[[File:Susana logo.png|right|90px|Susana logo.png|link=http://www.susana.org/en/]] This article is based on a [http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/797 factsheet] that addresses current developments, challenges, gaps and solutions in the planning and implementation of sustainable sanitation for emergencies and reconstruction situations focusing on low and middle income countries.<br/>
=== 1. Summary ===
Shortcomings of current approaches for emergency prevention and relief include: Insufficient resources invested in sanitation, lack of prioritisation of sustainable solutions, inadequate human resource capacity for urban sanitation in humanitarian agencies and lack of good governance for reducing disaster risks. The last issue particularly impacts the risk reduction potential of countries. To reduce the risk and potential effects of disasters, sanitation solutions need to be robust to buffer against certain challenging environments. In emergency situations, groups with specific needs need to be considered (i.e. children, women, elderly, injured and people with disabilities) and appropriate emergency relief measures for each stage of an emergency situation need to be selected.
*Engage in learning activities and experiment together with other professionals to increase innovation of options.
=== 2. Introduction ===
[[File:Raised toilets haiti.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Raised toilets haiti.jpg]]Sustainable sanitation systems take into consideration aspects of health, environmental resources, economic viability and socio-cultural acceptance as well as technical and institutional appropriateness (SuSanA, 2008).
There is a need for innovation through interaction with experts who are not normally involved in emergency responses, such as private manufacturers, urban sanitation engineers, and industrial designers. This exchange and learning is not that easy as the various actors involved in disaster response usually have little time for networking, research and updating their expertise on other systems. The SuSanA Working Group 8 is aiming to act as an open platform to bring people together with the purpose of pushing towards more sustainable solutions and information exchange.
=== 3. Shortcomings of current approaches<br/> ===
For more details kindly see the [http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1229 factsheet]. [[File:Unusable pit latrine.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Unusable pit latrine.jpg]]
*'''Lack of good governance for reducing disaster risk:''' Bad governance, poverty and corruption make a population very vulnerable to disaster.
=== 4. Resilient and robust sanitation systems ===
[[File:Sewage dumping.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Sewage dumping.jpg]]<span style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px"></span>Natural hazards such as extreme rainfall (leading to floods) and earthquakes do not necessarily result in disasters. They only turn into disasters when human society is unprepared for them, where infrastructure and planning has not been designed to withstand or buffer against them and if society cannot respond or learn adequately.
Interventions in emergencies tend to be managed well when they are implemented by dedicated groups of staff working with small communities with whom they develop clear reciprocal relationships and understanding. Local NGOs already active in the area are often invaluable in mobilising and reaching local communities and building their trust.<br/>
=== 5. Consideration to groups with specific needs<br/> ===
[[File:Child friendly toilet.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Child friendly toilet.jpg]]Further specifications are to be found in the original [http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1229 factsheet].
#People with disabilities, elderly or injured people
=== 6. Solutions for the immediate to short-term stages of an emergency ===
Top priority in immediate emergencies is containing excreta as fast as possible. Defecation fields are frequently mentioned in the literature but are not often implemented. Often the implemented minimum standard is a simple pit latrine structure. In addition, it is necessary to equip each toilet or block of toilets with a hand washing facility with soap. Desludging and safe disposal of the collected excreta is crucial for the mitigation of health risks but is often very challenging.
Desludging is necessary when the containers or pits of toilets are full, and is often done by a fleet of vacuum trucks. There are also manual desludging pumps. A big gap in emergencies is the safe disposal and management of the faecal sludge once emptied from the toilet facilities.<br/>
=== 7. Solutions for the medium (recovery) to long-term stages of an emergency ===
In the medium (6-12 months) to long-term (>1 year) stage of an emergency the situation is stabilised and emergency toilets can be turned into more permanent structures. Ideally, the immediate solutions should be suitable to be adapted. Some examples of sanitation systems used in the past during the recovery or long-term stages include:
*Raised UDDTs
=== 8. Rehabilitation and disaster risk reduction ===
Re-building better after a disaster reduces risks from recurring hazards such as floods. Rehabilitation in urban areas poses very different technical challenges than those in rural environments, but can also be an opportunity. Disasters can thus act like a “wake up” call to trigger more investment in risk reduction, which also decreases the need for response in the future. A lack of risk reduction prior to a disaster makes the response more difficult after a disaster.
The solutions developed can provide livelihood opportunities in local communities for organisations like health clubs, women clubs, artisans, operators, manufacturers and the list goes on. A prime example being the production of toilet slabs which can be set up a few weeks after the disaster event. The motivation and social mobilisation is crucial for successful reconstruction, which also involves reconstructing the local economy and society.
=== 9. Feasibility for reuse of nutrients ===
In the past, UDDTs have been used for sanitation provision during and after the emergency situation. The UDDTs, without reuse activities, were successfully applied in the long-term phase of the emergency with a possibility that the reuse function could be activated later if demanded or feasible (Mwase, 2006)
*Reuse is mainly a household option, but could also be practiced at a communal level if managed correctly by following the existing WHO guidelines on the safe use of excreta in agriculture. Health risks from reuse activities are lower within a single family system compared to communal toilets and where the fertiliser produced or fertilised products are sold to others.
=== 11. Acknowledgements ===
SuSanA factsheet: Sustainable sanitation for emergencies and reconstruction situations. April 2012. [http://www.susana.org/en/ susana.org]
[[File:Susana logo.png|none|150px|Susana logo.png|link=http://www.susana.org/en/]]<br/>