Which Would You Choose?

Latrine A, on the right, was dug and built by the government at the primary school at which Shunta (left) is director.  It has three "stalls" for girls and three for boys. The floor is concrete and the roof and doors are sheet metal. It has a ventilation system that helps reduce odor and flies.  They have even installed a hand-washing station with two sink basins.





Latrine B, on the left was dug and built by the young man in the blue shirt. It is a simple pit design with a wood slab covered in mud.  The walls and roof are minimal at best.  It serves his entire extended family of 10 people, including a a grandfather whose legs are paralyzed.





So, which did YOU choose?  Would it surprise you to know that I prefer Latrine B?  Let me give you a few reasons.  First, this young man built this latrine because he was aware of the need for sanitation for his family and community.  He located it a safe distance from all homes and water sources, and dug it to a proper depth to avoid contamination and yet provide adequate capacity for his family for several years.  The family doesn't need walls because the location itself provides excellent privacy.  The jug on the ground is the grandfather's "chamber pot" which has been emptied in the latrine.  On the far right is a tippy-tap for hand washing.  Most importantly, the family USES it.

Latrine A? Its huge pit has filled with rainwater and groundwater during the rainy season to within inches of the top. This not only reduces the capacity, but brings the waste to the surface making it unhealthy to use this latrine.  Further, take a look at this latrine with the same basic design:

It was located at a high school nearby, which was sited in a field that is inundated during the rainy season.  (I know, because we slogged through it to reach this latrine!)  The walls of the pit collapsed due to the runoff from the roof and ground, the pit filled with water, and the entire structure collapsed into a cesspool.  Latrine A could suffer the same fate if drainage issues are not addressed.

One of the goals of our training was to encourage our participants to think in new ways about what makes a "good" or "bad" latrine.  The "best" latrine built in the wrong location is of no use whatsoever, and can even be a hazard.  (Would you want that in the playground of your child's school?)  But it's not enough to just pick apart failures.  The children at that school deserve proper sanitation!  So, we had our participants brainstorm to come up with solutions to take back to the high school.  The first suggestion was to move the entire school to a better location, which we heartily agreed with!  But we encouraged them to come up with a solution for the present location.  Their favorite was a dry-composting latrine in which the storage "pits" are actually above ground.  We left the training unsure about the future of this particular site, but VERY sure that our participants are prepared and and enthusiastic about tackling even the most challenging sanitation problems with flexibility, creativity, and participation from the communities.

Defining "Success"

I returned last Tuesday evening from a very successful trip!  Usually, as team leader, I define "successful" as bringing back the entire team in one piece, not losing the money, and not causing any international incidents.  In this case, however, I saw success in a different light.  Most of our trainings follow fairly closely to a "script" as outlined in the curriculum we are using.  This time, we had no script.  This was "advanced sanitation" training, as requested by the participants themselves.  Thus, the first task was to learn from them about the successes and challenges that they've had in implementing our previous training.  Linda, our lead trainer, had designed an "inquiry" format where we asked various questions designed to inspire open discussion in an encouraging environment.  We spent most of the first day learning from them about what they felt that they needed.  We also spent a long day in the field visiting latrines that had worked well and some that most definitely had not.  Our lessons were designed to draw out from them the solutions to the problems that they had encountered, rather than just telling them our "expert" opinions.  While this was a challenging approach, we felt that it was the only way to leave them feeling equipped and confident in themselves and each other when this final training ended.

The worst part of this training approach was that it was totally out of our control.  The best part of this training approach was also that it was totally out of our control! We were completely dependent on God throughout the planning and training.  We never knew what challenges and creative ideas would surface on any day.  None of us knew exactly why we were on this team, or exactly what our "roles" were.  We didn't even have a defined goal.  And that was exactly where God wanted us to be.  We were very intentional about turning all of this over to Him, and following His leading when He chose to give it, wherever it might take us.  And, not surprisingly, He blessed us tremendously for our obedience and faithfulness.

When we received feedback from the participants at the end of the week, we were encouraged - and relieved - to hear that they felt that this training was exactly what they had needed, and that they felt equipped and eager to return to the field to try some new creative approaches.  For me, this was an affirmation of this entire training project that began in February 2010.  All of the community development principles we had sowed and cultivated were bearing fruit, and God was glorified in the process.  That is the greatest success of all.