Compost latrines: Frequently Asked Questions

The WELL Resource Centre is frequently asked questions about compost latrines, and have been requested to post some comments on our WELL website (http://info.lut.ac.uk/well/). We therefore wish to find out the views of the members of the network, and hope you will be able to respond to the following brief questions.

1. Do you have any project based experience of the operation of compost latrines in low or middle income countries?
If YES, please answer the questions based on that experience
If NO, please answer whichever questions you can based on your personal understanding of the issues which follow.

Responses were received from people with involvement of knowledge of projects in Ethiopia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, the Pacific, Vietnam, Bolivia, Mexico and other parts of Central America. Some of these projects had been ongoing for many years, while others were only pilot or demonstration projects.


2. What were the USERS PERCEPTIONS of their compost latrines? (Excellent/satisfactory/poor); any comments about their perceptions?
User reactions were reported to be mixed. In general, those who had greater understanding of the concept, and who were prepared to pay attention to maintenance were more accepting of the technology, as it generally meant less smells and flies than with traditional pit latrines. Where compost latrines were an imposed technology, e.g. in refugee camps, it was reported that they rarely worked well. In some cases it was noted that users preferred solutions where they don't see the excreta, or that people were reluctant to handle the finished contents.


3. What reasons or motivation do USERS have for adopting this technology? (For example: Ease of use and convenience; source of income through sale of compost; high level of external subsidy; strong promotion of compost latrines)
Varied reasons were given for people taking up this technology. On the social side, there was often a preference for the sitting position while defecating, and the lack of smells or flies was an attraction. Compost latrines could also overcome technical problems such as terrain unsuitable for pit latrines (shallow depth to rock, high water table, collapsing sandy soil), a lack of water or sewers, or high building density without access roads for latrine emptying equipment. Compost latrines also require minimal space, and are associated with low or no emptying costs. In some areas, the use of the products to renovate poor soil and grow vegetables to generate income was perceived to be a motivating factor, whilst in other places this was seen to have negligible relevance.


4. What day to day operational problems arise in the use of compost latrines? What level of input is required by users?
Each time the latrine is used, ash needs to be added to the faeces, and the lid closed. Other bulky material such as soil, garden and kitchen waste should be added daily. Some communities do not like using dry material for cleansing. The toilet needs to be kept clean, and this is not always done. Users need to ensure that urine is disposed of separately to faeces. The urine collector can become fouled or clogged with ash, and needs to be kept clean.


5. What are the key maintenance issues which the users have to deal with? What level of input is required by users?
The chamber needs to be emptied approx. every 6 months, and the urine container should be emptied weekly. Once a year, change to use alternate chamber. The joint pipe from the urine collector can occasionally become disconnected, preventing the system from working properly. The system needs to be monitored by inspections.


6. Do you have any indication of capital cost, affordability and
willingness to pay?
Few respondents reported actual costs for the system, but comments were made that compost latrines were cheaper, or at least no more expensive, than septic systems or flush toilets. In general, the affordability and willingness to pay of the target communities seems to be unknown, or considered low. Most projects are reported to be fully externally funded, with one requiring some cost sharing by user families.


7. What do you (as a non-user yourself !) perceive to be the three most important benefits of compost latrines?
The major reported benefit is a water saving compared with wet systems, and a consequent avoidance of costs of water supply, and depletion of water resources.

Other mentioned benefits include the lack of smells and flies, production of fertiliser and soil conditioner, promotion of good hygiene, low costs for waste disposal, potentially long lasting, easy installation which reduces dependence on centralised services, and the possibilities for community empowerment and links to programmes addressing urban agriculture and nutrition.


8. What do you perceive to be the three most important dis-benefits of compost latrines?
One of the two major problems with compost latrines is seen to be the need for monitoring and maintenance of the system to ensure that it functions correctly, and doesn't give rise to foul smells. The greatest maintenance issue reported is the need to ensure that the urine collector, which often collects ash, is kept clean.

The other major problem reported is the cultural barrier to people having contact with the wastes during removal of urine and digging out of the compost.

Other issues mentioned are the possibility of compost containing some pathogens even after digestion, and therefore posing a health risk, and the unacceptability of the sight of faeces in the latrine.

Updated 31/01/03

Maintained by f.odhiambo@lboro.ac.uk and j.fisher1@lboro.ac.uk