Sustainable Sanitation Technology: The Ecosan Framework

In my first post, I really tried to contextualise the ‘Why’ and the ‘Where’ of this blog’s grounding. My hope was to demonstrate how pervasive inadequate sanitation is throughout the world and why a focus on Africa is paramount in addressing the issue. In revisiting it, however, I realised that the paraphernalia of sanitation practices had only briefly been mentioned. This felt problematic, as to really do a blog on sanitation surely I would need to establish all the sanitation practices that might be relevant for an enriching discussion? Quickly it became apparent, however, just how expansive the literature on sanitation technology already is, with Mara (2012) showcasing the work already undertaken for urban and rural settings alike. 

So where could my own voice be found?

Unsurprisingly, as a geographer fascinated by the spatial interconnectedness of communities, my answer came through Langergrabera and Muelleggera's (2004) explanation of Ecological Sanitation (Ecosan), which represents a promising re-orientation of sanitary perspectives. Indeed, as highlighted by the authors, Ecosan moves away from historical favouritism of singular technological solutions, to a framework of functionality centered around ‘One Health’. 

So what actually is Ecosan?

Defined by Langergrabera and Muelleggera (2004), Ecosan is a sanitation network that is constructed to produce a cycle. The cycle is a “sustainable, closed-loop system” that bridges the false dichotomy between sanitation and the environment (pg433). Thus, Ecosan closes the local water and nutrient cycles within communities, creating a sustainable process of sanitation (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Linear non-ecological sanitation systems versus circular flowing Ecosan systems (Langergrabera and Muelleggera, 2004)

Importantly, the Ecosan framework achieves this by questioning the efficacy of singular technologies, asking instead how sanitation might be viewed as a resource in different local contexts. Kvarnström et al’s (2011) adapted ‘Sanitation Ladder’ (Figure 2) is therefore appropriate, re-orientating the sanitation focus entirely towards functionality and away from technology.

By doing this, I believe local innovations are inherently encouraged to be the solution, allowing Ecosan to transcend the preconceived notions of what it should be. From neutral wastewater treatment techniques and compost toilets, to household and community specific infrastructure, Ecosan methods produce sanitation that can be sustained in local environments, for local functionalities.

Figure 2: Kvarnström et al’s Sanitation Ladder based on functionality as opposed to technology

So why is this important?

I think the importance of Ecosan emerges from the contextual works of authors such as McFarlane (2008), who note how colonial imaginaries consolidated a binary between clean Europeans and the dirty Other, creating “geographies of contamination”. As a result, Western sanitation technologies emphasising the removal of waste, which had served the 'clean Europeans' so well, often dominate over locally appropriate sanitation practices for those 'Others'. 

With the increasing success of Ecosan concepts, however, there is a growing contemporary recognition that the conventional sanitation systems designed and built on the view of “human excreta [as] waste suitable only for disposal” (Langergrabera and Muelleggera 2004; 433), have actually failed developing nations. 

Here is where Ecosan re-orientates the discourse, swapping ‘waste’ for ‘resource’ and integrating sanitation into sustainable community development. Thus, not only are communities given the means to sustainably develop their sanitary needs, but their sanitary environment is also enriched and given the opportunity to flourish. 

But does Ecosan really work?

Noted by Esrey (2002), Ecosan has witnessed a great deal of success throughout the world, especially in rural areas. This rural uptake is reflected in the research carried out by Trimmer (2015) with their work focussing on Urine-Diverting Dry Toilets (UDDTs) in Kalisizo, Uganda. Here, Trimmer found that despite initial resistance to such toilets, the significantly improve sanitation that emerged from its acceptance also fueled the set-up of further hygienic installations. These included wash stations for hands and menstruation pads, that fostered health empowerment, especially for young girls!!

Alongside rural environments, Meinzinger et al (2008) also exemplifies the successful introduction of Ecosan-based urine-separating toilets for numerous Ethiopian urban areas. Here, following the introduction of Ecosan toilets, offices quickly realised their advantages and developed a pay for use system that negated existing pit latrines. Simultaneously, private households (including multi-story buildings) adapted the technology for themselves, enabling them to have more independence from irregular water supplies. 

Given such evidence, I am hopeful in Esrey’s (2002) optimistic belief  - “it is not a question of whether or not ecological sanitation will be adopted in urban areas; [but] a question of when it will be adopted’ (225). 

So where have we landed?

In the context of Africa, I think Ecosan provides fantastic opportunities for communal evolution, integrating local knowledge systems and the surrounding geography into a framework of holistic health protection. As suggested in my first blog, the rural-urban dichotomy also forced us to consider the translation of sanitation across space. Objectively, Ecosan can navigate this, representing a flexible framework malleable to community needs. However, what happens when those needs are not openly discussed? Here lies the prompt for my subsequent blog!