Revision history [back]

One from someone in our Malawi team

There was a debate that rumbled on at a recent Joint Sector Review meeting about latrine slabs. One side felt ‘impermeable’ latrine floors could mean only sanplats constructed from cement, plastic or burnt bricks, whereas the others thought compacted mud could provide a surface that could be cleaned, kept free of faecal matter and therefore be classed as impermeable. It was all a bit inconclusive as neither side provided evidence to back up their positions, so it turned into a “I’m right” “no, I’m right” sort of chant.

I’ve done some searching on the internet to try and find research into the prevalence of pathogens and faecal matter on different types of latrine floors, but haven’t had any success. Do you know whether this is a common discussion elsewhere, or whether any research has been done around the question? Through WASHcost and the post 2015 monitoring discussions, I’m aware there has been some talk about ‘service levels’ rather than technologies, but the service ladder also distinguishes basic and limited service (in part) through whether the slab is impermeable. While I realise mud is permeable, and would be difficult to clean with water, it seemed there were some quite strongly entrenched opinions on the subject. It wasn’t clear to me at the time whether those arguing in favour of classifying compacted mud as impermeable were supporting CLTS-type projects, but it was suggested afterwards that it could have been a possibility – so they were seen to be promoting basic, rather than limited, services.

If you are able to point me in the direction of any research or documentation, I would really appreciate it. And sorry for asking a very basic question!

One from someone in our Malawi team

There was a debate that rumbled on at a recent Joint Sector Review meeting about latrine slabs. One side felt ‘impermeable’ latrine floors could mean only sanplats constructed from cement, plastic or burnt bricks, whereas the others thought compacted mud could provide a surface that could be cleaned, kept free of faecal matter and therefore be classed as impermeable. It was all a bit inconclusive as neither side provided evidence to back up their positions, so it turned into a “I’m right” “no, I’m right” sort of chant.

I’ve done some searching on the internet to try and find research into the prevalence of pathogens and faecal matter on different types of latrine floors, but haven’t had any success. Do you know whether this is a common discussion elsewhere, or whether any research has been done around the question? Through WASHcost and the post 2015 monitoring discussions, I’m aware there has been some talk about ‘service levels’ rather than technologies, but the service ladder also distinguishes basic and limited service (in part) through whether the slab is impermeable. While I realise mud is permeable, and would be difficult to clean with water, it seemed there were some quite strongly entrenched opinions on the subject. It wasn’t clear to me at the time whether those arguing in favour of classifying compacted mud as impermeable were supporting CLTS-type projects, but it was suggested afterwards that it could have been a possibility – so they were seen to be promoting basic, rather than limited, services.

If you are able to point me in the direction of any research or documentation, I would really appreciate it. And sorry for asking a very basic question!

One from someone in our Malawi team

There was a debate that rumbled on at a recent Joint Sector Review meeting about latrine slabs. One side felt ‘impermeable’ latrine floors could mean only sanplats constructed from cement, plastic or burnt bricks, whereas the others thought compacted mud could provide a surface that could be cleaned, kept free of faecal matter and therefore be classed as impermeable. It was all a bit inconclusive as neither side provided evidence to back up their positions, so it turned into a “I’m right” “no, I’m right” sort of chant.

I’ve done some searching on the internet to try and find research into the prevalence of pathogens and faecal matter on different types of latrine floors, but haven’t had any success. Do you know whether this is a common discussion elsewhere, or whether any research has been done around the question? Through WASHcost and the post 2015 monitoring discussions, I’m aware there has been some talk about ‘service levels’ rather than technologies, but the service ladder also distinguishes basic and limited service (in part) through whether the slab is impermeable. While I realise mud is permeable, and would be difficult to clean with water, it seemed there were some quite strongly entrenched opinions on the subject. It wasn’t clear to me at the time whether those arguing in favour of classifying compacted mud as impermeable were supporting CLTS-type projects, but it was suggested afterwards that it could have been a possibility – so they were seen to be promoting basic, rather than limited, services.

If you are able to point me in the direction of any research or documentation, I would really appreciate it. And sorry for asking a very basic question!