the pit latrine designed for

Codo should be as cheap as possible, the first priority is to choose a location at a safe

distance from any water sources, rather than to add features such as filters; however, when

the pit is being dug, if the soil is found to be fine-grained, this is advantageous.

The protection of the pit toilet structure from flooding has also been considered; although

Codo’s location on a mountain means that the village does not flood, large volumes of water

still run through it [23]. Because the modified Latrine will only be surrounded by a bamboo

or thatched structure, there is a danger that the pit could flood, becoming unusable and

possibly bringing the pathogens and chemicals mentioned above into contact with humans.

In preparation for the wet season, households should ensure that they have a piece of scrap

metal or plastic larger than the squat hole and hold it in place with a large rock or a leftover

chunk of cement from the Latrine build.

12

3.4 Disposal of Menstrual Blood The toilets would be equally useful as a place for girls and women to easily and thoroughly

dispose of material used during menstruation in private. However, it is emphasised that this

is more for a matter of convenience for women than a health protection measure: it is

preferable to fully dispose of blood because it can carry viruses – HIV can survive in dried

blood for up to five or six days [24] – but the volume of blood lost during menstruation is

small and hence so is the risk of transmission [25]. Menstrual blood does not have the

potential of sewerage to incubate and spread bacteria [25].

There does not appear to be any information available from Australia about how

menstruation is usually managed in Timor Leste. However, a global review of menstrual

management in relation to different toilet models by the Stockholm Environment Institute

suggests that in remote areas in developing countries, pieces of material are often used to

absorb the blood, and are sometimes washed and reused, before being burned or buried

[26]. The problem with cloth is that, unlike cotton wool, it takes at the very least a few years

for it to start breaking down, and if several women are using the toilet to dispose of

material, the toilet may fill at a much faster rate [26]. In this project, it has been decided

that despite this, disposal of this material in the pit toilets should not initially be

discouraged, especially at the school, because of the time and even fuel needed to burn or

bury the material. Ideally, pit disposal would be alternated with these other methods in

moments when they have more time. Over the year that the EWB employee is in the village

helping to implement the toilets, the effect of material on the filling rate of the toilets

should be monitored in case it is a greater problem than has been predicted.

4 Cost Reduction

4.1 Cost of Original Design: Costs were calculated based on the price list provided by EWB [4]. The quantities of

materials were based on Morgan’s design outline [10].

Element of structure

Amount of material Unit cost Total

Bricks for pit lining 450 bricks (from Lautem)

US $0.65 per brick US $292.5

Cement mortar & render for pit lining

1 x 40kg bag of cement (from Dili)

US $6.00 per bag US $6.00

Cement for platform

1 x 40kg bag of cement (from Dili)

US $6.00 per bag US $6.00

Bricks for superstructure

550 bricks (from Lautem)

US $0.65 per brick US $357.5

13

Total cost per toilet US $662 Total cost per toilet x 108 households in Codo US $71 496

Cement transport cost: US $300 per 3-tonne capacity truck Dili to Codo round trip. 80 kg of cement per toilet x 108 households = 8.6 tonnes / 3 tonne trucks = 3 trucks needed.

US $900

Cost per toilet (incl. cement transport) US $670.3

Total cost per toilet (incl. cement transport) x 108 Codo households

US $72 392.4

Note: This does not include the cost of flywire, the pipe, roofing, reinforcing mesh in the

cement slab, and a lid, nor does it include the potential transport cost of bricks.

4.2 Cost of modified design:

Element of structure Amount of material

Unit cost Total

Rocks for pit lining ~500 – 600 0 0 Cement mortar & render for pit lining

3 x 40kg bag of cement (from Dili) NB: It is predicted that rocks will need more mortar than bricks to be stable. NB: 80 kg of sand or gravelly soil for mixing with the cement would make a stronger mortar

US $6.00 per bag US $18.00

Cement for platform 1 x 40kg bag of cement (from Dili)

US $6.00 per bag US $6.00

Scrap metal/bamboo/vegetation for superstructure

0 0 0

Scrap metal or plastic for hole lid

0 0 0

Total cost per toilet (without cement transport) US $24.00 Total cost per toilet (without cement transport) x 108 Codo households

US $2592.00

Cement transport cost [23]: US $300 per 3-tonne capacity truck Dili to Codo round trip. 160 kg of cement per toilet x 108 households = 17.3 tonnes / 3 tonne trucks = 6 trucks needed.

US $1800

Cost per toilet (incl. cement transport) US $40.67

14

Total cost per toilet (incl. cement transport) x 108 Codo households

US $4392

Saving from modified design per toilet US $629.30

Total village saving from modified design US $68 000.40

The substituted materials – rocks, bamboo, scrap metal/plastic, and strong vegetation for

thatching, have all been described as being locally available [23]. However, it should be

ensured before the project begins that there are enough large stalks of bamboo for 108

ventilation pipes and that this would not permanently deplete the bamboo cover in the

area.

It is clear that the most expensive material in the original model is brick and an enormous

saving can be made by substituting them for local rocks. However, US $40.67 may still be

difficult for each household to afford. The cement is essential for the reliability of the pit

structure and the platform on which people will stand, so at this point the team proposes

this project with the hope that the total sum of US $4392 would seem modest for a

governmental or charitable organisation to fund, especially given its powerful potential to

reduce dangerous health risks.

5 Final Design for the Modified Blair VIP Latrine

The final design (Figure 6) entails:

- A pit 2-3 metres deep and 1.5 metres wide. The pit is lined with stone held together

with mortar to prevent the walls collapsing, however much of the pressure of the

surrounding earth will be counteracted by the pressure of the sewerage as it begins

to fill [9]. The pit can be lined with cement to further strengthen the walls and to

help prevent chemicals and pathogens reaching groundwater.

- A cement platform resting over the pit. The platform will have a hole approximately

25-30 cm in diameter for squatting over (the smaller the better so that children

cannot fall in) and the chosen bamboo ventilation pipe will have been inserted in it

to one side. The cement platform may have been reinforced with scrap metal and

the squat hole will ideally have a scrap metal or plastic lid, held in place with a heavy

rock or a chunk of leftover cement, to prevent flooding of the pit when it rains.

- A bamboo pipe at least 2 metres long (but as long as possible) and large enough to

have become hollow, is inserted into the ventilation hole. A piece of scrap metal or

15

plastic slightly smaller than the diameter of the pipe, punctured many times to make

tiny holes, should be pushed inside.

- A surrounding bamboo or thatched vegetation screen can be constructed for privacy

and topped with a thatched roof.

- A pan of water should be available for washing afterwards.

Figure 6 The Blair VIP Latrine modified for Codo (diagram created by Inder Atwal)

6 Construction

The following is a detailed description of the steps for constructing the modified Blair VIP

Latrine:

- The pit

As per ‘Protection from Flooding & Pollution’ (see above), the pit location should be as far

away from water sources as possible. Furthermore, if the depth of the water table is

unknown at the chosen site, the pit should be a maximum depth of 2.5 metres as a

precaution; if the pit does begin to fill with water, abandon the site and choose another

location. Approximately measure the diameter of the hole, perhaps using a stick about a

metre long, and progressively measure the depth as you dig. If the soil is clay, proceed to 3

16

metres; if sand or crumbly soil, only dig to 2 metres, and then if it collapses it won’t bury an

adult. Never build a toilet alone.

- The pit lining

First gather as many stones and rocks as possible; larger stones or rocks are preferred as

they fill more space, meaning less mortar and stones are needed. Preferably stones and

rocks should be larger than a man’s fist but smaller than a soccer ball, as above this size they

become too heavy.

To construct the lining, gather the stones together in similar sizes. Layer them in rows in the

pit, applying mortar in between the rocks and in between each row, with larger rocks at the

bottom, as this makes a sturdier safer base. Once one third of the pit is lined, construction

should stop to allow the mortar to dry so the wall does not collapse. Construction can then

continue until two thirds of the pit are lined, then allowed to set before the rest of the pit

lining is completed.

- The ventilation pipe

A stalk of bamboo should be found which is at least 2.5 metres long and large enough to

have become hollow. Puncture a piece of scrap metal or hard plastic (such as the end of a

drink can or a plastic bottle) with many tiny holes (too small for an insect to pass through)

and push it into the opening at one end.

Figure 7 A completed pit lining – however with bricks instead of rocks [7]

- The cement platform To construct the platform, a shallow pit should be dug 100 millimetres deep x 300 millimetres larger than the pit diameter. If possible the shallow pit should be lined with plastic. This will be the mould for the platform (Figure 8). Before pouring the cement, a cast needs to put in place to create the squat hole (using for example, a bag filled with sand). The cast for the squat hole should be smaller than an infant, so that once the toilet is constructed children cannot fall in. At this stage, the chosen bamboo ventilation pipe should also be inserted into the cement (the end which does not have plastic or metal covering it) and twisted into the ground beneath for stability until the cement sets. Sheets of scrap metal can be laid in the mould to

17

reinforce the platform. The cement is then mixed with water as per the manufacturer’s instructions, poured into the mould and left to set for seven days before use. Once the cast is set, the slab is dug out of ground and put into place over the pit.

Figure 8 A cement platform in its mould [7]

- Surrounding structure

If a privacy screen is desired it can be made from bamboo that is tightly lashed

together to form a screen, or sheets of thatched vegetation. The screen can be

erected around the toilet base in a spiral and topped with a thatched roof (Figure 9).

Figure 9 A partially constructed privacy screen using grass [7]

18

7 Construction Training Program

Teaching the community to build the Blair latrines will not be a challenge because of the

simplicity of the design and guidance from an assistant posted in Codo by EWB for a year

[23]. For training purposes, an ‘example’ latrine will be constructed centrally in the village so

that the residents can observe its construction and inspect the final design.

The construction steps should be translated into the local language, Fataluku [2]. The steps

will also be supported with diagrams to improve understanding and support any builders

who are not literate.

If the build is not undertaken by two teams (see ‘Promotion’), a series of town meetings

should be held in which resources can be pooled (for example, shovels) and households

which lack able-bodied builders can ask for support. It should be emphasised to the locals

that the pit toilet should never be built alone, in case an accident occurs, such as the pit

collapsing.

8 Maintenance

Given the size of the pit, providing only human waste is entering, it should have a life of up

to ten years [10].

In the event that the pit becomes full, as concluded in the investigation of generating

fertiliser, it is has been judged to be too dangerous to empty the pit manually. Therefore, it

has been decided that a new pit should be dug instead; however, with care, the

superstructure (the cement platform, the ventilation pipe and the bamboo screen) can be

relocated over the new pit. Hence, the only renewed cost would be the cement for the

mortar in the lining, as well as a possible cement render.

9 Promotion

Given that the Codo residents would be essential in gathering the materials for and building

the large number of toilets, the promotion would have to begin before the production

stage, instead of beginning after they have been built. The first step would be to introduce

the idea to the volunteers for Plan’s ‘community-led total sanitation’ [2]. With the help of a

translator in Fataluku [2], they should be briefed on three main points:

19

1) The strong connection between faeces in the open and sickness and malnourishment –

mainly caused by diarrhoea and parasites, but also potentially typhoid and cholera;

2) The design of the pit toilet, focussing on the freedom it gives from bad smells;

3) An explanation of the build.

After this, with support from the workers from Plan and Engineers Without Borders, the

volunteers could host a community meeting in which they would introduce the community

to this opportunity (see ‘Construction Training Program’).

In planning how this project could unfold, it would be worthwhile understanding the state of

gender in Timor Leste: detailed information about this has been difficult to find, however a

review by Trembath et al. suggests that women in Timor-Leste often do have less power

than men [27]. It would be useful to call on experience and skills which are traditionally

gendered; however, at every stage both men and women should be encouraged to take part

and supported if they do. In relation to gender, the Australian Red Cross has suggested that

it might be less embarrassing for men and women if they talk about the toilets separately

[2]. Ideally the community would discuss them together; however it should be checked with

the resident volunteers if this would be a serious problem.

The Australian Red Cross has also suggested that women may be more enthusiastic about

sanitation infrastructure because they are more likely to be the primary carers of those who

become sick [2]. Women are also often more concerned about privacy than men [2], so they

may find a toilet attached to their own household more appealing.

While hopefully the men will be attracted to the health benefits too, they may be more

likely to use the toilets if they are involved in building them [2]. However, building a toilet

would be a hefty undertaking for each household. To engender motivation and confidence,

the plan is to suggest to villagers that they pool their skills and strength by dividing into two

building groups: the groups would gather the local materials needed, and when they have

the time, gradually move around the village constructing each other’s toilets, perhaps in

smaller sub-groups, with monitoring by more skilled members. Ideally, solidarity would

develop within the teams as well as good-natured competition between them, which in turn

would hopefully draw in residents with less motivation or confidence and increase the

speed of construction [27]. The pride members might feel in their build team would

hopefully lead to pride in the finished toilets, which may make the builders more inclined to

use them [27].

As for encouraging children to use the toilets, the teachers at the school should be educated

by the local volunteers about how the toilets protect children’s health. The Red Cross

suggests that as women are often the primary carers of children [2], they should also be

particularly encouraged to ensure children use the toilets so that it becomes habitual.

Conversely, if children are already used to the toilets at school, they may be able to

20

encourage norms among the rest of their family to use the toilet at home, as adults may feel

they cannot act less responsibly than their children. Children could perhaps be encouraged

to decorate their toilets too in order to make them more appealing.

Finally, so that they get value out of their effort, it should be recommended to the residents

that they do not use their toilet as a bin, if they are tempted, because it will fill up too fast.

10 Ethics

Planning this project has provoked concern that the team is taking a paternalistic approach:

in more detail – that the team has made the assumption that they know more about how to

protect the health of the Codo residents than the residents themselves and that they should

follow our instruction. In response to this concern, the team has found it useful to consider

itself possessing a chance opportunity that the Codo residents do not: as a product of

environmental benefits, population density and movement [28], we have been given access

to powerful empirical information about actions that can greatly improve a community’s

health. The UN Declaration of Human Rights suggests that, given all humans share a similar

physiology, we suffer similarly, and that unnecessary suffering should be alleviated.

Therefore, we should present our idea to the Codo residents in a democratic and humble

spirit [6]: they have the freedom to decide whether it is worth building the toilets (especially

considering that without external funding, they will have to pay for the cement needed) and

if so, how this should ultimately be done.

11 Expected Outcomes

If the toilets are utilised, it is expected that there will be a substantial decrease in bacterial

diseases and intestinal parasites. AusAid estimates that improving sanitation, combined

with hygienic behaviour and water treatment, can together reduce diarrhoea cases by up to

94 percent [29].

12 Conclusion

The simple, appealing, and cheap design of the Blair VIP Latrine, customised to the local

environment of the village of Codo, Timor Leste, would hopefully be an attractive project to

the local residents. It is hoped that programs to build and promote will lead to latrines

becoming the commonplace site for defecating. The shift from open defecation to the use

of the pit latrines will significantly reduce the spread of faecal bacteria and hence, reduce

21

the proliferation of bacterial diseases and intestinal parasites. The project could have

application throughout the district of Lautem and possibly, Timor Leste.

13 Group Reflection

Over the past semester our group has worked on designing a solution for the Engineers

Without Borders challenge for Codo, Timor Leste. Our team, consisting of Jay Arthur, Inder

Atwal, Abhijeet Nair, Olivia McCombe, Dinindu Hewage, Aleksandar Adamovic, Kayden

Johnson and Taylor Wright, developed a feeling of solidarity in this project and we also

enjoyed directing our imagination towards another country; these factors motivated us (in

spurts) to fulfil our responsibilities.

The almost constant communication between us on our Facebook page really helped us to

progress, rather than having to wait for face-to-face meetings: members could propose

ideas, plan, and look at each other’s work, and there was more encouragement of each

other than expected. Without this short-form but almost constant communication, the

report would not have been as coherent and detailed as it became. The Facebook page was

also a place for individual members to collate the team’s work: Olivia edited the design

proposal, Inder put together the PowerPoint presentation, and Taylor and Jay edited the

final report.

What follows is a more detailed account of the development of the report:

Initially, Jay made a strong case for the widespread installation of pit toilets, given the

health hazards of the common practice of open defecation in Codo. He was familiar with the

Blair VIP Latrine because his neighbour had lived in Zimbabwe and it instantly appealed to

us because of the freedom it gave from odour. While we had other ideas (e.g. ‘go-kart

transport to school’), none of them were as simple and powerful in solving a problem, nor

were the other problems as serious.

At this stage we became overwhelmed by the EWB requirements, each other’s ideas, and

where each of the eight of us should begin, but after Kayden and Olivia began to plan the

overall report and post the plan on Facebook, the work became clearer and the other

members were happy to co-operate. As the original advocate of the idea, Jay took

responsibility for researching the original design and planning its basic construction. Inder

was familiar with construction using natural materials in his family’s country, India, so he

advised Jay on how local materials could be substituted for expensive imports to the village;

in particular, he suggested a mud or cow dung render and mortar but this was eventually

abandoned because we were concerned about the moisture it would have to endure. He

also created a diagram of our new design and planned a training program. Olivia began to

cost the original project and compare this with the alternatives as they arose. Researching

the local materials, costs and environment was initially quite difficult, and we had to make

22

many assumptions for Codo, until we found the information on the EWB Discussion Board.

As a group, we began to brainstorm the ways we could improve the Blair Latrine: we posited

the technical and cultural possibility of the toilet generating fuel and fertiliser, as well as

whether women could use the toilets to dispose of materials used during menstruation (an

idea which initially seemed strange to some members but became accepted as important).

Taylor pursued the fuel option, Meth and Abhijeet researched the extraction of fertiliser

together, and Olivia looked into the usefulness of the third possibility and its effect on the

toilet; ultimately, cost precluded generating fuel, and both cost and safety precluded

extracting fertiliser, therefore whether they would be culturally acceptable became

irrelevant. Conversely, disposing of menstrual waste in the toilet was much less

problematic. During the design development, we found that while a small budget can

produce creative solutions, in our case we nearly always had this problem: the cheaper

design entailed an unreliable pit structure (the platform itself is safe) and untreated

sewerage, while the cheapest way to extend the toilet’s design always seemed to involve

manual labour, exposing people to these risks. The cheaper design already alleviated the

health risk and so we reverted to the simple path of most certain success. To further

minimise damage and hazards, Kayden and Aleksandar collected technical information on

the risk of flood damage and the possibility of groundwater pollution. Olivia planned the

promotion of the toilets to the Codo residents, emphasising the aspects of the toilet that

had also appealed to us: their potential to improve health and their odourlessness; she also

planned a team-based build to increase motivation. Throughout this project members of the

group had made comments about how they felt uncomfortable (even though the design is

most likely hypothetical), especially as students who had only completed a few weeks of

engineering, producing a design with the mindset that the Codo residents, who we had

never met, would accept and implement it. Olivia crystallised this in a consideration of the

ethics of people from developed countries designing for people in developing countries:

ultimately, we felt it was ethical to attempt this project with an appreciation of both the

common problems of humanity and our luck in having access to empirical information to

alleviate them.

23

14 References

[1] Australian Red Cross, “Rural Water and Sanitation in Lautem & Baucau Districts, Timor-Leste:

Mid-term review,” 2011. [Online]. Available:

http://www.redcross.org.au/files/20111101East_Timor_Report.pdf. [Accessed 29 March 2013].

[2] Engineers Without Borders Institute, “Plan Timor Leste EWB Challenge: Project Design Brief,” 9

January 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.ewb.org.au/explore/initiatives/ewbchallenge/ptl.

[Accessed 18 March 2013].

[3] G. P. Root, “Sanitation, Community Environments, and Childhood Diarrhoea in Rural Zimbabwe,”

Journal of Health, Population & Nutrition, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 73-82, 2001.

[4] Engineering Without Borders, “EWB Challenge Raw Data,” Engineering Without Borders, 15

March 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ewb.org.au/explore/initiatives/ewbchallenge/ptl/ptl-resources/ptl-raw-data.

[Accessed 12 May 2013].

[5] Australian Red Cross, “Gender and Water and Sanitation,” 2011. [Online]. Available:

http://www.redcross.org.au/files/2011_Gender_and_water_and_sanitation_fact_sheet.pdf.

[Accessed 29 April 2011].

[6] J. Shapiro, “An Incentive-Based Beneficiary Compensation Scheme for the Construction of Rural

Water and Sanitation Systems in East Timor,” Michigan Technological University, Michigan, 2008.

[7] P. Morgan, “The Upgradeable Blair VIP,” September 2011. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/Builders_Detailed_Manual_Upgradeable_%20Blair_VIP.pdf.

[Accessed 11 April 2013].

[8] P. Morgan, Rural Water Supplies and Sanitation, London, UK: Macmillan, 1990.

[9] D. Duncan Mara, The Design of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines, Washington DC, America: IBRD,

1984.

[10] P. Morgan, “Ecological Toilets,” January 2009. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/EcologicalToilets-PeterMorgan-Mar2009.pdf. [Accessed 11

April 2013].

[11] E. Conant and P. Fadem, A Community Guide to Environmental Health, California, America:

Hesperian, 2012.

[12] J. Pickford and R. Shaw, “Emptying pit latrines,” 21 July 1999. [Online]. Available:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/technical-briefs/54-emptying-latrine-pits.pdf. [Accessed

25 May 2013].

24

[13] R. Scott and B. Reed, “Emptying Pit Latrines,” WELL, 2006.

[14] M. Escudero, A. Jimenez, I. Lopez and J. Rodriguez, “Use of Alternative Feuls Obtained From

Renewable Sources in Bratyon Cycles,” Global NEST Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 157-165, 2012.

[15] A. Barnett, L. Pyle and S. Subramanian, Biogas technology in the Third World : a multidisciplinary

review, Ottowa: IDRC, 1978.

[16] L. Bates, “Biogas,” Rugby: Practical Action, 2007.

[17] Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Updated Guidebook on Biogas Development, New

York, America: United Nations, 1984.

[18] F. Richard, J. Pickford and R. Reed., “ A guide to the development of on-site sanitation,” World

Health Organization, 1992.

[19] R. Reed and R. Shaw, “Using Human Waste,” 29 July 1999. [Online]. Available:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/technical-briefs/63-using-human-waste.pdf. [Accessed

22 May 2013].

[20] L. A. Kristoferson and V. Bokalders, Renewable Energy Technologies - their application in

developing countries, Essex: ITDG Publishing, 1991.

[21] S. Sugden, “The Microbiological Contamination of Water Supplies,” WELL, 2006.

[22] World Health Organization, “Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality,” World Health Organization,

Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.

[23] Engineering Without Borders, “EWB Discussion Board,” Engineering Without Borders, 10 May

2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.ewb.org.au/explore/initiatives/ewbchallenge/ptl/ptl-

discussion-board. [Accessed 20 May 2013].

[24] E. Tjotta, “Survival of HIV-1 after disinfection, temperature and pH changes or drying,” Journal of

Medical Virology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 223-227, 1991.

[25] S. Bharadwaj and A. Patkar, “Menstrual Hygiene and Management in Developing Countries:

Taking stock,” Junction Social Development Consultants, Mumbai, 2004.

[26] M. Kjellen, C. Pensulo, P. Nordqvist and M. Fogde, “Global Review of Sanitation System Trends

and Interactions with Menstrual Management Practices,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2011.

[27] A. Trembath, D. Grenfell and I. Aid, “Mapping the pursuit of gender equality: non-government

and international agency activity in Timor-Leste,” RMIT University, Globalism Institute and Irish

Aid, Dili, Timor-Leste, 2007.

25

[28] D. A. Crocker, “Ethics of global development,” Cambridge Books, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

[29] AusAid, “Australian Aid to Water Supply and Sanitation Services in East Timor and Indonesia:

Evaluation Report,” December 2009. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ode.ausaid.gov.au/publications/documents/aus-water-supply-and-sanitation-

easttimor-indonesia.pdf. [Accessed 29 March 2013].

[30] Water and Sanitation Program East Asia and the Pacific, “Information on Improved Latrine

Options,” January 2009. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/improved_latrine_options.pdf. [Accessed

11 April 2013].