(PDF) Mongolia - Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies for Ger Areas (Vol. 3)

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies

For Ger Areas, Mongolia

Prepared by

Community-led Infrastructure Development Project

Project Management Unit of the Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement

City of Ulaanbaatar

In consultation with:

Ministry of Health, Ministry of Construction and Urban Development,

Public Health Institute, National Bureau of Standards and Measurements,

World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNICEF, WHO, NGOs and Others

With Support from:

Santanu Lahiri, Henry Briones and Ishbaljir Battulga

World Bank Consultants

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

January 2006

This report was funded by the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership, a facility that enhances World Bank

operations to increase delivery of water supply and sanitation services to the poor (for more information

see www.worldbank.org/watsan/bnwp).

The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

those of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Any references provided

in this document to a specific product, process, or service is not intended as, and does not constitute or

imply an endorsement by the World Bank of that product, process, service, or its producer or provider.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 2 of 65

MESSAGE FROM THE CITY MAYOR OF ULAANBAATAR

Let me express my sincere congratulations to the many people who

have labored to make this set of manuals on promoting hygiene and

sanitation for Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar City a reality. I had the

opportunity to observe the actual conduct of the community dialogue

at Bayankhoshou as part of the process of developing these manuals.

I am truly impressed by the process undertaken to empower the

people to look into their own situations and their own hygiene and

sanitation practice. In fact, the process has induced them to analyze

the causes and factors affecting their own behaviors and define

appropriate course of action required to improve their condition. This

community-based process of demand-creation is what we need to make our people, especially those

living in the Ger areas, active partners of development.

I therefore highly recommend to community development workers from all sectors and to the different

community-based organizations the adoption and use of these documents (the Hygiene and

Sanitation Situation Report and Manuals) in their efforts to upgrade and improve the living

environment of our people in the Ger areas – especially those concerning hygiene and sanitation.

These manuals are your tools for empowering our community to ensure and promote better access

and practices of good hygiene and improved sanitation.

Finally, I would like to thank the Project Management Unit of the Second Ulaanbaatar Services

Improvement Project (PMU USIP2) and the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) supported

Community-Led Infrastructure Project as well as the World Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership, for

envisioning and supporting this very innovative methodology of engaging the community in the pursuit

of their own development. Truly, this demand-creation methodology is what the City of Ulaanbaatar

needs to effectively respond to the emerging issues on hygiene and sanitation affecting the City –

especially in the Ger areas.

The City of Ulaanbaatar is your partner in this noble development endeavor.

Mr. Batbayar

Mayor,

City of Ulaanbaatar,

Mongolia

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 3 of 65

PREFACE

The issue of improved hygiene and sanitation especially in the Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar City is an

emerging problem affecting the population. It is especially so far the poor families, which have no

access to the centralized water and sewerage service system. The population growth, resulting from

in-migration in Ulaanbaatar has resulted in the urbanization of poverty, generally concentrated in the

Ger areas. This further deteriorated the hygiene and sanitation situation affecting the health of the

population, especially children. The morbidity pattern reveals high rate of water-borne and poor

environment related diseases, such as, diarrhea and hepatitis A, particularly among children.

The City authorities of Ulaanbaatar in their effort to upgrade the living environment in the Ger areas

have continuously searched for strategies and programmes that can help improve the hygiene and

sanitation practices. Various bilateral and multilateral agencies, in collaboration with national and local

governments have tested different approaches to address the problem. Lessons learned indicate that

the community-based demand-creation strategy appears to be most promising and appropriate

especially in the Ger areas of the City.

These set of manuals on “Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger Areas in Ulaanbaatar”, is a product of

various consultative meetings and workshops with different stakeholders on hygiene and sanitation at

the national, district, and community levels. Individual consultations were done among bilateral and

multilateral organizations, national and local government offices, and non-governmental organizations

involved in the promotion of hygiene and sanitation. A national consultative workshop was conducted

followed by a district consultation meeting to define the situation and identify the courses of action.

The outputs and recommendations of the first two consultative workshops then presented to the

community for validation. The community dialogue helped to further validate and clarifying the

situation of hygiene and sanitation in Ulaanbaatar – especially in the Ger areas, as well as test the

methodology for community-based demand creation.

These manuals aim at guiding and helping field workers in planning and implementing the promotion

of the desirable hygiene practices and improved low-cost sanitation as components of the

Community-Led Infrastructure Project (CLIP) under the JSDF as part of the USIP2. The community-

based participatory methodology for demand creation would help the City of Ulaanbaatar in its efforts

to upgrade and improve the living conditions of the poor people living in the Ger areas. These

manuals on Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar have five complementary

components and should be read and used together. These are:-

The Hygiene and Sanitation Situation Report for Ger Areas, Mongolia – defines the current

situation on hygiene and sanitation of the Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar, as well as in Mongolia as

a whole.

The Manual on Promotion of Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger Areas, Mongolia – is a guidebook

for workers in undertaking the community-based demand creation methodology. It provides

the step-by-step process that can guide workers in influencing the behavior and decision of

families and communities to adopt desirable hygienic practices and improved sanitation.

The Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies for Ger Areas, Mongolia – provides various

latrine options in building sanitary latrine based on the needs (demand) and capability of the

families and the communities.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 4 of 65

The Community Dialogue Tool Kit for Ger Areas, Mongolia – is a set of illustrated materials to

be used by the workers to undertake the community-based demand creation methodology on

hygiene and sanitation.

The Guidelines for Implementation of Low Cost Sanitation Project in Ger Areas, Mongolia

(Internal Report) – provides guidelines for Low Cost Sanitation Project for JSDF Funding.

Specifically, this Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies for Ger Areas, Mongolia

describes the various latrine options, its advantages, disadvantages, building materials, bill of

materials, costs, salient features and so on, for participatory bottom up planning and

implementation of the sanitation improved services. It starts with no hardware investment to

gradually improved latrine types like a ‘sanitation ladder’.

The set of manuals on Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger Areas in Ulaanbaatar is just the initiation of the

many efforts in promoting community participatory process that will empower people. We hope that

the users of these manuals will help the PMU-USIP2 to further improve the methodology. Your

experiences and lessons learned would be very useful in further improving this methodology. In fact,

we would appreciate receiving suggestions on how we can further improve the methodology as well

as the content and design of these manuals.

The Project Management Unit of the Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project (PMU

USIP2) recommends the adoption and use of these manuals to all community-based organizations

(CBOs) and community development workers of all sectors in their pursuit and efforts to improve the

hygiene and sanitation practices of the families and communities. The lessons learned in

implementing this project can give valuable inputs in the formulation of national policies and programs

on hygiene and sanitation especially for secondary cities and aimag centers.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 5 of 65

Bharat Dahiya initiated and designed the Study titled,

Mongolia: Low Cost Sanitation for the Urban Poor with

twin objectives: (i) to support the implementation of the

Japan Social Development Fund Grant Project,

Community-led Infrastructure Development for the Urban

Poor in Ulaanbaatar, and (ii) to facilitate the provision of

technical assistance on low cost sanitation to the

Government of Mongolia and the Municipality of

Ulaanbaatar, in order to inform policy dialogue on this

important urban poverty and environment related issue.

Bharat Dahiya has been the Project Coordinator of the

JSDF Project. Hubert Jenny (before leaving the World

Bank) was the erstwhile Task Team Leader of the JSDF

Project. The present Task Team Leader of this project is

Takuyo Kamata. PMU USIP2 acknowledges the guidance

of all the above-mentioned World Bank personnel for their

support in the preparation of this report.

Photographs are taken by Henry Briones, Santanu Lahiri

and Chimbayar.

Schematic diagrams are by Santanu Lahiri.

Sketches and drawings are by Rajendra Sen.

Henry Briones, Santanu Lahiri and Ishbaljir Battulja, World

Bank Consultants were the key facilitators for the Hygiene

and Sanitation National Consultation Workshop organized

in 31st October, 2005.

Santanu Lahiri and Henry Briones prepared this report

with overall guidance from Eduardo A. Perez and Pete

Kolsky of World Bank in consultation with PMU USIP2.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This set of manuals on Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar is a product of series of

consultations with various stakeholders at national, sub-national, and community levels. The

development of the Situation Report and manuals is part of the over-all efforts of the City of

Ulaanbaatar to upgrade and improve the hygiene and sanitation situation in the Ger areas under the

Community-led Infrastructure Project (CLIP) with funding support from the Japan Social Development

Fund.

Specifically the development of the Hygiene and Sanitation Situation Report and manuals is

supported through the World Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership (BNWP). We also would like to

thank our team of consultants from the World Bank (Santanu Lahiri, Henry Briones and Isbaljir

Battulga) who provided us with technical

support and guidance throughout the

conceptualization and preparation of these

manuals.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) of

Second Ulaanbaatar Service Improvement

Program (USIP2) of the City of Ulaanbaatar

would like to thank the various multilateral

and bilateral agencies and organizations, the

different technical agencies of the national

and local government units, and the

community-residents of Bayankhousou, for

their active participation and valuable inputs

in the preparation of these manuals.

We would like to acknowledge the

participation and inputs of various

international agencies and organizations

(UNICEF, WHO, French Action Faim, Red

Cross, SEURECA, ICT Sain Consulting LLC).

We also acknowledge the national

government agencies (Public Health Institute

and School of Public Health of the Ministry of

Education, Department of Environmental

Health of the Ministry of Health, Bureau of

Inspection Monitoring and Standards, Ministry

of City Urban Development, Ulaanbaatar City

Planning and Policy Department) for their

valuable inputs – especially in facilitating the

national consultative workshop and reviewing

the draft of the manuals.

Our thanks also go to Pete Kolsky, Eduardo A. Perez, Wouter Vandersypen, and Takuyo Kamata for

their technical inputs in reviewing the manuals and their administrative support in mobilizing funds

from the BNWP to support the development and publication of these manuals.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 6 of 65

We also thank the Mayor of Ulaanbaatar City, Mr. Batbayar, for his encouraging support, visit to the

community during the consultation with families, and endorsing this methodology for the promotion of

hygiene and sanitation in the Ger areas of the City.

Finally, the many people and organizations who had contributed in the conceptualization, design, and

preparation of these manuals and whose names we are not able to mention – the Program

Management Unit of USIP2 extends sincere thanks to all of you.

Ms. Badamkhorloo

Director

Project Management Unit

Second Ulaanbaatar Service Improvement Project

Ulaanbaatar City, Mongolia

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 7 of 65

GLOSSARY

Community based organization: Private organizations, which do not make profit and focus on humanitarian and

development activities for the benefit of the society.

Community dialogue: An approach, which stimulates community decision-making and community cost-

sharing about a particular development activity. The approach also accesses the level

of knowledge and current practices within the community, and is gender and poverty

sensitive.

CLIP Community-led Infrastructure Development Project funded by Japan Social

Development Fund grant, managed by the World Bank.

Drainage: Runoff resulting from rain, also referred to as wet weather flow.

Human Excreta: Solid (feaces) and liquid (urine) waste from humans.

Impervious: Not allowing liquid to pass through.

Informed Choice: Offering communities the choice between different types and levels of services, giving

them the option to choose the one best suited to their requirements and means.

JSDF Japan Social Development Fund grant, managed by the World Bank.

Millennium development goals: At the Millennium Summit in September 2000 the 189 states of the United Nations

reaffirmed their commitment to working toward a world of peace and security for all –

a world in which sustaining development and eliminating poverty would have the

highest priority. The Millennium Declaration was signed by 147 heads of state and

passed unanimously by the members of the UN General Assembly. The eight

Millennium Development Goals are established, comprise 18 targets and 48

indicators. Where possible, the targets are given as quantified, time-bound values for

specific indicators.

PHAST: PHAST stands for Participatory Hygiene And Sanitation Transformation developed

jointly by World Health Organisation and UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation

Program (now known as Water and Sanitation Program under Energy and Water

Division of the World Bank). PHAST is a participatory technique illustrated with

drawings and sketches used for sanitation and hygiene behavior change for

prevention of diarrheal disease.

PMU: Project Management Office under Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project

of the City of Ulaanbaatar.

Permeable: Allowing liquid to soak in.

USIP2: Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project of the City of Ulaanbaatar.

Social marketing sanitation: The approach looks at sanitation and hygiene as “products” and seeks to understand

and stimulate the supply and demand for these products in a way that can harness

the productive potential of the private sector and the market.

Sanitation: The hygiene and sanitation sector professionals in Mongolia1 defined sanitation as

means of collecting and disposing of excreta and community liquid waste in a hygienic

way so as not to endanger the health of individuals or the community as a whole.

Sanitation Facility: The facility that handles and disposes excreta, liquid and solid waste.

1 In national consultation workshop held on 31st October, 2005.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 8 of 65

Sewerage: This is an off-site system for the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of

sewage.

Sewage: Human excreta and sullage collectively known as sewage.

Sludge: Suspended solid in the septic tank.

Sullage: Non- excreta household wastewater that includes water disposed of as a result of

bathing, laundry, dishwashing and other household water clean-up functions. In

general, sullage waste from most households is disposed into the ground or into

ditches and canals.

Technological sanitation options: Technically feasible, culturally acceptable and financially affordable models of sanitary

latrines for proper collection and decomposition of human excreta.

VIP: Ventilated Improved Pit latrine.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 9 of 65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MESSAGE FROM THE CITY MAYOR OF ULAANBAATAR 2

PREFACE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

GLOSSARY 7

PART A: INFORMED CHOICE 10

Introduction

Option 1: Improve Traditional Practices

Option 2: Conventional Pit Latrine

Option 3: Lid Latrine

Option 4: Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine

Option 5: Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine

Sanitation Ladder: At-A-Glance

Cost Comparison: At-A-Glance

Upgrading costs for latrines

PART B: OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR LATRINES 26

Option 6: Ecosan Toilet

Option 7: Pour Flush Toilet – Single/Double Pits

Option 8: Public Toilet and Other Facilities

Other Options: Why are they not included in this manual?

PART C: BILL OF MATERIALS AND COSTS OF LATRINES 36

PART D: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LATRINES 54

1. Design

2. Construction Features for Sanitation facilities

3. Operation and maintenance of on-site sanitation

4. Groundwater Pollution

5. Waste Water Disposal

PART E: HOW TO CONVERT ‘INFORMED CHOICE’ INTO PRACTICE? 64

PART F: GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 65

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 10 of 65

PART A: INFORMED CHOICE2

Introduction

The hygiene and sanitation sector professionals in Mongolia3 defined sanitation as means of

collecting and disposing of excreta and community liquid waste in a hygienic way so as not to

endanger the health of individuals or the community as a whole4. The ‘sanitation informed choice’ is

defined as a pre-selected set of latrine options that are locally suitable, culturally acceptable and

economically affordable for the improvement of low cost sanitation services.

Latrine options in this manual are selected by hygiene and sanitation sector professionals through a

series of consultations in a process referred to as “sanitation informed choice.”

The latrine options suitable for immediate application in Ger5 areas are highlighted in Part A of this

manual.

The other potential latrine options that were discussed, but not selected by partners for immediate

application are also highlighted in Part B of this manual, with explanations as to why they are

mentioned as potential options, but not included for immediate application. The other latrine options

are also highlighted at the end of Part B with explanations as to why they are not applicable in Ger

areas, Mongolia.

The criteria that were adopted for selecting ‘sanitation informed choice for Ger areas’ are as follows:-

Effective use: Cultural acceptability and ablution habits of the users.

Water availability: Availability of water for ablution or cleaning/washing.

Technical feasibility: Climatic situation of the target area and situation of existing ground

water table.

Affordability: Capital and maintenance costs of latrines.

Up-gradibility: Working life and up-gradation possibilities.

Supply chain: Availability of building materials at local level.

Local Technical support: Availability of local technical resources – the ‘critical mass’ to

promote and support construction of different kinds of latrines.

This manual explains each latrine option. These options are arranged in ascending order, like a ladder

– the sanitation ladder. The first option is offered without any hardware solution, the next step is a

low-cost simple technology, and so on, through to the final option, which offers both improved

technology with higher costs. This ‘sanitation ladder’ enables communities to decide on the option that

is most suited to their requirement vis-à-vis their affordability.

2 Santanu Lahiri and Dr. Soutsakhone Chanthaphone, Consumers Choice…The Sanitation Ladder: Rural Sanitation Options in Lao PDR,

Nam Saat, WSP-EAP / World Bank and UNICEF, 2000.

3 In national consultation workshop held on 31st October, 2005.

4 Source: R Franceys, J Pickford & R Reed, A guide to the development of on-site sanitation.

5 In Mongolia, the migrants are mostly poor families from the countryside and have settled in the peri-urban informal settlement areas –

called as “Ger” areas.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 11 of 65

The main steps of community dialogue

The main steps of Community Dialogue are as follows:-

Ger Mapping

Identification of Poorest of Poor (defining the poor)

Gender analysis by tasks performed

Owner of Resources in the Household

Control of Resources in the Household

Decision Making in the Community

Hygiene Awareness Assessment

Community’s perception of the Routes of

Transmission of Faecal-Oral Contamination

Local Blocking Methods of Faecal-Oral

Contamination Routes

Prioritization of the Problems in the Community

Sanitation Ladder: Sanitation Informed Choice

Assessment of the benefits of sanitation

The latrine options6 covered in this manual are:

Option 1: Improve Traditional Practices

Option 2: Conventional Pit Latrine

Option 3: Lid Latrine

Option 4: Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine

Option 5: Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine

The latrines that are covered as potential options in Part B of this manual are:

Option 6: Ecosan Toilet

Option 7: Pour Flush Toilet – Single/Double Pits

Option 8: Public Toilet and other facilities

This manual is aimed for the sanitation and hygiene workers of the local community-based

organizations, Non-government Organizations and Khoroo/District authorities.

This manual will help the hygiene and sanitation workers/professionals to understand each option, its

advantages and disadvantages, working life, operation and maintenance techniques, costs and

salient features.

This manual will help workers/ professionals to perform better as facilitators during community

dialogue7 with individual households.

This manual can be expected to serve

as a technical guideline for the

construction of their latrines, which will

eventually help in transfer of

knowledge to local users and

authorities for scaling-up their

sanitation services.

This manual needs to be read

simultaneously with the other ‘Manual

on Promotion of Hygiene and

Sanitation in Ger Areas, Mongolia’ and

‘Community Dialogue Took-Kit for Ger

Areas, Mongolia’ to have an in-depth

understanding on how hygiene can be

used as an entry point for the

promotion of sanitation and its

improved services.

Lastly, the development of this manual

is a dynamic process and therefore,

requires periodic up-dating to integrate

the local and global learning.

6 In this manual, Rajendra Sen drew all the sketches and pictures, and Santanu Lahiri drew schematic diagrams.

7 Poor rural choose their water and sanitation services in Lao PDR, Dr. Nouanta Maniphousay, Nilanjana Mukherjee and Michael Seager,

March 1998; and the Draft Manual on Community Dialogue for Nam Saat Programme, Nam Saat (Lao PDR), WSP-EAP and UNICEF, 2000.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 12 of 65

Option 1: Improve Tradition Practices

There are many poor families in Ger areas that practice

open defecation for various reasons. One such might be

continuation of traditional practices prior to migration in Ger

areas. Some such families may not be ready at this

point of time to build their own latrines; intervention in

form of behavioral change may be the first option8.

Hand washing with soap9 after defecation and before

eating meals will reduce the risk of fecal-oral transmission

by as much as 50%. Simultaneously generating a demand

for latrines should be a priority within this option.

This option will help to:

Reduce the risk of fecal-oral diseases.

Improve personal and community hygiene behavior.

Generate demand for proper latrine construction.

User benefits:

Better hygiene and health.

Awareness regarding the benefits of better hygienic practices.

Increasing demand for construction of their own latrine facilities.

Capital and recurrent costs:

Negligible, only a small additional expenditure for extra soap use.

Salient features:

Support the improvement of traditional practices, such as, hand washing with soap, proper

disposal of children’s excreta etc. by conducting hygiene awareness activities.

Conduct Community dialogue to create demand.

Assign ‘sanitation teams’10 to communicate regularly with families, until their demand is

expressed through willingness-to-pay for latrine construction.

Disadvantages:

This option will not fully eliminate the chances of transmission of excreta related infections.

8 Introduction to latrine, as a hardware component is important, but prior to supplying of hot water (which is essential in winter season in

Mongolia) and soap for hand, dish, and clothes washing, especially diapers and infant clothing is more important [Courtesy: Karl Hansen,

Team leader, PMU, USIP2]. This will help in reduction of the risk of fecal-oral transmission by as much as 50%. This concept is focused on

Option 1. Hand washing with soap after defecation and before eating meals is important and need to be practiced even after

construction of latrines. For further details please see “Manual on Promotion of Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger areas, Mongolia’.

9 Hand washing interrupts the transmission of disease agents and so can significantly reduce diarrhea and respiratory infections, as well as

skin infections and trachoma. A recent review (Curtis and Cairncross 2003) suggests that hand washing with soap, particularly after contact

with feces (post-defecation and after handling a child’s stool), can reduce diarrheal incidence by 42-47 percent, while ongoing work by Rabie

et al. suggests a 30 percent reduction in respiratory infections is possible through hand washing. This remains true even in areas that are

highly fecally contaminated and have poor sanitation. Another current study found that children under 15 years of age living in households

that received hand washing promotion and soap had half the diarrheal rates of children living in control neighborhoods (Luby et al. 2004).

Since hand washing can prevent the transmission of a variety of pathogens, it may be more effective than any single vaccine. Promoted

on a wide-enough scale, hand washing with soap could be thought of as a ‘do-it-yourself’ vaccine. [Extracted from “The Hand

Washing Handbook, WSP, BNWP and World Bank”].

10 The sanitation stakeholders proposed in the national workshop that all sanitation projects should establish ‘sanitation teams’ at local

household level to facilitate and promote sanitation activities.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 13 of 65

Option 2: Conventional Pit Latrine

This type of latrine does not require water to

function, though a small amount of water

may be used occasionally to clean the

squat-plate. This latrine is specifically

designed for use in water-scarce areas, or

where communities use dry cleansing

materials, such as, paper, or where

households do not benefit from house

connections for water supply.

This latrine is being used in Ger areas for

many years due to the scarcity of water and

traditional habit of using dry cleansing

materials by most of the Ger people.

However, in absence of proper orientation

and design, often these latrines are in

unsanitary and unhygienic states.

Therefore, this latrine is included in this

manual to explain its salient features for

effective use in Ger areas and could be the

second option, or ‘next step’ in the

sanitation ladder.

This latrine is built with an unlined (or lined)

pit with a squat plate and a super-structure.

This is particularly applicable for families

who are extremely poor or newly settled in

Ger areas or are planning to change their

open defecation practices.

Local wooden planks, used oil drum, bricks,

local stones and concrete can be used to

line the pit, particularly in areas with loose soil.

Two wooden planks are often used instead of a squat plate in this conventional pit latrine. After using

the latrine (defecation), ash or dry soil is added on the top of excreta to reduce odor and prevent flies

to come in contact with excreta.

In case of Mongolia, the construction of superstructure is essential to protect users from snow,

especially during winter period (between November and March). Therefore, the superstructure with

proper doors and windows are essential even for this conventional pit latrine in Mongolia.

The materials used for roof are generally asbestos or galvanized sheets or wooden planks. The wall

can be made of either Bamboo-plywood-mat-plastered with mud, or half brick and half Bamboo-

plywood-mat-with mud plastering, or brick wall or hollow block wall or combination of any one of

these.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 14 of 65

User benefits:

Safer water bodies.

Reduced likelihood of open contact with excreta.

Better health.

It can be up-graded to lid latrine if squat plate is used instead of wooden planks.

Capital11 costs12:

Approximately US$ 90 to US$ 220 is required for construction of this latrine. However, most of

the construction materials required are available from scrap materials within the dwellings and

therefore, in many occasions the actual cash requirement for construction of this latrine is

minimal.

Recurrent costs:

Negligible: required only for replacing damaged wooden planks for squatting. However, some

recurrent costs may be necessary for maintenance of superstructure every 2-3 years.

Working life:

3 to 4 years, depending on number of users and the pit size.

User responsibility:

Maintenance of wooden planks used for squatting and the superstructure.

Materials required:

For unlined pit: shovel to dig the pit.

For lined pit: shovel to dig the pit and the lining materials e.g. any low cost durable material

with a 3 to 4-year life. In all cases, the sidewall of the pit (0.5 m below from the ground)

must be perforated.

Wooden planks for the squatting plate.

Wooden floor, if constructed (sometime only two planks are used for squatting, no additional

wooden planks are used for latrine floor).

Superstructure: for privacy and protection from winter, made with any indigenous material.

Salient features:

Wooden planks for squatting or Squat plate.

Unlined or lined pit.

Superstructure.

Disadvantages:

Unpleasant smell; attracts flies.

Does not fully eliminate the chances for transmission of excreta related diseases since excreta

are exposed to flies and thus can be transmitted to food.

Difficult/awkward to clean the latrine room.

Children may feel unsafe to use the latrine.

11 This can vary ± 15%.

12 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

Generally in most places, traditional latrines look like “Option 3: Lid Latrine” without a cover, but the

disadvantages remain same. In Mongolia, the traditional pit latrine looks as per the sketch. However,

if traditional pit latrine is designed as “Option 3”, but without “lid”, that might be better. Since it will

eliminate risks of children falling into the pit.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 15 of 65

Option 3: Lid13 Latrine

This type of latrine does not require water to function, though a small amount of water may be used

occasionally to clean the squat-plate. This is specifically designed for use in water-scarce areas,

where people have to walk to get water, even from public taps, or where communities use dry

cleansing materials, such as paper.

Definition:

A Lid Latrine is an improved Conventional Pit

Latrine, provided with a self-closing or

manual-closing lid (or cover) for squat holes

to make it as fly-and-odor-proof as possible.

In Mongolia, a special feature is to use two

squat holes located side-by-side, with one

having a bigger size for adults and the other

with a smaller size for use of children14.

Therefore, there is need for lids for both the

holes. Only one lid is opened, the other

remaining closed.

User benefits:

Initiate efforts to reduce the chances

of excreta-related disease

transmission, especially through flies.

Affords privacy.

Aesthetically improved environment

and improved health and hygiene

practice.

Advantages:

Can be built with local materials.

Easy construction and maintenance.

Most suitable for water scarce Ger

areas.

Most suitable for Ger communities

using dry cleansing materials.

Can be upgraded to Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine, or directly to Pour Flush Single Pit

Latrine15.

Suitable for areas with low population density, where adequate space is available for

relocating latrine when it is almost full, especially at newly develop Ger areas.

Capital16 costs17:

Approximately US$ 110 to US$ 220 is required for construction of this latrine. However, most

of the construction materials required are available from scrap materials within the dwellings

13 Lid means a wooden cover with handle to close the squat holes after use.

14 People are afraid that children (between 2 – 5 years) may fall into the pit through the squatting hole meant for adults and therefore, Ger

community specifically requested to keep provisions for two squatting holes, one for children and another for adults.

15 However, for up-grading VIP latrine to pour flush, the latrine room is required to be centrally heated, otherwise during winter the ambient

temperature i.e., 0º C to - 35º C will freeze the water seal within the pour flush trap.

16 This can vary ± 15%.

17 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 16 of 65

and therefore, in many occasions the actual cash requirement for construction of this latrine is

minimal.

Recurrent costs:

Negligible: required only for replacing damaged wooden planks for squatting plate. However,

some recurrent costs may be necessary for maintenance of superstructure every 2-3 years.

Working life:

3 to 4 years, depending on number of users and pit size.

User responsibility:

Maintenance of lids, squat plate and superstructure.

Materials required:

For unlined pit: shovel to dig the pit.

For lined pit18: shovel to dig the pit and the lining materials e.g. any low cost durable material

with 3 to 4-year life. In all cases, the sidewall of the pit (0.5 m below from the ground)

must be perforated.

Squatting plate with wooden or brick or stone footrests for both the squatting holes.

Wooden floor (Ger people generally prefer wooden floor during winter since it radiates less

cold).

Two wooden lids to cover the squatting holes.

Superstructure: for privacy and protection from rain and winter, made with any indigenous

material.

Salient features:

Squat plate with two holes one for adults and one for children.

Lids or covers for both holes.

Two pairs of footrests on either side of squat holes.

Pit below the squat hole.

Does not require water to function.

Cross ventilation to reduce the odor in the latrine room.

After using the latrine (defecation), ash or dry soil is added on the top of excreta, as an extra

protection (other than covering the hole by lid), to reduce odor and to prevent flies to come in

contact with excreta.

Disadvantages:

Not entirely odor-free and there are chances of disease transmission through flies and rodents

if lids are not closed after use.

Has to be relocated every 3 or 4 years when the pit is almost full.

18 If squatting plate is located in a way that the lined pit is a bit off-set with the latrine room and if provision is kept for desludging, then once

the pit is almost full, it can be emptied via vacuum truck. In that case, single pit can be used for longer periods. This is also applicable to all

other on-site latrines, where pit is properly lined.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 17 of 65

Option 4: Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine

This type of latrine does not require water to function, though a small amount of water may be used

occasionally to clean the squat-plate. This is specifically designed for use in water-scarce areas

where people have to walk to get water, even from public taps, or where communities use dry

cleansing materials, such as paper.

Definition:

A Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine,

commonly known as VIP latrine, is an

Improved Conventional Dry Pit Latrine,

slightly offset from the pit with a tall vertical

vent-pipe gradually tapered at the lower

end, and covered at the top with a fly-

screen and a cowl to prevent entry of rain

water or snow.

The VIP latrine eliminates the chances of

flies coming in direct contact with excreta.

This prevents fly-borne transmission of

fecal-oral diseases from latrines, a “major

source of disease transmission”.

In Mongolia, the VIP latrine was introduced

by external agencies. It was however not

properly appreciated and did not become

popular. During discussion with partners, it

was revealed that the basic features of VIP

latrines were not properly conceived and

promoted, which might have created some

dissatisfaction. Therefore, it is important

to understand the basic design features

of VIP latrine for its effective

performance.

User benefits:

Almost odorless.

Greatly reduced risk of excreta-

related and fly-borne disease

transmission.

Affords privacy.

Aesthetically improved environment.

Improved health and hygiene practice.

Advantages:

Suitable for water scarce Ger areas.

Suitable for Ger communities using dry cleansing materials.

Limited amount of water is required for occasional cleaning of squat plate.

Can be built with local materials.

Low construction costs.

Simple construction and maintenance, but it is important to understand the basic concept of

how a VIP latrine works and why some features (ventilation, location of vent pipe, location of

doors and windows etc.) are essential.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 18 of 65

Suitable for low population density areas where space is available for relocating latrine when it

is almost full.

Can be upgraded to Pour Flush Single Pit Latrine19.

Capital20 costs21:

Approximately US$ 110 to US$ 220 is required for construction of this latrine. However, most

of the construction materials required are available from scrap materials within the dwellings

and therefore, in many occasions the actual cash requirement for construction of this latrine is

minimal. In the costing of On-site Pit latrines in tropical countries the costs of superstructure is

not included, especially for traditional and Lid latrines, but in Mongolia, superstructure is

essential to protect people from snow and thus included even within the cost of traditional and

Lid latrines. Therefore, the cost difference between Traditional/Lid Latrine and VIP Latrine is in

Mongolia is only USD 20 – much lesser than differences between similar latrines in tropical

countries.

Recurrent costs:

Cash: US$ 2 - 5 per year for replacement of fly-screen and trap, if necessary.

Investment in kind: US$ 1 - 10 per year for superstructure and squat plate maintenance.

Working life:

3 to 4 years, depending on number of users and pit size.

User's responsibility:

Maintenance of vent pipe, fly screen, squat plate and superstructure.

Materials required:

For unlined pit: shovel to dig the pit.

For lined pit22: shovel to dig the pit and the lining materials e.g. any low cost durable material

with 3 to 4-years of lifespan. In all cases, the sidewall of the pit (0.5 m below from the

ground) must be perforated.

Wooden floor (Ger people generally prefers wooden floor) with two squatting holes (one for

adults and one for children) with footrests made of wood or other materials.

Vent pipe: asbestos-cement/PVC/brick or any indigenous material.

Fly screen: standard metal fly screen/PVC covered fiberglass screen/mosquito net.

Superstructure: any locally available indigenous material, but care should be taken to ensure

no direct sunlight enters the latrine room.

Salient features:

Squat plate with two holes – one for adults and one for children.

Two pairs of footrests on either side of squat holes.

The vent pipe should be at least 150 mm in diameter. Outer surface of the vent pipe should be

painted black, wide at the top and gradually tapering downwards. This will help the air within

the vent pipe to become warmer by absorbing more sunlight with the help of black outer lining

to create a convection updraft, which will draw air and gases from the latrine room through the

pit via the vent pipe. The latrine room then becomes odorless. Therefore, it is essential to

locate the vent pipe in such a position that it receives direct sunlight. To avoid flies to come in

contact with excreta, the doors and windows of the latrines should be located either in the

north or south directions to avoid entry of direct sunlight inside the latrine room. If flies still

19 However, for upgrading VIP latrine to pour flush, the latrine room is required to be centrally heated. Otherwise, during winter the ambient

temperature i.e., 0º C to - 35º C will freeze the water seal within the pour flush trap.

20 This can vary ± 15%.

21 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

22 If squatting plate is located in a way that the lined pit is a bit off-set with the latrine room and if provision is kept for desludging, then once

the pit is almost full, it can be emptied via vacuum truck. In that case, single pit can be used for longer periods. This is also applicable to all

other on-site latrines, where pit is properly lined.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 19 of 65

enter the latrine room, they are attracted by sunlight filtering through the vent pipe and move

upwards and get trapped. These are essential features for any VIP latrine. If one of these

factors is over looked, the VIP latrine will start mal-functioning23.

Fly screen covers top of vent pipe for trapping flies, with a cowl to prevent entry of rainwater or

snow.

Single pit under the squat plate.

Direct sunlight should not enter the latrine room through door and window.

The window should always be located high in the wall, preferably above the door. No other

ventilation should be provided within the latrine room.

After using the latrine (defecation), ash or dry soil can be added as an extra precaution on the

top of excreta to reduce odor and prevent flies to come in contact with excreta.

Disadvantages:

Not completely odor-free.

Lid should not be used.

Must be relocated every 3 to 4 years, when pit is almost full.

23 Due to wrong designing.

Sludge Pit Vent Pipe

Latrine room

Door

PLAN VIEW OF VENTILATED IMPROVED PIT LATRINE

Squat

holes

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 20 of 65

Option 5: Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine

This type of latrine does not require water to function, though a small amount of water may be used

occasionally to clean the squat-plate. This is specifically designed for use in water-scarce areas,

where people have to walk to get water, even from public taps, or where communities use dry

cleansing materials, such as, paper.

Definition:

A Ventilated Improved Double Pit

Latrine is similar to a Ventilated

Improved Single Pit Latrine, with only

two differences: (i) having two pits and

two holes for vent pipe, but only one

vent pipe is in use at a time and the

other is sealed; and (ii) two pairs of

two squatting holes (one for adults

and one for children). The second

pair, which is not in use, is also

sealed. Otherwise, all other features

are similar to VIP Single Pit latrine.

The VIP Double Pit Latrine like VIP

Single Pit eliminates the chances of

flies coming in direct contact with

excreta. This prevents fly-borne

transmission of fecal-oral diseases

from latrines, a “major source of

disease transmission”.

User benefits:

Almost odorless.

Greatly reduced risk of excreta-

related and fly-borne disease

transmission.

Affords privacy.

Aesthetically improved

environment.

Improved health and hygiene

practice.

Advantages:

Suitable for water scarce Ger

areas.

Suitable for Ger communities using dry cleansing materials.

Limited water required for occasional cleaning of squat plate.

Can be built with local materials.

Low construction costs.

Simple construction and maintenance.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 21 of 65

Can be upgraded to Pour Flush Twin-Pit Latrine24.

Long lasting and the digested sludge can be used as soil conditioner every 3 to 4 years.

Suitable for populated areas where free space is not available for relocating latrine when it is

almost full.

Capital25 costs26:

Approximately US$ 140 to US$ 290 is required for construction of this latrine. However, some of

the construction materials required are available from scrap materials within the dwellings and

therefore, in many occasions the actual cash requirement for construction of this latrine is minimal.

Recurrent costs:

Cash: US$ 5 - 10 per year for replacement of fly-screen and trap (if necessary).

Investment in kind: US$ 5 - 15 per year for superstructure and squat plate maintenance.

Working life:

Can be used life long by using alternate pits.

User responsibility:

Maintenance of vent pipe, fly screen, squat plate and superstructure.

Materials required:

Twin pits: shovel to dig the pit, and the good lining materials, which can be used for life long.

In all cases, the sidewall of the pit (0.5 m below from the ground) must be perforated

though the partition wall between two pits should be non-perforated and impermeable.

Wooden floor (Ger people generally prefer wooden floor) with two squatting holes (one for

adults and one for children) with footrests made of wood or other materials.

Vent pipe: asbestos-cement/PVC/brick or any indigenous material.

Fly screen: standard metal fly screen/PVC covered fiberglass screen/mosquito net.

Superstructure: any locally available indigenous material, but care should be taken to ensure

that no direct sunlight enters the latrine room.

Salient features:

Squatting plate with two pair of holes, one set for adults and children (for non-using pit),

another similar set of holes for pit that is under use.

Two pairs of footrests on either side of squat holes.

The vent pipe should be at least 150 mm in diameter. Outer surface of the vent pipe should be

painted black, with wider at the top and gradually tapering downwards. This will help the air

within the vent pipe to become warmer by absorbing more sunlight with the help of black outer

lining to create a convection updraft, which will draw air and gases from the latrine room

through the pit via the vent pipe. Thus, the latrine room becomes odorless. Therefore, it is

essential to locate the vent pipe in such a position that it receives direct sunlight. To avoid flies

coming in contact with excreta, the doors and windows of the latrines should be located either

at the north or south directions to avoid entry of direct sunlight inside the latrine room. If flies

still enter the latrine room, they will get attracted by sunlight filtering through the vent pipe and

move upwards and get trapped. These are essential features for any VIP latrine. If one of

these factors is over looked, the VIP latrine will start mal-functioning27. Once one pit is

24 However, for up-grading Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine to Pour Flush Double Pit, the latrine room is required to be centrally

heated, otherwise the ambient temperature during winter i.e., 0º C to - 35º C will freeze the water seal within the pour flush trap.

25 This can vary ± 15%.

26 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

27 Due to wrong designing.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 22 of 65

filled-up, the vent pipe is removed from the vent hole to the other vent hole of the twin pits by

unsealing it. Simultaneously a seal is made on the vent hole from where it is shifted. The odor

emitted from digested sludge of the filled-up pit will penetrate the adjacent side of the earth

below the surface through perforated holes and thus, prevent rodents from entering (due to

strong smell) into the filled-up pit.

Fly screen covers top of vent pipe for trapping flies, with a cowl to prevent entry of rainwater or

snow.

Impermeable wall is required between two adjacent pits to make sure liquid from digested

sludge do not percolate from one pit to the other.

Direct sunlight should not enter the latrine room through door and window.

The window should always be located high in the wall, preferably above the door. No other

ventilation should be provided within the latrine room.

After using the latrine (defecation), ash or dry soil can be added as an extra precaution on the

top of excreta to reduce odor and prevent flies to come in contact with excreta.

Disadvantages:

Not completely odor-free.

Lid should not be used.

In non-using pit, two squat holes and the vent hole need to be sealed.

Sludge Pit

Vent Pipe

Door

PLAN VIEW OF VENTILATED IMPROVED DOUBLE PIT LATRINE

Squat

holes

Sealed

Vent

Pipe

Sealed

Squat

holes

Pit in

use

Impermeable wall Perforated sidewalls

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 23 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: At-A-Glance

Advantages Disadvantages

OPTION 1: Improve Traditional Practices

Reduce the risk of fecal-oral diseases.

Improve personal and community hygiene behavior.

Generate demand for proper latrine construction.

Does not fully eliminate the chances for transmission of

excreta related diseases.

OPTION 2: Conventional Pit Latrine

Safer water bodies.

Reduced likelihood of open contact with excreta.

Affords privacy.

Better health.

Unpleasant smell; attracts flies.

Does not fully eliminate the chances of transmission of

excreta related diseases.

Unpleasant smell; attracts flies.

Does not fully eliminate the chances for transmission of

excreta related diseases since excreta are exposed to flies

and thus, can be transmitted by them to food.

Difficult/awkward to clean the latrine room.

Children may feel unsafe to use the latrine.

OPTION 3: Lid Latrine

Affords privacy.

Constructed of largely local materials, therefore

cost is negligible.

Easy construction and maintenance.

Most suitable for water scarce areas.

Most suitable for communities using dry cleansing

materials.

Can be upgraded to Ventilated Improved Single Pit

Latrine, or directly to Pour Flush Latrine.

Suitable for areas with low population density,

where adequate space is available for relocating

latrine when it is almost full.

Not entirely odor-free.

Chances of disease transmission through flies and

rodents.

Users must be explained that they should always replace

lid after use.

Has to be relocated every 3 or 4 years when the pit is

almost full.

OPTION 4: Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine

Almost odorless if constructed properly.

Greatly reduced risk of excreta-related and fly-

borne disease transmission.

Affords privacy.

Aesthetically improved environment.

Can be upgraded to Pour Flush Single Pit Latrine.

Improve health and hygiene practices.

Not completely odor-free.

Lid should not be used.

Selection of the location of windows, doors and vent pipe

(including its shape) is important for functioning, often

misguided by technicians if not properly trained.

Must be relocated every 3 to 4 years, when pit is almost

full.

OPTION 5: Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine

Almost odorless.

Greatly reduced risk of excreta-related and fly-

borne disease transmission.

Affords privacy.

Aesthetically improved environment.

Improve health and hygiene practices.

Can be upgraded to Pour Flush Double Pit Latrine.

Provides permanent solution and have long working

life.

Not completely odor-free

Partition wall between pits should not be perforated to

prevent percolation of liquid from one pit to the other.

Lid should not be used.

Selection of the location of windows, doors and vent pipes

(including its shape) is important for functioning, often

misguided by technicians if not properly trained.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 24 of 65

Cost Comparison: At-A-Glance

It is always important to express the costs of services to local people in a way that they understand

the cost factors easily. As a country Mongolia is unique due to its cold climatic condition and historical

background. Almost every person in Mongolia eats meat and drinks milk. Therefore, the capital cost of

latrines in this manual is summarized in terms of consumption of meat and the recurrent costs in

terms of costs of consumption of milk28. It assumes, therefore, that it will be easy for field workers as

well as Mongolian Ger people to understand the latrine costs and their potential situation on

affordability. The graph below has highlighted the cost comparisons between the five options that

have been mentioned earlier.

28 Mongolia consists of almost 2.5 Million of people and 21 million live stocks. Consequently meat consumption is common in Mongolia

irrespective of economic status.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ITP CPL LL VIP VDPL

Min Cap Cost US$

Min O&M Cost US$ per year

Costs/ household for latrines in US$

Latrine Options

Note: ITP means Improve Traditional Practices, CPL means Conventional Pit Latrine,

LL means Lid Latrine, VIP means Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine, and VDPL means

Ventilated Improved Double Pit Latrine.

A family on an average consumes 25 kilos o

f

meat every month in Mongolia. It means one

family spends around USD 50 every month.

Therefore, annually one family spends almost

USD 600. The capital cost of a moderate latrine

is around USD 140. It means one family can

build a latrine with 24% of the costs that they

spend annually for consumption of meat.

One family on an average drinks 10

litres of milk that costs about USD 5.

This means that in one year one family

spend USD60. The O&M costs of

maintaining a latrine is around USD 24,

i.e., 42% of costs that one family

spends only on drinking milk.

The above figures are just

assumptive on the basis

of current observations.

The average family size is

considered as five

persons per family.

For detail cost breakdown please see Part C: Bill of Materials and Costs of Latrines, Page numbers 27 – 44 of this manual.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 25 of 65

Up-grading costs for latrines

Piped water

connection

through

Water Kiosk

Water Scarce Areas /

Community use dry cleansing materials

UP-GRADING CAPITAL COSTS PER FAMILY PER UNIT IN USD

UP-GRADING RECURRENT COSTS PER FAMILY PER ANNUM USD

Please note that all the above capital costs are upgrading costs in US Dollars (USD) per unit. The recurrent

costs are costs in USD per family per year. The above are not actual capital and recurrent costs29.

29 For actual capital and recurrent costs of latrines, please see the graph in page 24, and/or Part C of this manual, Page numbers 36-53.

In Cash 0 90 - 220 20 – 40 10 - 40 30 - 70 0 - 40

In Cash 0 0 0 3 - 15 7 - 10 0

Conventional

Pit Latrine

Lid Latrine

Pour Flush

Toilet

Singe/Twin Pits

Ventilated

Improved

Single Pit

Latrine

Improve

Traditional

Practices

Ventilated

Improved

Double Pit

Latrine

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 26 of 65

PART B: OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR LATRINES

In many ways improvement of services is a cumulative outcome of historical background, cultural

habits and passion for sustainable development among people. As time moves, however,

improvement of various services take place and the demand for better services is generated. People’s

desires for higher level of services emerge. For example, in Mongolia, conventional telephones are

available. After mobile facilities emerged in Mongolia, in the year 2002 almost 260 thousand

Mongolians had mobile phones. Again in the year 2002, there were 35 radio stations and 27 television

stations in Ulaanbaatar. But when an additional 11 cable TV stations were made available, more than

30,000 households got cable connections30. The above examples show, people co-opt upgraded

technologies if they are offered in the right time and in the right place. Following similar logic, few

more latrine options are added in this manual as potential options under Part B, though

stakeholders have not selected them for immediate application. These options however, might be

useful in the near future once other services improve.

In recent years, there has been global explosion of interest in the potential for recycling human wastes

as agricultural and horticultural nutrients. Ecological Sanitation (EcoSan) has been defined in a

number of ways. Some insist that sanitation cannot be ecologically efficient unless it is on-site with

urine separation for more efficient recycling. Others adhere to a broader definition that stresses the

need to consider environmental impacts of all sanitation technologies to minimize deleterious

environmental impacts while maximizing fruitful reuse of waste to the extent possible. Much of the

debate under this “broader” definition revolves around the phrase “to the extent possible”, with many

engineers and development workers uncertain about what a practical level of EcoSan may be.

EcoSan options are particularly appropriate in conditions of rocky soil and high water table, where

above ground construction is involved and there is no significant additional construction cost involved

in facilitating the emptying of the pit. In these cases, the structures for “conventional low-cost

sanitation” (e.g. pit latrines, VIPs etc) are virtually identical to those for EcoSan, and it would only be

“natural” to explore the market for recycling of waste products.31 Ecosan toilet therefore, is included as

one of the potential options under Part B.

As we know, the Second Ulaanbaatar Service Improvement Project (USIP2) is currently on going. The

USIP2 Project will provide drinking water to water kiosks in many Ger areas, out of which 15% Ger

households nearer to water kiosks will also have the opportunity to avail of piped water connections.

Therefore, scope of pour flush latrine may emerge once water is available through piped connections

to some of the households. Therefore, this option is also included as one of the potential options

under Part B.

The Feasibility Study Report for USIP2 says 50% of Khashaa owners reported not having any further

space for digging their new pits. Also many poor Ger families do not have space to construct their own

latrines. In such a situation, scope of Public Toilet might be worth to exploring, especially considering

the situation of the poorest of poor in Ger areas. This Public Toilet option therefore, is also included as

one of the potential options under Part B.

While highlighting the potential options in Part B of this manual however, it has to be remembered that

none of these options should be “pushed” to any household or community until they are fully

appreciated, sincerely desired, and demanded with willingness-to-contribute. The same caution is

also applicable to all sanitation hardware facilities.

30 Human Development Report, Mongolia 2003.

31 Extracted from: Draft: The Sanitation Challenge: Some strategic thinking from WSP, Pete Kolsky, August. 2003

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 27 of 65

Compost Latrine

In this latrine, excreta falls into a watertight tank to

which ash or vegetable matter is added. If the moisture

content and chemical balance are controlled, the

mixture will decompose to form a good soil conditioner

in about four months. Pathogens are killed in the dry

alkaline compost, which can be removed for application

on land as fertilizer. There are two types of composting

latrine: in one, compost is produced continuously, and

in the other, two containers are used to produce it in

batches.

[Source: R Franceys, J Pickford & R Reed, A guide to the

development of on-site sanitation].

Option 6: Ecosan32 Toilet

Definition

Ecosan toilet is a modified version of compost latrine where urine and excreta are separated prior to

collection in the on-site pits.

Ecological sanitation is a system that collects

and safely reuses human excreta for

agriculture with a view toward saving water

and preventing water pollution. Such systems

are used in a number of countries including

China, Vietnam, India, South Africa,

Germany, Sweden and Mexico.

Advantages:

It offers a safe sanitation solution that

prevents disease and promotes health

by successfully and hygienically

removing pathogen-rich excreta from

the immediate environment.

It is environmentally sound as it does

not contaminate ground or surface water, and also does not use scarce water resources for

washing or flushing of the toilet.

It creates a valuable resource that can be productively recycled back into the environment.

Over time, through proper management and storage, excreta are transformed from a harmful

product into productive assets.

This latrine will be most suitable for places where high ground water exists.

After using the latrine (defecation), ash or dry soil is added on the top of excreta to reduce

odor and prevent flies from coming in contact with excreta.

Disadvantages:

The decomposition of faeces will be slow during winter in Mongolia and therefore, the retention

time of faeces needs to be increased. Thus the dimension of both the urine collection tank and

pit for excreta digestion will be increased leading to higher capital costs of this unit in

comparison with similar units constructed in tropical countries.

It will be difficult to introduce such a latrine where recycling of waste is not practiced or

appreciated and also not being practiced traditionally.

Initially some small-scale action researches are necessary in Mongolia33 prior to

mainstreaming the application for sanitation projects.

Tentative34 costs35:

Approximately US$ 130 to US$ 250 is required for construction of this latrine. However, most

of the construction materials required are available from scrap materials within the dwellings

and therefore, in many occasions, the actual cash requirement for construction of this latrine is

minimal. The cost of this latrine is low in comparison with tropical countries since the pits for

32 Most of the text related to Ecosan latrine is extracted from the document written by Uno Winblad, The Next Generation Toilet – A Global

Perspective;

33 Ecosan Project has now been initiated in Mongolia with support from GTZ.

34 This can vary ± 15%.

35 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 28 of 65

this latrine in Mongolia needs to be built below the ground like other latrines. The raised latrine

with steps are not acceptable in Mongolian culture since people think that during winter, steps

with frozen snow will be difficult to walk and children may fall down.

Negligible for some recurrent costs may be required for superstructure after every 2-3 years.

Working Life:

Life time use, depending upon pit size and number of users.

Users Responsibility:

Requires training on how to use and clean the squat plate and pan regularly.

Requires periodical desludging of digested sludge for application to the plant as fertilizer and

urine for recycling in agricultural land/ backyard gardening.

Materials Needed:

Specially designed squatting pan that collects urine and faeces separately.

On-site pit: shovel to dig the pit, and good lining materials, which can be used life long.

Latrine floor: The squatting pan should be fixed into either a squat plate just on the top of the

pit or to be aligned from toilet floor for off-set pit. Proper finishing needs to be done on the floor

with neat finish.

Cover for off-set pit: Concrete cover/wooden slab.

Superstructure: any locally available indigenous material.

Vent pipe: requires vent pipe for odor to escape and to release humidity of sludge from the pit.

Collecting tank: Two separate collecting tanks, one for excreta and one for urine.

Important features:

Ecological sanitation has four main features:

Diversion: It means that urine and faeces are collected in separate places within a latrine unit.

This is not as difficult as it sounds because urine and faeces come from different body

openings and take off in separate directions. Urine is piped into one container or tank, faeces

drop into another container.

Containment: It means that urine and faeces are stored separately in a secure device until

safe for recycling.

Sanitization: It means that pathogenic organisms in faeces and urine are reduced to a

harmless level by primary on-site treatment. For faeces this is done by dehydration and

retaining sludge for 6-8 months. Most of the humidity of the fresh faeces is removed via a vent

pipe.

Recycling: It means that the end products of the diversion-containment-sanitization process

are used for agricultural land or back-yard gardening as nutrient enriched fertilizer.

Why is Ecosan toilet not included for immediate application in Ger Areas?

During consultation with partners including communities two different views emerged.

The majority mentioned that recycling of waste is not popular and culturally acceptable in Mongolia. In addition to that,

backyard gardening is not popular in Ger areas and therefore, utilization of digested sludge and collected urine will be a

problem for Ger people. Most of the professionals and stakeholders of sanitation sector in Mongolia therefore, are a little

‘iffy’ to select this option for immediate application.

During the national consultation workshop it was informed that an improvement of the living environment and housing for

Ger-areas by piloting Ecosan is already initiated in Mongolia with support from GTZ. Therefore, some professionals are

keen to include this option in the informed choice.

Therefore, this option is included under Part B.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 29 of 65

Option 7: Pour Flush Toilet – Single/Double Pits

Definition:

The Pour Flush Latrine refers to the Single Pit/Twin-Pit Pour Flush system, which consists of a pan

and trap (the bowl), with a single pit/twin-pit either just below the bowl (on-set type), or slightly away

from the bowl (off-set type). The Pour Flush latrine is a specially designed water-seal latrine, which

requires only 2-3 liters of water for each manual flushing. The water-seal eliminates odor, and

prevents rodents from entering the latrine room from the pit.

Advantages:

Odor free.

Provide privacy.

Little chance for transmission of

excreta-related disease.

Can support good health and

hygiene practices.

Appropriate where water is

available.

Water requirement for flushing is

low (2-3 liters).

Construction and maintenance are

cheap and easy.

Offset type can be placed within

the dwelling.

Suitable for less populated areas

where space is available for

relocating the pit once filled-up for

single pit type, but for twin-pit it can also be suitable for densely populated areas since it works

life long.

Possible to upgrade to small bore sewer system.

Disadvantages:

Water is necessary for flushing.

In high ground water table, there is a risk of groundwater pollution.

Not appropriate where communities use dry cleansing materials.

Needs training for the initial users on how to use and maintain the latrine pans.

Locally manufactured bowls are often of bad quality due to lack of proper quality control.

Tentative36 costs37:

Approximately US$ 130 to US$ 240 for single pit and US$ 160 to US$ 310 for twin-pit latrine is

required for construction. However, some of the construction materials required are available

from scrap materials within the dwellings and therefore, in many occasions the actual cash

requirement for construction of this latrine is minimal.

Recurrent costs:

The recurrent costs will be around US$ 10 – 20 per year.

36 This can vary ± 15%.

37 Including the costs of superstructure to protect the users from snow, rain and cold, and also to provide privacy.

Water dependent latrines

The function of a water-dependent latrine relies on the use of

water. Without water these latrines fail to operate. The water

flushes out excreta from the pan/bowl, which consists of a water-

seal generally known as a trap. The water-dependent latrines can

be further categorized on the basis of:

Flushing

pour flush (in case of pour flush pan – it takes 2-3 litres

of water for flushing and the water seal size is of 20 mm);

or mechanically flushed.

Location of pit

onset type: if latrine room is above the pit; or

offset type: if pit is slightly offset from the latrine room.

Water Quantity

pour flush latrine (water seal is 20 mm), where 2-3 liters

of water is required for manual flushing; or

conventional bowl where water requires more than 4

liters

(

water seal more than 20 mm

)

.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 30 of 65

Working Life:

2 - 3 years for single pit and life long for twin pits.

Users Responsibility:

Need training on how to use.

Need to clean the squat plate and pan regularly.

No paper, cotton, sanitary pad etc. should be thrown into the pan (that should be disposed of

separately in garbage bins/pits); otherwise water seal will be blocked.

Water for flushing is a must after each use.

Materials Needed:

Options for Pour Flush Pans: Plain cement, plastic, mosaic, fiber glass, ceramic etc. The

water seal should be 20 mm. For offset type pour flush, S-type trap need to be used.

Single Pit38/ Twin-pit: Shovel to dig the pit/pits,

and good lining materials, which can be used

life long. In case of twin-pit, a junction box is

required.

Latrine floor with footrests: The bowl/pan

should be fixed into either a squat plate

just on the top of the pit or to be aligned

from toilet floor for off-set pit.

Cover for off-set pit: Concrete cover and

superstructure: Any locally available indigenous

material.

Important features:

Pour Flush Pan/Bowl with water seal of 20 mm.

Squat platform / floor where bowl and water-seal trap fixed along with footrests.

Lined or unlined pit for on-set type; lined pit for off-set type.

In both cases, single or twin-pit, the sidewall of the pit (0.5 m below from the ground) must

be perforated. In case of twin-pit, the partition wall between two pits should be non-

perforated and impermeable.

Superstructure and cross ventilation is essential to eliminate odor inside the latrine room. The

bottom of the door must have some clearance to allow air to move inside the latrine room. The

window should be located at the opposite side of the door, meaning thereby, on the top of the

back wall, which will allow air to come inside the latrine room from the bottom of the door and

drive away odor through window.

Suitable for areas where water supply is supplied by the water kiosks/ individual piped water

connections.

The latrine room is required to be centrally heated to make sure the ambient temperature

within the latrine room should not drop anytime to freezing temperature to prevent freezing of

water seal.

38 If squatting plate is located in such a way that the lined pit is a bit off-set with the latrine room and if provision is kept for desludging, then it

can be emptied via vacuum truck. In that case, the single pit can be used for longer periods.

Why is pour flush latrine not included for immediate application in Ger Areas?

Most of the Ger areas consist of poor households, comprising of temporary settlement huts, known as Gers. They fetch

water either from water kiosks or from a vendor and use 20-30 litres of water per day. In such water scarce areas, with

no room heating system (water seal will freeze during winter without room heating provisions) proposing pour flush is not

suitable. However, as USIP2 may provide some house connections, out of which the households who have room

heating system may look for this latrine as an option and therefore, this design is added in Part B as a potential option.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 31 of 65

Option 8: Public Toilet and Other Facilities

This Option is meant for community use.

As per local registration data in Mongolia 208 community toilets already exist39 among 84,000 families

in Ger areas, out of which 49%, i.e., 101 community toilets are running in good condition40. This

implies that the use of public toilet is nothing new41 in Mongolia.

In some old Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar, which are densely populated, there are several extremely

impoverished families who do not have any latrines and also do not have any land to build their

latrines42. Where do they go for defecation?

As we know, the overall impact of sanitation depends upon effective use of latrines by individual as

well as community. For example, in one community even 90% families build and effectively use their

latrines and only the remaining 10% go for open defecation. This alone can create a high health risk

for fecal-oral transmission for the whole community. Therefore, sanitation needs to be seen both at

the household as well as community levels. The poor people who do not have resources

including space to build their latrines need some solutions for sanitation.

Sanitation simultaneously also needs to be seen in a wider perspective from the point of view of

overall personal hygiene, the facilities for defecation, bathing and washing clothes with hot water,

especially during winter between November and March.

As we know, the IDA funded Second Ulaanbaatar Service Improvement Project (USIP2) is planning to

build ‘water kiosks’ in many Ger areas (some of which are overlapping with sites of Low Cost

Sanitation Project funded through JSDF grant). In overlapping areas, where USIP2 brings water

directly through piped water supply, the construction of ‘Option 8: Public Toilet’ might be possible due

to availability of running water through piped water supply.

The ‘Community-led Infrastructure Development for the Urban Poor in Ulaanbaatar, funded by JSDF

grant in Mongolia’, has three components: (i) community-led infrastructure development (CLIP)

component, (ii) Low Cost Sanitation (LCS) component and (iii) Monitoring and evaluation component.

Under CLIP component, communities will have opportunity to choose their own infrastructure that they

would like to improve. Therefore, there is an opportunity even for communities to consider for ‘Option

8: Public Toilet’ under CLIP if this option is offered.

This option therefore has the potential for application if three project/components, such as, USIP2,

CLIP and LCS are properly coordinated since all three projects/components are managed by a single

executing agency, i.e., PMU of USIP2.

39 Choibalsan soum in Dornod, and Tsogttsetsii and Hurmen soums in Omnogobi have the highest number of public or shared latrines.

Many cases were registered in Ulaanbaatar Ger areas where a simple pit latrine is used as a public or shared latrine. [source: Access to

water and sanitation services in Mongolia, UNICEF, UNDP and Ministry for Nature and Environment, December 2004].

40 Feasibility Study Report: Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project and Preliminary Design of Water Supply Facilities, World

Bank Project No. TF 051125, International Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd, and others, Municipality of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia,

October, 2003.

41 In some places, USIP2 will bring water by water tankers to ‘Water Kiosks’.

42 “Moreover, as a result of a number of relocations of pit latrine, most households have no space in their plot for further repositioning of

latrine”. [source: Access to water and sanitation services in Mongolia, UNICEF, UNDP and Ministry for Nature and Environment, December

2004].

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 32 of 65

Getting the mix right: A wide range of needs and solutions

Anyone working within sanitation, especially in urban areas, is aware that there are a wide range of needs and solutions.

Residents have differing requirements (e.g. for excreta disposal only, or for the safe disposal of substantial bathing,

laundry and other household water), and different constraints (e.g. space, cash, and water supply access.) Sanitation

improvement will consist of a shift in this mix, and not the wholesale adoption of a single approach.

The management of this mix cannot be left wholly to the market for a variety of reasons, the most important being that

individual households do not directly feel all the consequences of their actions. Government has an important role in

guiding and promoting the evolution of the range of options, without stifling the freedom of individuals and communities

to find their own solutions. This is not a plea for traditional master plans that often sit on engineers’ shelves for lack of

finance, but rather for careful study and analysis of the situation, the actors involved, and the forces in play that

determine what “solution” will be found by households and communities to their sanitation problem.

Government can play a key role in:

Providing resources for assessment of the existing situation

Identifying the players who are currently involved (either as “part of the solution” or “part of the problem”)

Thinking through the most realistic and viable future mixes of options

Identifying and reducing constraints that limit the evolution of the mix of solutions in the right direction (e.g.

limited capacity in the sector, over-rigid technical specifications, etc.)

Identifying and applying appropriate set of incentives (complete with Rules, Rewards, and Referees) to steer

the evolution in the right direction

Providing the necessary focus and leadership for the overall effort

[Extracted from: Draft - The Sanitation Challenge: Some strategic thinking from WSP, Pete Kolsky, August. 2003].

In addition to that, cross sectoral learning shows that in many occasions where demands for services

are low, demands may increase with the improvement of service level. For example, in the

telecommunication sector, use of landlines was quite low, whereas the demand for mobile phones is

high though costly, even in Mongolia.

With this cross-sectoral learning, many sub-options are also provided within the ‘Option 8: Public

Toilet’. These are already working well in many other developing countries. Adding up of these sub-

options will also help and attract the private sector. In fact this will generate a perception of

sanitation as a socio-commercial sector and thus, may foster public-private partnership for

sanitation in Ger areas.

The ‘Option 8: Public Toilet’ can be built with following sub-options:

(i) Public Toilet = latrine compartments + washing basins.

(ii) Public Toilet = latrine compartments + washing basins + bathing rooms.

(iii) Public Toilet = latrine compartments + washing basins + bathing rooms + washing room for

clothes + some place for laundry.

(iv) Public Toilet = latrine compartments + washing basins + bathing rooms + washing room for

clothes + some place for laundry + incinerator to burn the used sanitary pads/clothes.

Definition:

This is a community ‘Public Toilet’, consisting of multiple (may be three) latrine compartments,

connected to a junction box, through which excreta goes into twin pits. These twin pits need to be

designed for community level (for 50 – 70 users) and will work alternatively, one at a time (same as

twin-pit latrine for individual households). Therefore, water requirement for flushing will be minimal –

approximately 2-3 litres for flushing and thus, the hydraulic loading to pits will also be minimum and

will be easy to percolate through these pits into sub-soil (same as other on-site latrines). The

wastewater from other units (if installed), such as, wastewater from bathing compartments, washing

basins and washing clothes will be diverted to appropriate treatment mechanism43 prior to final

43 Please see the section on ‘Wastewater Disposal’, page 61 of this manual.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 33 of 65

discharge (may be to open drains). Therefore, the wastewater will not contribute any hydraulic

load to twin pits and not create any damage to sub-surface water. In addition, the wastewater

will be treated and discharged to open drains, which is a better option than untreated

wastewater, which will in any case be flowing when new water kiosks are commissioned as this

aspect has not been addressed in USIP2.

Now, each sub-component of this Public Toilet is briefly described below. However, if community is

interested in applying any of the sub-options described below, they should request PMU to

carry out a feasibility study of that sub-option with possible cost breakdown prior to actual

construction. Therefore, the detailed cost breakdown is not mentioned in this manual since initial

parameters (number of users, frequency of use per person per day, where this unit will be located – at

high water ground area, or low water ground area etc.) need to be fixed prior to preparing a detailed

design and cost breakdown.

Salient Features44:

Heating arrangement: The Public Toilet must have heating system to make sure the ambient

temperature within the room is much above the freezing temperature.

The Latrine Compartments: The number of latrine compartments needs to be discussed with

potential users. Latrine compartments are not used for 24 hours, however, in a specific time

the demand for using latrines are high. Therefore sometimes, in public toilets more urinals are

provided separately than latrine compartments. If this public toilet is designed for all, not only

for women and children, two separate latrine blocks are required with two different entry

points.

Twin Pits: In many developing countries, public toilet and school toilet with twin pits are

common. Therefore, there is no risk involved in having twin pits instead of septic tank.

Moreover, the twin-pit system will reduce the hydraulic load and the system will function better.

However, during winter no liquid will percolate through these pits. Consequently, additional

storage capacities need to be calculated. The pipes connected from pans to junction box, S-

traps need to be used. One pit may function for 2-3 years (depending upon design

calculation), then the other pit will be used, while the excreta in the first pit will be liquefied and

gasified and volume will be reduced to allow re-using of the first pit. However, vacuum trucks

are available in Ger areas, which can also be used for emptying pits if people are not willing-to

reuse the digested sludge as fertilizer. The Junction Box and both pits need to be covered by

reinforced concrete slabs to make sure no one opens these slabs to satisfy their curiosity or

for any other unorthodox reasons.

Bathing Rooms: The number of bathing rooms also needs to be calculated as per demand of

the users. Hot water will be supplied during winter, which will allow the users to bath and keep

themselves clean.

Washing Rooms and Basins: Washing rooms for washing clothes and washing basin for

washing hands and faces will be provided with hot water, which will also foster the

improvement of personal hygiene.

Laundry and Personal Commodities: Facilities for laundry, ironing clothes, buying soaps,

tooth brushes, tooth paste, sanitary pads, shaving creams, shaving sets etc. will be provided

to encourage people to use all these facilities to run the complex in a semi-commercial no-

profit-no-loss basis and simultaneously foster personal hygiene.

Management of Liquid Waste: To manage the liquid waste a collection chamber with

adequate retention period (depending upon the wastewater type, the retention period will be

44 There are many management models that can be applied for this Public Toilet: (i) this can be managed by ‘sanitation teams’, which will

consist of group of households at the lowest level, (ii) by Private Sector or NGOs or CBOs, as per ‘out-put based contract agreement’ signed

between PMU, Khoroo authority and the managing agency, (iii) Unemployed youth by establishing a cooperative etc.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 34 of 65

Case Study from Tamil Nadu, India: Incinerator for disposal of sanitary clothes and sanitary napkins:

An innovative low cost technology incinerator has been developed

for proper disposal of sanitary wastes in Tamil Nadu of India. This

can possibly be added with the Public Toilet cum shower and

laundry facilities. This design is simple, safe and cost effective. It

has already been installed and effectively used in many rural

schools and women sanitary complexes in Tamil Nadu of India.

The incinerator burns/incinerates wastes like soiled cloth, cotton

waste, napkins, paper towels etc. The waste gets converted into

ash and other non-hazardous residues. The incinerator is user

friendly and manually operated. The cost of this technology is not

very high, around US $ 350 to 450 only.

This simple addition to the toilets is highly appreciated by

adolescent girls. The use of incinerator has removed the

inhibitions among girls, helps them to attend schools during

menstruation and has made them comfortable attending the

school during those days. There are also no blockages of toilets

due to sanitary waste disposal into the toilets. With such low

investment required for incinerators, a public toilet (or even school

toilet) can install such technology in toilets for better disposal of

sanitary waste to check health hazards

Why Public Toilet with shower and laundry is not included for immediate application in Ger Areas?

This option is obviously not a low cost sanitation option for households and therefore, not included within the

Part A of this manual for immediate application in Low Cost Sanitation Project funded by JSDF for Ger

households. There are other issues also… Cost/capita need not be high, even if total capital cost for a PT is

higher than for a single family latrine. Issues to consider that make PTs problematic include, (a) management

of public toilets, (b) cost recovery and (c) sustainability. However, during consultations with partners, the

requests also came to include this option to explore whether this option can be piloted either through either

CLIP or similar projects. Therefore, this option is highlighted in Part B of this manual.

calculated), followed by some appropriate treatment facilities45 will be provided prior to final

discharge. During winter, liquid accumulated in collection chamber outside the Public Toilet will

freeze and therefore, the usage of water for washing and bathing also needs to be regulated to

make sure minimum amount of wastewater is produced. This will help to minimize the size of

the collection chamber (in winter this will act as sump).

Incinerator for disposal of sanitary clothes and sanitary napkins: Both biodegradable and

non-biodegradable waste can prove hazardous for health, if proper and complete disposal is

not done. In communities disposal of sanitary clothes and sanitary napkins of women,

especially for the adolescent girls, is a big problem. It affects the proper functioning of toilets

when disposed in the toilet and serious health problems if thrown out in garbage dumps or in

the open or into latrine pans. But generally people do not want to discuss this issue in open,

since they feel embarrassing to talk. There is, therefore, an imminent need to address this

important issue of sanitary waste disposal effectively to help proper excreta disposal system.

Thus, a low cost incinerator is developed with two chambers, an emission control system

along with a door for firing and removal of ash. In each latrine compartment for ladies, there is

a spout/opening in the toilet wall for disposal of soiled napkins into the chamber. The soiled

napkin drops on the wire gauze in the chamber on the other side of the toilet wall. This

dropped napkin and other waste are fired on weekly basis through the door /firing inlet in the

lower chamber. The entire incinerator is attached to the outer wall of the toilet. A smoke vent

is provided for the disposal of gaseous substances while setting fire in the sanitary wastes.

45 Please see the section on ‘Wastewater Disposal’, page 61 of this manual.

[Extracted from: Case Study: Tamil

Nadu: Incinerator for School Toilet

Waste, Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking

Water Supply, Department of Drinking

Water Supply, Ministry of Rural

Development, Government of India].

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 35 of 65

Other Options: Why are they not included in this manual?

The Mongolian Government is committed to shift from ‘supply driven approach’ to ‘community-led

sanitation initiatives’ for Ger areas. This is a new process for Mongolian sector partners. The earlier

sanitation initiatives were mainly externally driven, where development of local capacities were not

adequately addressed, supply chain was not created, participatory approach was lacking, and

understanding of community-led process and technology options were not properly addressed.

In this background, the Project Management Unit (PMU) of Community-led Infrastructure46 Project

funded through JSDF with other partners have reached consensus to move forward to implement

community-led low cost sanitation approach, which is indeed challenging, but can be achieved

through step-by-step approach.

Other latrine options, which may come-up in future for consideration are as follows:-

Compost Latrine

Vietnam Double Vault Latrine

Dehydrating Latrine

Small Bore Sewer System

The Condominial Sewerage System

46 As well as the PMU for USIP2.

The Condominial Sewerage

–

can it be an option for Ger areas?

A condominial sewerage system is a simplified version of sewerage system and less expensive than conventional

systems, but have same benefits. Carrying away the effluent from pits or sumps might be a potential solution for densely

populated Ger area, especially the Gers, which have natural topography to allow liquid to flow by gravity.

However, the main challenge is the falling of ambient temperature in Mongolia during winter, which falls up to – 35 º C.

During winter, the liquid freezes. The freezing line in Mongolia goes upto almost 4 feet below the ground level.

Therefore, the condominial sewerage needs to be laid below this freezing line, which will increase the laying costs and

overall capital costs of the scheme.

However, this type of technology is still worth exploring by conducting a preliminary feasibility study.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 36 of 65

PART C: BILL OF MATERIALS AND COSTS OF LATRINES

List of different alternative sub-options for ‘sanitation informed choice’ highlighted in this

manual47.

1. Superstructure

1.1 Roof Part

1.1.1 Type of Roof: G.I/ Asbestos Roofing Sheets

1.1.2 Type of Roof: Wooden Planks Roofing Sheets

1.2 Wall Part

1.2.1 Type of wall: Bamboo plywood-mat with mud plastering with Door

1.2.2 Type of wall: Half Brick Masonry and Half Bamboo plywood mat with mud plastering with

Door

1.2.3 Type of wall: Haft Brick masonry and Half Wooden Planks with Door

1.2.4 Type of wall: Wooden Planks with Door

1.2.5 Type of Wall: Full Brick masonry with Door

1.2.6 Type of Wall: Full Cement Hollow Blocks with Door

2. Floor Slab

2.1 Type of slab: Wooden slabs for single/double holes with footrests & lids/ without lids

3. Lining Part

3.1 Type of lining: Oil-drum Single for Pit Lining

3.2 Type of lining: Wooden Planks for Single Pit Lining

3.3 Type of lining: Brick masonry for Single Pit Lining

3.4 Type of lining: Concrete ring for Single Pit Lining

3.5 Type of lining: Stone Masonry for Single Pit Lining

3.6 Type of lining: Brick Masonry for Double Pit Lining

47 Please note that the development of these sub-options for offering various choices to community during community dialogue is a dynamic

process. These sub-options need to be further validated, revised, adopted and adapted periodically to make this manual effective and up-

dated.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 37 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs48

1.1.1 Superstructure: Roof Part: Type of Roof: G.I/ Asbestos Roofing Sheets

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials G.I. / AC roofing sheets

including clamping and fixing

them into positions with

necessary arrangements.

m2

5.0

25

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

1

- -

Transport - - - -

Total 25

48 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 38 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs49

1.1.2 Superstructure: Roof Part: Type of Roof: Wooden Planks Roofing Sheets

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Wooden planks roofing sheets

(25 mm thick)

m2

4.42 ≈

5.0

8.0

40.0

Materials

Nails Kg. 1 2.0 2.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

1

-

Transport - - - 42.0

Total 42.0

49 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 39 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs50

1.2.1. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of wall: Bamboo plywood-mat, mud plastering with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Bamboo plywood mat sheets

with mud plastering including

binding

m2 11.0 1 11.0 Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 27.0

50 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 40 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs51

1.2.2. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of wall: Half Brick Masonry, Half Bamboo plywood mat,

mud plastering with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price US$

Brick Nos. 364 0.07 25.5

Cement Kg. 51 0.07 3.6

Sand m3 0.3 12.6 3.8

Bamboo plywood mats with

mud plastering

m2 5.5 1 5.5

Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

3

-

Transport - - - -

Total 54.4 ≈ 55.0

51 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 41 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs52

1.2.3. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of wall: Half Brick Masonry and Half Wooden Planks with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Brick Nos. 364 0.07 25.5

Cement Kg. 51 0.07 3.6

Sand m3 0.3 12.6 3.8

Wooden planks (25 mm thick) m2 5.5 5.0 5.5

Nails (50 mm) Kg. 2 2.0 4.0

Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

4

-

Transport - - - -

Total 58.4

52 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 42 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs53

1.2.4. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of wall: Wooden Planks with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Wooden planks (25 mm thick) m2 10.7 5.0 53.5

Nails (50 mm) Kg. 4 2.0 8.0

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

4

-

Transport - - - -

Total 77.5

53 This can vary ± 15%.

Bill-of-material

includes door

and all four

walls, though it

is not shown in

the sketch.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 43 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs54

1.2.5. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of Wall:

Full Brick masonry with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Brick Nos. 629 0.07 44.03

Cement Kg. 90 0.07 6.30

Sand m3 0.4 12.6 5.04

Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

4

-

Transport - - - -

Total 71.37

54 This can vary ± 15%.

Bill-of-material

includes door

and all four

walls, though it

is not shown in

the sketch.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 44 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs55

1.2.6. Superstructure: Wall Part: Type of Wall:

Full Cement Hollow Blocks with Door

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Hollow Blocks (250 mm X 75 mm X 25 mm with hollow inside):

Cement Kg. 250 0.07 17.5

Stone Chips m3 0.72 23.6 17.0

Sand m3 0.36 12.6 4.6

Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

2

3

1.0

-

2.0

-

Transport - - - -

Total 57.1

55 This can vary ± 15%.

Bill-of-material

includes door

and all four

walls, though it

is not shown in

the sketch.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 45 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs56

2.1. Floor Slab: Type of slab: Wooden slab with single/ double holes with footrests,

with/ without lids

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials Wooden slabs and others L.S - - 20.0

Total 20.0

Notes:

1. Lids also can be constructed without hinge.

2. Two holes are suggested by Ger people, one for adult and one for children. One lid always needs

to be closed while other will be in use.

3. In case of VIP latrine, no lid should be used.

4. In case of Conventional Pit Latrine, the costs of two planks are integrated with the superstructure

costs.

56 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 46 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs57

3.1. Lining Part: Type of lining: Oil-drum for single pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials Used oil drum single pit m2 9.5 8.0 76.0

Total 76.0

57 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 47 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs58

3.2. Lining Part: Type of lining: Wooden planks for single pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials Wooden planks for single pit m2 9.5 8.0 76.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled

day

-

2

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 76.0

58 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 48 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs59

3.3. Lining Part: Type of lining: Brick masonry for single pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Bricks Nos. 45060 0.07 31.5

Cement Kg. 78.6 0.07 5.5

Materials

Sand m3 0.36 12.6 4.5

Labor Skilled

Unskilled

day

-

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 41.5

59 This can vary ± 15%.

60 Around 5.3 cft, i.e., 0.15 m3 amount of cement mortar is required. [In 1 m3 of brick work around 350 numbers of bricks are required. The

brick size is considered as 10” X 5 “ X 3”. If the brick size differs, accordingly, the number of bricks and cement mortar requirement will also

need to be changed].

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 49 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs61

3.4. Lining Part: Type of lining: concrete slab for single pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Cement Kg. 264 0.07 18.5

Sand m3 0.55 12.6 6.9

Materials

Stone chips m3 1.1 23.6 26.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

1

2

3

-

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 54.4

61 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 50 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs62

3.5. Lining Part: Type of lining: stone masonry for single pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Stone m3 2.3 4.0 9.2

Cement Kg 153 0.07 10.7

Materials

Sand m3 0.86 12.6 10.8

Labor Skilled

Unskilled In kind)

day

1

2

3

-

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 33.7

62 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 51 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs63

3.6. Lining Part: Type of lining: Brick masonry for double pit lining

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Brick Nos. 788 0.07 55.2

Cement Kg. 132.5 0.07 9.3

Materials

Sand m3 0.56 12.6 7.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled

day

2

3

-

6

-

Transport

Total 77.5

63 This can vary ± 15%.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 52 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs64

EXAMPLE: COST OF ONE VENTILATED IMPROVED SINGLE PIT LATRINE:

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Bamboo plywood mat

sheets with mud

plastering including

binding

m2 11.0 1 11.0

Materials

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 27.0

64 This can vary ± 15%.

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials G.I. / AC roofing sheets

including clamping and

fixing them into positions

with necessary

arrangements.

m2

5.0

25

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in kind)

day

0

1

- -

Transport - - - -

Total 25

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Materials Wooden slabs

and vent pipe

L.S - - 20.0

Total 20.0

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Stone m3 2.3 4.0 9.2

Cement Kg 153 0.07 10.7

Materials

Sand m3 0.86 12.6 10.8

Labor Skilled

Unskilled In kind)

day

1

2

3

-

3

-

Transport - - - - -

Total 33.7

Therefore, the cost of one sample VIP – Single Pit latrine will be :

US$ [25 + 27 + 20 + 33.7] = US$ 105.7 ≈ US$ 110, With ± 15%, the

costing range for the above mentioned model will be around:

US$ 95 to US$ 130

Please note that the current cost for constructing one VIP – Single Pit Latrine with

support from UNICEF is US$ 125 to US$ 150.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 53 of 65

Sanitation Ladder: Bill of Materials and Costs65

EXAMPLE: COST OF ONE VENTILATED IMPROVED DOUBLE PIT LATRINE:

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Wooden

planks roofing

sheets (25

mm thick)

m2

4.42 ≈

5.0

8.0

40.0

Materials

Nails Kg. 1 2.0 2.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in

kind)

day

0

1

-

Transport - - - 42.0

Total 42.0

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs US$

Wooden

planks (25

mm thick)

m2 10.7 5.0 53.5

Nails (50 mm) Kg. 4 2.0 8.0

Door m2 2.0 8.0 16.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled (in

kind)

day

0

4

-

Transport - - - -

Total 77.5

65 This can vary ± 15%.

Items Description Unit Quantity Price Costs

US$

Materials Wooden

slabs and

others

L.S - - 20.0

Total 20.0

Items Descripti

on

Unit Quantity Price Costs

US$

Brick Nos. 788 0.07 55.2

Cement Kg. 132.5 0.07 9.3

Materials

Sand m3 0.56 12.6 7.0

Labor Skilled

Unskilled

day

2

3

-

6

-

Transport

Total 77.5

Therefore, the cost of one sample VIP Double Pit latrine will be :

US$ [42 + 77.5 + 20 + 77.5] = US$ 217 ≈ US$ 220, With ± 15%,

the costing range for the above mentioned model would be

around: US$ 190 to US$ 255

Please note that the current cost for constructing one VIP – Single Pit

Latrine with support from UNICEF is US$ 125 to US$ 150.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 54 of 65

PART D: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LATRINES

1. Design66

1.1 Latrine Pits

When calculating the dimensions of a pit, three conditions must be satisfied, such as;

The pit should have sufficient storage capacity for all the sludge that will accumulate during its

operational life or before its planned emptying.

At the end of the pit’s operational life there should still be sufficient space left for the contents

to be covered with a sufficient depth of soil to prevent surface contamination with pathogenic

organisms (soil seal depth, which usually is kept 0.5 m)

There should be sufficient wall area available at all times to enable any liquid in the pit to

infiltrate the surrounding soil.

The storage volume of pit depends upon three factors:

The effective life of the pit, meaning the retention period of accumulated sludge in the pit.

The average number of people using the pit.

The estimated maximum sludge accumulation rate per person per year.

Once the effective volume of the pit is calculated, the plan area is decided. This should be based on

local preference, ground conditions and construction materials.67 In Mongolia people generally prefer

rectangular shape of pit and therefore, area should be calculated accordingly. The area inside the

lining is utilized for sludge accumulation, not the excavated area. Having determined the plan, shape

and area, the depth of pit required for sludge accumulation is calculated.

66 Extracted from: A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, R. Franceys, J. Picford and R. Reed, WEDC and WHO, 1992.

67 Mongolians generally prefer rectangular shaped pits.

Suggested Maximum Sludge Accumulation Rates for Pit Latrine Design in Mongolia

Type of use Sludge accumulation rates (litre per person per year)

Wastes retained in water where degradable anal cleaning

materials are used 80

Wastes retained in water where non-degradable anal

cleaning materials are used 120

Wastes retained in dry conditions where degradable anal

cleaning materials are used 120

Wastes retained in dry conditions where non-degradable

anal cleaning materials are used 180

In very cold conditions, with temperatures less than -10 degree C, excreta falling into pit may freeze before the pile has time to slump. The

pit will not be filled efficiently, instead it will contain a frozen mound of excreta and void spaces. Due to this factor, the volume of pits per

capita (person), allocated for sludge storage, needs to be greater in cold regions than in warm/ tropical ones. Therefore, in Mongolia the

values for maximum sludge accumulation rates for pit latrines litre per person per year is taken as much as double that of warmer

area, [Source: Out in the cold, Mark Buttle and Michael Smith, WEDC, Page 45, 2004].

This manual will briefly highlight the key elements o

f

design, construction, operation and maintenance of

on-site latrines. The detailed design, construction, operation and maintenance of on-site latrines have been

described in many books and therefore not repeated in this manual. References are made in appropriate places

in this manual for interested person to read those documents.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 55 of 65

Example:

A family consisting of 5 people in Ger area of Ulaanbaatar City intends to construct a Ventilated Improved Single Pit Latrine to last

for 3 years and plans to desludge the pit every 3 years through vacuum cleaning truck. The family uses papers for anal cleaning

and sullage is disposed of separately. Then what will be the size of the pit?

The Sludge Volume = 5 nos. X 3 years x 0.18 = 2.7 m3.

Lets consider a rectangular pit with internal dimensions of 1.8 m by 2.5 m,

Then the depth required for sludge is = [2.7 / (1.8 X 2.5)] = 0.6 m

Since paper is used for anal cleaning and sullage is disposed separately, the infiltration area can be ignored.

The soil seal depth = 0.5 m

Therefore, total depth = [0.6 + 0 + 0.5] = 1.1 m, say 3.6 ft, which is generally above the high ground water table.

Therefore, the internal dime

nsions of pit will be 2.5 m length, 1.8 m breadth and 1.1 m depth.

1.2 Infiltration area

It is assumed that the soil pores below the sludge surface are blocked. In that case additional wall

area must be allowed for infiltration of the liquids above the sludge. The infiltration area excludes the

soil seal depth since the top 0.5 meter of a pit has a fully sealed lining. Assuming that all the liquid

entering the pit lies on top of the sludge, the liquid depth will rise until the area of contact between

liquid and soil is large enough to permit infiltration of the daily intake of liquid.

Therefore, the Pit Depth = Sludge depth + Infiltration Depth + Soil Seal Depth.

1.3 Calculation of Pit Size

On the basis of the above design criteria, any pit size can be calculated.

On the basis of above design criteria, a general set of pit size is suggested for dry latrines

(Option 2 to Option 6) where dry cleaning materials are used:69

Users (in

numbers) Sludge Retention

Period (in years) Sludge Accumulation Rates

((litre per person per year) Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m)70

5 3 180 2.5 1.8 1.1

10 3 180 3.2 2.8 1.1

15 2 180 3.2 2.8 1.1

68 Extracted from: A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, R. Franceys, J. Picford and R. Reed, WEDC and WHO, 1992.

69 However, please note that once sludge accumulation rates are different, the pit size will also differ.

70 Intentionally the depth of the pit is kept within 4 feet since in the worst scenario high ground table is found around 4 feet from the ground.

Where ground water is below 6-8 feet, more depth can be kept for pit and therefore, length and breadth of the pit will reduce.

Recommended Infiltration Capacities (litre per m2 per day)68

Type of soil Infiltration capacity (litre per m2 per day)

Coarse or medium sand 50

Fine sand, loamy sand 33

Sandy loam, loam 25

Porous silty clay and porous silty clay loam 20

[Source: Out in the cold, Mark Buttle and Michael Smith, WEDC, Page 45, 2004].

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 56 of 65

The local people have experiences of building their own Gers and houses. Therefore, they can use the same

experiences to build the latrines. Only thing they need to be remembered is to follow the basic features of each option is

described in Part A and Part B of this manual. Establishing any standard for construction sometimes is counter

productive since it stops all kinds of innovations. In fact, local experiences can always guide local people decide

what works and what does not in their specific areas. This needs to be taken fully in to account.

To learn more about construction, operation, maintenance and ground water pollution please read:

A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, R. Franceys, J. Pickford and R. Reed, WEDC and WHO, 1992 [visit site:

http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/onsitesan/ch03.htm#b4-Chapter%204%20Technical%20options ]

Out in the cold, Mark Buttle and Michael Smith, WEDC, 2004. [visit site:

http://www.who.or.id/eng/contents/aceh/wsh/books/oitc/oitc.htm ]

During consultation meeting with partners in Ulaanbaatar, it was revealed that some pits

constructed 15 years back in Ger areas with 3-4 meter depth is not yet filled-up and still

serving well. Similarly, in some places, pits are over-flowing or back-flushing, especially during

summer. This is mainly due to discharging of sullage into the pits. Therefore, it is advisable

not to discharge sullage to on-site latrine pit and use separate pits for sullage

disposal71 instead.

2. Construction Features for Sanitation facilities

The latrines are mostly constructed with wooden planks in Ger areas. However, some Ger

households also prefer constructing latrine with bricks or concrete slabs. In cold regions, concrete

structure (slabs, pits and walls) can suffer from lack of strength caused by small cracks in the

material. These cracks form while the concrete is curing, due to ice expansion within the concrete

material. Seasonal variations in temperature may result in further weakening of such structures. It is

worth bearing in mind that these local construction contractors and builders should be competent at

making concrete of reasonable quality under the prevailing conditions, and their skills are worth using.

If the concrete is kept warm, it reaches a ‘critical hardness’ before its temperature falls below freezing.

The concrete can then be allowed to cool without any significant loss of strength resulting from the

expansion of contained water turning into ice. There are several ways to keep concrete warm:-

 Construct components (e.g., latrine slabs) indoors or, for in-situ concrete, construct a shelter

so that the whole area can be heated to above zero degree C.

 Mix in-situ concrete using warm water, then cover the concrete for insulation to retain heat

(known as thermos curing).

Therefore, it might be more effective if all construction works are organized during summer

season prior to winter. That will make the construction work easy and cost effective. However,

during winter the soil bearing capacity increases while during summer there is always a chance that

the pit will collapse if the pit lining is not constructed carefully. Therefore, it is also important to

make sure that the slab and pit lining construction are safe and sound for both summer and

winter seasons.

3. Operation and maintenance of on-site sanitation

The principle of all types of pit latrine is to collect and dispose of excreta in a hygienic way so as not to

endanger the health of individuals or the community as a whole. The accumulated excreta or sludge

inside a pit of on-site latrine starts breaking up into liquid and gas in absence of air by the anaerobic72

71 Please see the section on ‘Wastewater Disposal’, page 61 of this manual.

72 Aerobic bacteria is the bacteria that activates in presence of air/ oxygen and anaerobic bacteria is the bacteria that activates in absence of

oxygen / air.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 57 of 65

bacteria thus reducing the volume of sludge. The liquid percolates through the side wall of the pits.

Therefore, in on-site pit latrines, it is important that bacteria functions effectively and liquids have

adequate space to percolate through the side walls of the pits.

Mongolia is a cold weather country, where during November and March ambient temperature falls to

below 35º C. The bacteria, both aerobic and anaerobic, halt functioning in sub-zero temperatures.

Frozen ground is largely impermeable. Therefore liquid from the sludge in the pit is not able to soak

away in the winter. In very cold conditions, with temperatures less than -10º C, excreta falling into pit

may freeze before the pile has time to slump. The pit will not be filled efficiently. Instead, it will contain

a frozen mound of excreta, urine and void spaces. Therefore, during November and March in

Mongolia, the on-site latrine pits are basically acting as a sump/storage chamber to

accumulate all excreta and urine in freezing condition until temperature rises above 0º C.

The biological process restarts in the summer from April onwards till October, while the temperature

increases above 0º C. Activities of bacteria increase as ambient temperature rises.

Therefore, no chemicals should be added into the pit that may destroy the bacteria and create

mal-functioning of the sludge digestion process.

Some key points are highlighted below related to operation and maintenance of on-site latrines.

Thumb-rules for Operation and Maintenance of On-site Latrines

Do's Don'ts

Use dry cleansing materials in Conventional Pit

Latrine, Lid Latrine, VIP Single Pit, Double Pit

Latrine and EcoSan Toilet.

Small quantity of water can be used for occasional

cleaning of the squatting plate.

Water is essential for functioning of Pour Flush

latrines.

Piped water connection is must for the Public

toilet for flushing and maintaining cleanliness of

the toilet.

The squatting plate needs to be cleaned daily.

Unclean squatting plate can be a source for

spreading pathogenic bacteria and diseases.

Do not use dry cleansing materials in water seal

latrine, such as, Pour Flush latrine, Public Toilet.

Do not use water in dry latrine, Lid latrine, VIP

Single pit and Double pit latrine.

Do not use caustic soda or bleaching powder or

acid for cleaning the squatting plate or bowls in

the toilet.

Do not throw sweepings, vegetable or fruit

peelings, rags, cotton waste, plastics, sanitary

napkins and cleaning materials in latrine

bowls/pans or holes. Also do not discharge

sullage into the latrine pit, which may create back-

flushing during summer if sullage disposal is not

considered while designing the pit size.

Do not throw cigarette butts in the latrine pits or in

water seal pan.

Do not allow rain water or snow to enter the latrine

pit.

Do not allow children to defecate outside the

squatting hole or squatting plate or pans.

3.1 Emptying pits

The emptying of single pits containing fresh excreta presents problems because of the active

pathogens in the sludge. In areas, where land availability is not a constraint, it is often advisable to dig

another pit for a new latrine. The original pit may then be left for several years and when the second is

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 58 of 65

filled it may be simplest to re-dig the first pit rather than to excavate a new hole in hard ground. The

digested sludge will not cause any health problems and is beneficial as a fertilizer. However, in

present Ger situation, especially after privatization of land in year 2003, when the land has become

costly and consequently increasing difficult get space for relocating a latrine.

In this scenario, construction of twin pits might be a longer-term solution, which also needs to empty

after every 2-3 years.

In Mongolian culture, usage of digested dry sludge as fertilizer is uncommon and not appreciated.

Under these circumstances, usage of vacuum truck for desludging is the only option left.

The vacuum cleaning truck is available at the district level. It is owned by district authorities and run

by private companies on ‘contract service basis’. USIP2 also has planned to buy five new vacuum

cleaning trucks to support the desludging process.

From this perspective, more active involvement of private sector with public sector might be worth

exploring.

Once the raw or half-digested sludge are taken away by vacuum cleaning truck, it is important to

know where and how they dispose of the night soils. Commissioning of some Sludge Drying Beds in

areas at a considerable distance from Ulaanbaatar can be a feasible option for Mongolia due to easy

availability of land in remote areas.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 59 of 65

4. Groundwater Pollution

4.1 Current Situation

Ulaanbaatar’s underground arterial basin supplies 91 percent of the city’s population with fresh water.

The water supply system consists of four main sources and 156 wells. Central apartment residents

use water from the upper river sources and the Amgalan area. Water drawn from these sources

meets water quality requirements. However, in Ger area housing and factories, the 3rd and 4th lower

river water sources (Tolgoit and factory district) are very polluted with a high amount of bacteria. The

water pollution in some of these sources is much higher than the recommended minimum. The

remaining 9 percent of the city’s population, primarily living in semi-rural areas and summer cottages,

use spring and river water. The fact that many of these smaller rivers and springs are also polluted,

provokes some of the residents to bring out water from the city.

In the central and northern area of Ulaanbaatar, ground water levels have increased 0.5 to 0.8 meters

and annual fluctuations reached 1.0-2.0 meters. The marshland in the Ger housing areas of Zuun Ail,

Nogoon Nuur and Bayanhoshuu is widening, and the ground water level under Peace Avenue has

risen and now floods with rains, causing the channel of river Baruun Selbe to be leveled with soil.

There are several environmental degradations that affect the city’s surface and ground water area due

to human activities, i.e., falling of the ground water level in the arterial basin; declining water flows in

the rivers; deforestation and increased run-off; and dehydration in water basin areas. According to

information from a 2003 water quality monitoring study, water quality of the Tuul River in the center of

Ulaanbaatar is classified as only “medium clean.” However, in Ger housing areas up to 25 km

downstream, near Songino, the water is “polluted” up to 10 times the clean water standard. Even in

semi-rural areas 10 km from the Songino, near Hadan Hyasaa, the Tuul River is only “minimally

clean”. Only near Altanbulag soum, approximately 50 km from the city, does the water quality return to

being “medium clean”73.

The responsibility for waste collection in Ulaanbaatar has been decentralized to the district level.

The local registration data in 2003 revealed that74:

there are 84,000 families in Ger areas in 67,000 Khashaa (wooden fences).

there are 40,000 – 50,000 pit latrines and 208 community latrines.

there are 40 community soak pits, out of which 82% meet standards.

there are 31,114 individual soak pits in Ger areas, out of which 41% meet standards.

14% of Gers have no pit latrines.

34% of Gers have no soak pits.

Sludge from the waste treatment plant is collected in lagoon system where the sludge is dried. The

sludge is disposed at a special dumpsite for sludge South of the city. Most of the waste is disposed at

the three main central dumpsites: Dari Erkh, Ulaan Chuluut and Morin Davaa.

73 Extracted from: MONGOLIA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING SECTOR STRATEGY, TA NO. 4352-MONGOLIA, FINAL

REPORT, Volume I, Prepared for Asian Development Bank and Ministry of Construction and Urban Development, Prepared by PADCO, 2

May 2005

74 Feasibility Study Report: Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project and Preliminary Design of Water Supply Facilities, World

Bank Project No. TF 051125, Municipality of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, October, 2003.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 60 of 65

To learn more on construction, operation, maintenance and ground water pollution please read:

A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, R. Franceys, J. Pickford and R. Reed, WEDC and WHO, 1992 [visit site:

http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/onsitesan/ch03.htm#b4-Chapter%204%20Technical%20options ]

Out in the cold, Mark Buttle and Michael Smith, WEDC, 2004. [visit site:

http://www.who.or.id/eng/contents/aceh/wsh/books/oitc/oitc.htm ]

4.2 Potential risk of ground pollution from on-site latrines

There is little information about survival of either viruses or bacteria in groundwater, although it

appears that low temperature favors long survival times. Enteric bacteria may survive in cool

groundwater for more than three months. Field experiments indicate that the maximum distance that

viruses and bacteria travel in groundwater before being destroyed is equal to the distance traveled by

the groundwater in about ten days.

In fine-grained soils and pollution sources surrounded by a mature organic mat, the distance traveled

may be as little as 3 m, whereas a new source in fast-flowing groundwater may cause pollution up to

25 m downstream. The pollution extends from the source in the direction of groundwater flow, with

only limited vertical and horizontal dispersion. However, this does not apply to pollution in fissured

ground, where the pollution may flow through the fissures for several hundred metres, often in an

unpredictable direction.

Soakage pits pose a risk to health where there is an inadequate separation between the pit and the

groundwater table. Under these circumstances, pathogens may contaminate water supply in the

vicinity. However, where the pit is well above the groundwater table, water may be safely abstracted

from a well or borehole a few meters away from a latrine. In saturated zone (below the ground water

table), bacteria and viruses have been observed to travel several hundred meters with groundwater.

As such it is very difficult to establish a safe minimum lateral spacing between a water supply and an

on-site sanitation unit in saturated soil because of complexity of factors such as permeability and

hydraulic gradients that control saturated flow rate75. Nonetheless, in most cases the commonly used

figure of a minimum of 15 m between a pollution source and a downstream water abstraction point will

be satisfactory. Where the abstraction point is not downstream of the pollution, i.e., to the side or

upstream, the distance can be reduced provided that the groundwater is not abstracted at such a rate

that its direction of flow is turned towards the abstraction point. This is particularly useful in densely

populated communities, where shallow groundwater is used as a water supply.

4.3 Reducing the pollution from a pit latrine with a barrier of sand

Unless water is extracted locally for domestic purposes, pollution of groundwater from on-site

sanitation does no harm and is preferred to the considerable risks associated with defecation in the

open. A depth of two metres of unsaturated sandy or loamy soil below a pit or drainage trench is likely

to provide an effective barrier to groundwater pollution and there may be little lateral spread of

pollution. Where the groundwater is shallow, artificial barriers of sand76 around pits can control

pollution77. However, keeping in view the concerned on ground water pollution and percolation

problem, all pits are designed up to a maximum 1.1 meter depth to make sure pits are above the high

ground water table, even in the worst scenarios. It is important to mention that though a general

perception in Mongolia is that on-site latrines are creating ground water pollution, such evidence is not

obtained. Moreover, it has been recognized that the lack of proper management of sullage and solid

waste might be the main reasons for ground water pollution. Therefore, it is worthwhile to conduct a

study to identify and prioritize the main ‘polluting factors’ in Ger areas related to ground water

pollution.

75 Extracted from: On-site Sanitation, Andrew Fang, July 1999, UNDP-World Bank WSP-SA, July 1999.

76 Sand is very costly in Ulaanbaatar and therefore, it might not be possible to apply sand envelop in pits for poor Ger families.

77 A guide to the development of on-site sanitation, R. Franceys, J. Pickford and R. Reed, WEDC and WHO, 1992

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 61 of 65

5. Waste Water Disposal: The Situation, current issues and some potential options

5.1 The Situation

The current condition of wastewater

treatment plants in Mongolian urban centers

is a major problem in urban development.

At the same time, a significant deterioration

in the functioning of about 120 centralized

wastewater treatment plants in virtually

every urban center has occurred. Roughly

one third of the plants do not work at all,

while another third operates only partially.

Virtually all of the wastewater treatment

plants and related facilities suffer from the

lack of repair and maintenance, as well as

from the absence of any appropriate

incentive structure for treatment and/or

arrangements for cost recovery. The main

wastewater treatment in Ulaanbaatar was

designed to treat 230,000-240,000 m3/day,

but actual raw sewage inputs are in the

range of 150,000-170,000 m3/day. Some

leather and wool industries without their own treatment plants discharge wastewater to the central

collection channel without treatment. As a result, heavy metals , Cr6 (sulphit) enter the wastewater

treatment plant and destroy the bacteria, resulting in mal-functioning of the treatment system. Some

recent studies have shown that the plant is only about 40 to 50 percent effective in cleaning the

sewage. The plant discharges its effluent directly into the Tuul River. With the continued rapid growth

of Ulaanbaatar and its population, the level of pollution discharged from these plants has already

reached a critical stage and requires immediate attention78.

5.2 Current Issues

The lack of funding for new infrastructure on wastewater management is not the main issue.

The main issue is how to create an enabling policy environment in the wastewater arena, where

policies are developed in consultation and applied effectively for people to enjoy the benefits and see

the impact. This needs to be done in partnerships, partnership between users – local governments –

CBOs/ NGOs - public utlities – private sector and acedamic/research institutions, where national

government can play a catalytic role.

These efforts are currently missing in the sanitation sector and need immediate attention.

The general awareness, advocacy and incentives for achieving ‘cleanliness’ are not prioritized or

adequately recognized. Therefore, each household tries to discharge their wastewater outside their

fencing wall. The cummulative effect of the same in Ger areas are alarming. The possible option to

collect wastewater and treat the influent through biological treatment mechanisms, followed by drying

of the digested sludge is practiced. No deficiencies exist in the conceptual part. But, almost all plants

are running below their planned efficieny. This is due to lack of proper policy environment,

implementation and effective quality control.

78 Extracted from: Mongolia Urban Development and Housing Sector Strategy, TA NO. 4352-Mongolia, Final Report, Volume I, Prepared for

Asian Development Bank and Ministry of Construction and Urban Development, Prepared by PADCO, 2 May 2005.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 62 of 65

All of these above concerns need to be discussed and addressed – but not in a same forum with

water supply or excreta disposal, which often takes away the focus from wastewater management to

either water supply or excreta disposal system79. Following sector forum, the possible and more

effective feasible options for wastewater in Ger areas can be evolved for application.

Lastly, it is important to change the mind set of existing sector partners, many of whom do not

see “waste as resources”. Global experiences show recycling of wastewater is not only ecologically

feasible, but also advisable in the perspective of a fragile eco-system. In Mongolia waste is still seen

as only an object that needs to be got rid off. It requires further discussion to change the mind set of

some professionals and senior decision makers to make the wastewater management system more

effective, economically beneficial, environment friendly and sustainable.

5.3 Some Potential Options

It is essential to organize a sector forum on wastewater management with special emphasis on Ger

areas. However, people in Ger areas, cannot wait for this sector forum to happen. Therefore, some

poential options are suggested for application in Ger areas, which need to be further discussed,

validated and refined in future sector forums on wastewater options.

Depth of

Groundwater or

Impervious Layers

Acceptable

Disposal Method Amount of Quantity

of Wastewater

discharged

Materials required

for Construction Remarks

Potential Options for individual households in Ger areas:

1.6 m – 2.0 m Soakage Trench Less than 50 litres

per person per day,

but more than 5 litres

per person per day

Gravel, pebbles,

concrete or hollow

blocks, perforated or

open-jointed sewer

pipe, galvanized metal

pipe with 50-100 mm

diameter extending

from dwelling to

trench, broken bricks,

grass, straw.

2.0 m or more Sump (drum-type) Less than 5 litres per

person per day

200-litre old used oil

drum, with wooden or

metal cover.

2.0 m or more Sump (pit-type) Less than 5 litres per

person per day

Concrete or hollow

blocks, bricks, stones,

gravel or pebbles, with

wooden or metal

cover.

2.0 m or more Soakage Pit Less than 50 litres

per person per day,

but more than 5 litres

per person per day

Rocks, straw, hay or

grass, clay, plastic or

galvanized metal pipe

(50-100 mm diameter)

long enough to extend

from dwelling to pit.

Soakage Trenches are

0.6 – 1.0 meter deep

and shallower than

drum or pits. Therefore,

soakage trenches are

suitable where ground

water is between 1.6 m

– 2.0 m. However while

designing soakage

trench/pit or sump, it is

important to consider

an additional retention

time of liquid during

winter, when liquid will

freeze immediately

after entering into to

above mentioned units.

79 The recently organized national consultation workshop was the first attempt to bring all the stakeholders together to map out the overall

scenario on hygiene and sanitation with special emphasis on Ger areas. As a result, various guidelines and documents have been

developed and the current situation on wastewater revealed. The proposed sector forum on wastewater management will be a follow-up

activity of the first consultation meeting to keep the momentum going to address the Low Cost Sanitation Solutions for Ger areas.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 63 of 65

Depth of

Groundwater or

Impervious

Layers

Acceptable

Disposal Method Amount of Quantity

of Wastewater

discharged

Materials required

for Construction Remarks

Potential Options for individual Public Toilet in Ger areas:

1.6 m or more

Mini Filtration System

Less than 50 litres per

person per day, but

more than 5 litres per

person per day

Gravel, pebbles,

concrete or hollow

blocks, galvanized

metal pipes and fittings,

concrete slabs,

rounded shaped

thermocols with

mosquito net.

Salient Features:

Screening

Floating Filtration80

Primary Sedimentation

Raised Mound

System81 [specially

effective for Ger areas

with natural slopes]

Secondary

Sedimentation

Discharge to open

drains

1.6 m or more

Vetiver Grass

Technology

(VGT)

Less than 50 litres per

person per day, but

more than 5 litres per

person per day

A native grass of India has traditionally been in use in

India for contour protection and essential-oil production.

Taking clues from its traditional usage in environmental

protection, The World Bank initiated several projects in

India in 1980s for systematic development of Vetiver

Grass Technology (VGT), now popularly known as

Vetiver System (VS). Large-scale developments have

since taken place in the advancement of VS in

environmental protection; highlighting that vetiver: (i) is

native to hygro-environment such as wetland, lagoon

and bog, (ii) is extremely tolerant to drought as well as

waterlogged/submergence conditions, (iii) is effective

for soil and water conservation, and (iv) is endowed with

excellent biological features to ameliorate wastewater

and pollution mitigation. In cold place like Mongolia,

similar Jiji grass, a `cold vetiver' for cold region has

been discovered. It is found in even in saline soils in

northwest China, such as, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia,

Xinjiang Provinces and it grows extremely well. The

grass has strong, deep (at least 3 meters), profuse

roots and is completely drought proof, and withstands

extreme cold82.

80 Vietnamese innovated a filter, consisting of round-shaped thermocol (polystyrene) between mosquito nets and tied horizontally with ropes

inside primary sedimentation tank just below its outlet to arrest colloidal and suspended matters, which reduces loads on bio-filtration.

81 Source: The schematic diagram extracted from the book “Out in the cold”: http://www.who.or.id/eng/contents/aceh/wsh/books/oitc/oitc.htm

82 Source: Meeting Report: Vetiver system ecotechnology for water quality improvement and environmental enhancement.

For details visit: http://www.vetiver.com/CHN_nanchangcon.htm

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 64 of 65

PART E: HOW TO CONVERT ‘INFORMED CHOICE’ INTO PRACTICE?

The development of ‘sanitation informed choice’ is part of an overall community-based low cost

sanitation approach. The usefulness and impact of ‘sanitation informed choice’ depends on various

factors that need to be taken proper care of. These factors are briefly highlighted below.

Key Factors Past Trend in Mongolia Proposed Trend in LCS/CLIP in Mongolia

Planning

Top-down from central level,

driven by external support.

Bottom-up ‘demand driven approach’ is introduced in planning:

from community to Khoroos, upto central level.

Focus of Activities

Quick construction of

latrines.

Thrust is more on behavioral change through proper hygiene

awareness with rapid response to demand for building latrines.

Target Areas for

Government Services

Mostly accessible, better-off

Khesigs.

Focusing on equity: poor and rich, man and women, adult and

child, normal and disabled.

Decision-making

Project Team with support

from ESAs decides and

promotes ‘single technology’.

Set of options (sanitation informed choice), which are

technically suitable, culturally acceptable and economically

affordable are offered to households and community. It is upto

each household to decide for their own latrine and wastewater

facilities.

Financial Scenario

Subsidized by the Project –

community pays as little as

possible and thus, has less

accountability.

Project will provide some seed money to community as a

‘revolving fund’ to disburse ‘minimum subsidy’, which will be a

part (may be 50%) of ‘minimum technically feasible option’ to

the poorest households. This means that if a family chooses a

VIP latrine worth of US$ 220, the family will still receive a

‘subsidy’ on the basis of 50% of the ‘minimum technically

feasible option’, may be i.e., US$ 110. Therefore, the family will

receive US$ 55. This amount will be paid as a loan and

therefore, the family should return back this amount may be in

24 - 36 monthly installments. How it will be collected and by

whom need further discussions. However, where maximum

number of households is poor, ‘out-put-based award’ system

can also be offered, meaning if the whole area (may be 150 -

200 families) achieves eradication of open defecation, a special

award may be given with prize money. In this case local cross

subsidy might be generated for poorest families by richer ones,

to achieve a prestigious reward from the national government.

These financial mechanisms and incentives are not yet fully

discussed and agreed upon. This will be done during Start-up

workshops of LCS/CLIP Project.

Management of

latrine systems

Weak and non-existent. ‘Sanitation teams’ will be formed at the household level to

support and coordinate sanitation services.

Partnerships with other

government agencies and

mass organizations

Partnerships exist mainly

between the government

agencies.

New partnerships will be developed between: users-CBOs/

NGOs – government agencies – private sector. In future

attempts will be made to expand the partnership with Mass

Media.

Partnerships with ESAs Project specific. Programmatic.

Private enterprise Limited. Requires Policies, strategies and regulatory body to make PPP

effective.

National standards Few national standards – not

properly disseminated and

also out-dated.

Requires Policy and Strategies on LCS, than standards to keep

the Programme on track, but also allow flexibilities and

innovations.

Diversity in Staffing Mainly engineers. Variety of mix: social scientists, engineers, economists, gender

specialists, communication specialists etc.

Learning Process Individual Project or

Consultant Report.

Proposed continuous learning process by organizing sector

forums, joint review missions, case studies, annual review

meetings and regular networking.

Shift in Paradigm

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 65 of 65

PART F: GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

The new approach urges the Project Management Unit (PMU) to organize series of Start-up

Workshops with stakeholders and potential users to prepare detailed Project Implementation Plan

(Plan of activities) with following details:

Finalize the co-sharing pattern of improved sanitation services (what will be contribution from

project and how, and how much will be shared by communities/ households, who will handle

the fund at local level).

Disbursement plans.

Procurement Plans83.

Training Plans.

Hygiene Awareness plans with indicators to measure progress.

Sanitation Improvement Plans with indicators to measure progress.

Learning Plans.

Implementation of Khesigs/Khoroos Hygiene and Sanitation Action Plans.

Implementation of Khesigs/Khoroos Hygiene and Sanitation Action Plan

The responsible CBOs (hired by PMU) in consultation with INGOs, communities, private sector,

Khesigs and Khoroos leader will develop these action plans, which will be monitored on day-to-day

basis by the local ‘sanitation teams’. The PMU will oversee the whole activities.

It is important to highlight at the conclusion that the assessment of progress on sanitation

need to be measured both in terms on quantity and quality with proper emphasis on assessing

the behavioral change, which is the key to any sanitation Programme. Therefore, the monitoring

tools like Methodology for Participatory Assessment (MPA)84 can be designed to be “built-in” for

monitoring and evaluation of the progress of hygiene and sanitation improved services.

83 This plan is already existing.

84 Sustainability, Planning and Monitoring, Nilanjana Mukherjee and Christine van Wijk, WSP, World Bank and IRC, March 2003.

Is it not the right moment to start developing the sanitation strategies for Ger areas?

The Low Cost sanitation Project will deliver new innovations. As many ideas will emerge, is it not the right

moment to start planning for developing a vision and strategies for Sanitation Sector in Mongolia, with

special emphasis on Ger areas, where all the emerging learnings from Low Cost Sanitation Projects can be

parallelly built-in?

The National Consultation Workshop held on 31st October 2005 in Ulaanbaatar strongly recommended an

immediate development of Sanitation Strategy.

But still questions remain as to how to start with and who will provide the assistance?

This needs to be addressed by sector partners as soon as possible.

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia Page 66 of 65

Following five documents have been prepared under Low Cost Sanitation Project funded by JSDF.

Documents Produced by JSDF Funded Low Cost Sanitation Project

Target Group

Hygiene and

Sanitation

Situation

Report For Ger

Areas, Mongolia

Manual on

Promotion of

Hygiene and

Sanitation in

Ger Areas,

Mongolia

Manual on Low

Cost Sanitation

Technologies For

Ger Areas,

Mongolia

Community

Dialogue Tool

Kit For Ger Areas,

Mongolia

Guidelines for

Implementation of

Low Cost

Sanitation Project

in Ger Areas,

Mongolia

Community

Field workers from

CBOs/NGOs, Health

workers from

Khoroos/Districts and

PMU USIP2 staff, and/or

implementing agencies

of similar projects.

All stakeholders at

national and local level.

This Publication was developed by the Sanitation, Hygiene and Wastewater Support Service of the World Bank

and funded by the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership (BNWP) in collaboration with the City of Ulaanbaatar's

Project Management Unit of the World Bank financed under the Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement

Project to support of the Low Cost Sanitation and Hygiene Component of the Community-Led Infrastructure

Project that is being financed by the Japan Social Development Fund .

For Further Information please contact

L. Badamkhorloo

Director

Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement

Ulaanbaatar City Bank Building

Chingeltei District

Sukhbaatar Avenue – 16,

Ulaanbaatar 211246, Mongolia

E-mail: usip2@magicnet.mn

Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies For Ger Areas, Mongolia

Mongolia - Manual on Low Cost Sanitation Technologies for Ger Areas (Vol. 3)

Figures

Recommended publications

Sustainable Sanitation Technologies for Vulnerable Peri-Urban Communities in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Mongolia - Hygiene and Sanitation Situation Report for Ger Areas (Vol. 1)

Mongolia - Manual on Promotion of Hygiene and Sanitation in Ger Areas (Vol. 2)

Mongolia - Community Dialogue Tool Kit For Ger Areas (Vol. 4)

Southeast Asia and Sustainable Urbanization (Global Asia, ISSN: 1976-068X, Seoul)