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

In this section, different aspects of the sanitation situation in Cap-Haitien are shown:

defecation practices are estimated using the survey, for different areas. Technologies

are reviewed, regarding public and communal toilets, private latrines, and the special case of overhung latrines over water. Pit emptying is also considered.

Past reports on defecation practices in Cap-Haitien are rare; the only figures available come from a PHAST workshop done in 2005 in flood-prone areas (including Petite- Anse and zones comparable to Shada), reporting that 44.2% of the 500 respondents practised open defecation, 33.8% used plastic bags, 19.4% went to the sea or river, and

2.6% used a latrine². The survey gave some more information as results could be related

to each area; they are shown in Table 5.2 below. Note that the cumulative percentage can be higher than 10 %, as some respondents quoted two methods: those using public latrines often use another form at night or for their children, usually a bucket or plastic bag.

It presents a situation where open defecation is high, between 50 and 75% (see Figure

5.2 below); the low percentage in Bas-Ravine comes from the more common use of plastic bags which are discarded in the ravine bed, and buckets emptied the same way. Public latrines are claimed to be used in Shada and Bas-Ravine. However, in both zones people admitted that «they do not always go to the public latrine», and then use buckets or plastic bags. The shared latrines in Mansui come from the USAID-financed programme detailed in Section 5.2.4 on page 38. Overhung latrines on water are used only in Shada, by 7 interviewees (21%).

Method	Shada	Petite-Anse	Mansui	Bas-Ravine	Total
Private latrine	3 %	16 %	10 %	33 %	15 %
Shared latrine	-	-	20 %	4 %	5 %
Public latrine	21 %	-	-	25 %	13 %
Neighbour's latrine	3 %	20 %	20 %	17 %	14 %
Overhung latrine	21 %	-	-	-	7 %
Bucket / potty	9 %	20 %	5 %	17 %	3 %
Plastic bag	9 %	4 %	-	21 %	9 %
Open defecation	74 %	72 %	55 %	25 %	58 %

The level of satisfaction is detailed in Appendix H. Most inhabitants are dissatisfied

with their current defecation practices, which is not much surprising. In each area, the only persons who are either «happy» or have an «average opinion» are those who own a latrine; the only exceptions are a person in Bas-Ravine who «does not mind using plastic bags», and another person in Shada who lives next to a recently built public latrine. Conversely, some latrine owners were not satisfied with it, particularly in Mansui, as detailed in Section 5.3.2.

There are about 15 public toilets in the city, built mostly during the last five years. Seven

of them have been financed by FEKOKAP, and are managed by local committees; three have been built by the city council in the city centre; others have been built by local organisations. Most of those toilets are unclean and / or are not heavily used. The only

²Source: Report from the PHAST (Participatory Hygiene And Sanitation Transformation) survey, where

500 people were asked confidentially about their defecation method; carried out in early 2005 in the zones of Conasa, Fougerolles, Fort Saint-Michel and Petite-Anse.

A woman from a women's organisation wanted to show this area during the survey. It

notable exceptions are the public toilet block next to the market in the city centre, which

is heavily used by sellers (mostly by the women and children) even if smelly and a bit expensive (3 Gourdes); and a public toilet built by a local CBO in the area in Conasa, which is quite pleasant and well managed, but seems to be restricted to close neighbours

as it attracts less than 50 people per day according to the managers. Usual prices are 1

Many of these toilets seem to have been built for political reasons, given their loca- tion: either in visible places (tourists' market, harbour avenue) or in «politically active» areas, like Shada or Bannann which are well-known for their very vindictive inhabitants. Management seems to be poorly done: money does not seem to be collected and saved efficiently, most toilets have broken parts (usually the door or the roof) and have raw faeces visible on the seats during the visit; two of them have full pits, yet the commit- tees invariably answer that «[they] do not have money to perform repairs or empty the pits», and ask for assistance.

It can be reasonably said that, without the provision of an emptying system and reli- able management systems, public toilets will only have a limited impact on the sanita- tion situation and do not correspond to a form of «sustainable sanitation».

There are around 95 communal toilet blocks, found in the Cités in planned mid-density urban areas, built in the 1980s to answer the migration from rural areas. Each block has 6 to 8 chambers, sometimes with a shower and / or a basin for laundry nearby

(see Figure 5.4). Over time, the pits have filled up and the superstructures have been degraded, to the point that most of those communal toilets are now out of order. The

EPPLS (managing organisation) estimates the cost of emptying and repair at more than

2 million Gourdes (US$ 52,600), however the EPPLS is heavily indebted due to most tenants not paying their rent.

There is no clear management system for these toilets: neighbours are supposed to take care of them, a system maybe sufficient for daily cleaning but unable to cope with repairs and emptying. Even if repaired and emptied, the toilets would not be sustainable

as the same problem is likely to happen after a few years. When talking with residents, they say that the pits now fill up in about three years only, due to residual solids in the bottom which cannot be emptied.

Three private latrine building programmes have been done in Cap-Haitien in the last 15

years. In all these projects, materials were given to beneficiaries and masons were paid

by the project; beneficiaries had to dig the pit, sometimes transport the materials if they lived in remote areas, and possibly give a hand during the building. There is no evidence

of any further participation of beneficiaries, especially during the planning phase. It can also be noted that in all instances, the projects were implemented in areas where the main members of organisations lived.

The first and most important one has been run by the MSPP in 1990 with funding from

the German organisation Hydroplan. About 500 latrines were built in three different areas of the city (Sainte-Philomène, Petite Anse and Cité du Peuple). There were two

This block is one of the best maintained; maintenance of a few toilet blocks in Nan

different but still similar types of latrines, one for areas with a high water table, the other

for areas on the hillside: both had a 1.5 to 2 m deep pit lined with cement blocks, a 10

cm thick concrete slab with a pedestal, a 4» PVC ventilation pipe and a superstructure

in cement blocks with galvanised iron roof. Each latrine used to cost about US$ 30, but MSPP technicians estimate that it would now cost about US$ 250 to build the same. Many of these latrines are now full or broken down.

The partner organisation GTIH has built about 20 latrines in 2003, each for two fami- lies, in parallel with drainage and pathways improvement projects. Materials have been given but almost no follow-up was done, ending in latrines only partly built or used as showers.

The organisation AMPB (Association des Militants Progressistes de Bel-Air) has built

40 latrines in 2004, with financial support from USAID, mostly in the area of Mansui. Latrines are shared between houses and usual have two chambers, and otherwise are similar to the latrines built by the MSPP (Figure 5.5 below). A more detailed evaluation

Data on private owned latrines is scarce outside of the projects mentioned above. Most results come directly from field visits and the survey undertaken in this research; how- ever, the low coverage of private latrines means that only a few results were obtained. Only 23 households surveyed had a latrine; of them, 4 had obtained one from the US- AID programme; another 7 respondents had an unfinished one, and a person had a full

latrine pit so could not use it. This leaves only 11 households (out of 103) with a fully constructed latrine in usage.

Results from the survey and from field visits tend to indicate that only three types of latrines can be found: flush toilets, «standard» latrines and «wooden» latrines (latrinn bwa). Flush toilets were not found during the survey but can be seen in wealthier areas and in the city centre, where space and revenue is available for septic tanks. «Wooden» latrines represent the low-cost option, which is not highly regarded, consisting of a shallow pit covered with wooden planks and a basic superstructure. Surprisingly few of these latrines could be found, only in the areas uphill.

The «standard» latrine corresponds to those introduced by the MSPP in 1990: 2 - 3 m deep pit lined with cement blocks, thick reinforced concrete slab, a seat, a ventilation pipe, a superstructure with cement blocks and a corrugated iron sheet roof. All intervie- wees who had started to build a latrine wanted this type, as it is supposed to be «more hygienic», or because «if you build a latrine, you have to build one like this!»

Some interviewees were in the process of building a latrine, having either a dug pit or sometimes a slab already in place, and waiting until they had enough money to carry

on building. The total time to build a latrine seems to spread amongst several months, with two persons aiming to finish it after two years. The reason is that latrines are

usually expensive (see also Table E.2) and that building is incremental: the latrine is

The owner usually contacts a mason (called Boss maçon or simply Boss), who gathers

a team of labourers if needed; it is often someone else who digs the pit, either the owner or separate workers, who can be recommended by the mason. If the mason is working on several constructions, he buys a truckload of gravel and sand and uses it

for all constructions; however, for elements which have to be bought one by one (such

as cement blocks or a ventilation pipe), this is usually the owner's responsibility. The masons are paid either on a daily basis, or more frequently for a given work; labourers

Amongst the 23 latrine owners who were interviewed, 6 did not know why the latrine was built as they moved in an already equipped house; 3 more had built their latrine

to replace an old one. For the remaining, the main reasons for building a latrine were either to avoid going to the nature (5) or they built it at the same time as their house or shortly after (5), saying that it should be an integral part of their house. Another reason was «for the visitors» (2).

Amongst those who do not own a latrine yet but who have the intention to build one,

the main reason varied depending on the area: in Bas-Ravine, the majority (5) said they wanted a latrine because «it is more practical than going to the public latrine or using plastic bags»; in Shada, people said that «we don't want to go at night, because then

we can be attacked», or «we don't want to go to the sea anymore because we have to cross the main road, which is dangerous for children». Example of recent assaults and accidents have been quoted in Shada and in Mansui, though it is unknown whether it was to impress the researcher (as suggested by his assistant) or about actual events.

Other motivations seem to be more marginal, and include, in decreasing importance order, «for the visitors», «because it is necessary» (without explaining further despite questions), «for the house I am currently building», and «for health / cleanliness».

The respondents without a latrine were asked for the main constraints they face which prevent them from having one. The money constraint was the main one in all areas, quoted by 53 % (Bas-Ravine) to 100 % (Mansui) of respondents; it was sometimes precised, with interviewees saying that the price of materials keep increasing (Shada)

or that there was too much unemployment (Petite Anse). The space constraint was mentioned in Shada mainly (27 %). Other constraints appear to be more marginal, and include «I have other priorities» (2 in Bas-Ravine, 1 in Shada), soil erosion (Bas-

Ravine), «I want a really good one, but I can't afford it» (Mansui), «my wife does not

want us to have a latrine because it will smell bad» (Shada), «I have too many children»

or «I am pregnant and I can't think of any future plan right now» (Petite-Anse).

One person living in Mansui also said that werewolves (lougawou) live in latrine pits, and it would be dangerous to go to the toilet at night, which made him prefer a bucket.

Overhung latrines can be found near the river, which is actually an estuary with sea water, and on the seafront. They are simply built on wooden stilts and covered with locally available materials such as rice bags or more often cloth. Faeces are dropped in

While overhung latrines pose the same health and environmental hazards as open defecation, they provide privacy and protection, particularly for women. In many cases, they also provide revenue for their owner: in the zone of Shada, most people who use overhung latrines have to pay 1 Gde each time; one person said he pays 2 Gdes every time. However, 92 % of those who practise open defecation go near the sea (the remain- der uses a terrain owned by the Ministry of Transport and Public Works), most of them

on designated areas, and said they prefer the discomfort rather than paying 1 Gourde every time.

Two interviewees also said they had the intention to build an overhung latrine, in order to create revenue. One of them had already stolen wood for this.

There are two ways of emptying latrine pits in Cap-Haitien: the first is the private com- pany, Jedco, which operates two vacuum tanker trucks of 2500 and 3000 gallons capac-

ity (10 - 12 m³). They work on contract only, and most of the time for the UN forces

of the Minustah, whose bases have many septic tanks. The emptying cost is around

10,000 Gdes (US$ 250) per truckload. The location of their two dumping grounds is not precisely known, and the local manager was reluctant to give that information. It is possible that the trucks dump their contents in the mangrove in uninhabited areas.

The other way to empty a latrine pit it to ask a «bayakou», the usual name for people whose job is to empty pits. The bayakous interviewed said they work at night, usually in teams of 3 to 5, using shovels and buckets, with limited protection gear. The emptying cost varies depending on the source: the MSPP director quotes an average of 5,000 Gdes (US$ 120) for a private latrine with a medium pit, interviewees in the survey quoted prices from US$ 60 to US$ 150, and the bayakous interviewed said that emptying a communal latrine with a larger pit costs 20,000 Gdes (US$ 520). This is a significantly higher price per load than from Jedco, yet the size of their trucks and their contract- based work prevents them from operating in poorer and denser areas. The bayakous often have to break the slab, which adds the repairing cost for the user.

The bayakous suffer from poor working conditions, which is in part the justification

for their high rate of pay: they use créolène, a liquid disinfectant, to attenuate the smell, but they are still forced to enter the pits to empty them; finding solid waste is not unusual

in the pits, and Public Health workers have reported bayakous treading on hazardous medical waste and being infected. They also suffer from an «illegal» status after some

of them had dumped a pit contents in the sea, close to the city centre: offenders have been imprisoned and the city council claims to be willing to find a suitable dumping site, however the bayakous doubt that a solution will be found.

Usually, the pit content is transferred to another pit dug right next to it. The bayakous

interviewed claimed to transport it on about 2 km when a pit cannot be dug, e.g. when

the water table is too close. There have been reports of a pit contents dumped in front

of a bank in the city centre, and another case of faeces bought from bayakous in order

The MSPP used to have a emptying machine, consisting of a self-propelled 2.5 m³vacuum tanker with a 1.4 m³trailer tank, donated by a German cooperation in 1990 (see the trailer on Figure 5.9, page 53). It was in operation for 5 years, after which it broke down and could not be repaired given the lack of spare parts; the machine and

the trailer are now rotting in the MSPP yard. The MSPP subsequently used bayakous

to perform the emptying with a truck to transport the pit contents in drums. The truck broke down as well in 2000, however, and the MSPP lacked funds to hire bayakous anymore and stopped emptying pits.

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

5.2 Sanitation situation