Faecal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief - Technology Comparison Study
Arup and Oxfam (2019)
Published in: 2019
Pages: 51
Publisher:
Arup and Oxfam
Author:
Arup and Oxfam
Uploaded by:
SuSanA Admin
Partner profile:
common upload
4350 Views
188 Downloads
Location of library entry
On behalf of Oxfam, Arup have conducted a technical comparison study on Faecal Sludge Management at the Rohingya camps close to Cox's Bazar (CXB), Bangladesh. The aim of the study is to draw conclusions on best practice FSM for disaster relief, from evidence gathered through practical experience. The study used existing available data to inform the analysis and in many cases these datasets are limited. The findings from the report should therefore be treated as provisional and are relevant to the particular context of the situation at CXB.
Over 20 operational FSM sites were visited in CXB, constructed by eight different NGOs and using eight different technologies. The eight FSM technologies were:
1. Constructed Wetlands
2. GeoTubes
3. Lime (Three main types; lagoons, in barrel and three tanks)
4. Anaerobic Lagoons
5. Aerobic Treatment
6. Upflow Filters (Two main types; with and without pre-settlement)
7. Biogas
8. Anaerobic Baffled Reactors (ABR)
The FSM technologies were compared against a set of indicators including; cost, footprint area, speed of construction and commissioning, operation and maintenance issues, pathogen inactivation and resilience to natural disasters.
A scoring of 1 (most effective) to 5 (less effective) has been given to each
technology for each indicator. For longer term i.e over 2 years, decentralised
FSM technology, the Upflow Filters score well against a number of the key
indicators and are therefore considered an effective ‘all round’ FSM technology.
The Aerobic Treatment and Anerobic Lagoons scored similar for centralised
treatment. The lagoons scored slightly better as the technology is simpler
operate and maintain. Although these technologies have the lowest/best
scoring they still have limitations and selection should be informed by site
conditions.
It is considered that in the immediate phase of an emergency Lime treatment is
still the appropriate FSM technology choice due to its speed of set up, stability
of the treatment process and effluent quality. However due to the high OPEX of
Lime it is not appropriate to use it as a longer-term solution i.e. after one or two
years.
This report was commissioned by Oxfam GB
and was delivered in partnership with Arup.
On behalf of the study team, we would like
to thank many people for supporting this
project including those from the following
organisations; Oxfam Bangladesh, United
Nations High Commission for Refugees,
International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, WaterAid, Practical Action,
NGO Forum, UPM, International Organisation
for Migration, UNICEF, BRAC, Solidarités
International and BORDA.
The project team included Justin Abbott
(Arup), Salahuddin Ahmmed (Oxfam), Mana
Bala (Oxfam), Andy Bastable (Oxfam), Eleanor
Earl (Arup), Tim Forster (Oxfam), Anna Grieve
(Arup), Hamish Hay (Arup), Inigo Ruiz-Apilanez
(Arup) and Roman Svidran (Arup).
Bibliographic information
Arup and Oxfam (2019). Faecal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief - Technology Comparison Study. Arup and Oxfam
Filter tags
East Asia & Pacific English Faecal sludge treatment processes
