4.2 Second phase response options for water and sanitation

2nd phase options Uses and benefits Constraints and considerations

Water supply

Piped water supply with tap stand, including treatment at storage level Provides 24-hour water supply


Storage provides buffer between source and distribution for settlement and treatment


Reduces walking distances, is an organised distribution with reduced concentration of people at water sources


Eliminates direct user contact with source, thus reducing contamination risk



Needs skilled engineers to set up


Needs continuous maintenance at all levels (e.g. broken taps)


Need to do calculations on yield of sources available to meet peak demand flow rate


Treatment system requires skills, logistics, fuel, equipment and chemicals


Need to train caretakers to do chlorination or other treatment and pump maintenance

Urban piped water scheme Is a more sustainable option in situations where a pipeline already exists


Will likely need to rehabilitate or repair existing pipeline to reach affected locations

Will likely need to support local authority/local water authority to maintain pipeline, or provide materials (e.g. chlorine)
Rainwater harvesting scheme Sustainable option in areas where rainfall is frequent


Fairly easy to control contamination sources

Suitable for remote populations that are ‘cut off’ from assistance

Can be expensive if being implemented at household level


Likely to need to also support a secondary source (e.g. water trucking) in case rainwater storage is depleted

Household water filtration and treatment programme Designed to meet large areas


Suitable where people are home-based


An effective disaster risk reduction measure for populations that are frequently affected by flooding, etc.

Sensitisation and follow-up by hygiene promoters is required to ensure filters are being used correctly


Likely to be very costly


Need to research local supply chains in case filter candles need to be replaced


Pit latrines Quick and relatively inexpensive


No need for de-sludging


Suitable for areas with low groundwater table


Possible to construct slab with locally available materials

Can be used only in certain soil conditions and creates implications for water supply and site planning


Can be problems with smell and flies, and if they are not maintained then people may not use them


VIP latrine Similar to pit latrine, but better quality (reduced smell and flies) with addition of vent pipe from pit Need availability of more materials and additional cost (due to pipes for ventilation)
Eco-san Closed loop system, and there is no need for de-sludging


Can have environmental benefits and is of use for compost


Suitable only if populations are already familiar with use

Needs intensive monitoring and sensitization


Should only be used in situations where families can be assigned to latrine, because dedicated daily maintenance is needed

Pour flush Less smell


Used in situations where it is culturally appropriate and commonly used (e.g. where people will not use toilets if they can see into pit)

Need water supply close by for flushing


Can be blocked easily

Septic tank Can be used in conjunction with pour-flush toilets


Useful in situations where there is a  high water table

Need de-sludging options, including dumping sites


Need skilled technicians/ contractors to build, and detailed drawings beforehand


Very costly and material-intensive