Agree! In many places, the pit latrine is used also as a garbage tank.

Dear Andrew
In the city of Mzuzu, the average number of individuals per household is five.

The average pit volume is 825 L.

The service price for a typical fecal sludge removal job with disposal at the city liquid waste ponds is around US$20 to US$ 30. There is one provider in Mzuzu, and the company’s reach for low-income households is less than 1 per cent of the city’s population.

The contents are dry.

Best of luck with your project.
Rochelle

Oh, one more: what is the frequency of emptying?

Hi Rochelle,

Could you provide a few details about pit emptying in Malawi - what is the typical number of people in a household? What is the average pit volume? What is the consistancy of the contents? What is the cost of emptying? And, where is the exhausted sludge disposed of?

Thanks,

Andrew

An update about this Flexcrevator (pit emptying tool) was recently provided by Giovanna Portiolli. You can access her presentation from the FSM5 conference in February here:
"The Flexcrevator: Development and Field Testing of Mechanized Pit Emptying with Trash Exclusion"
fsm5.susana.org/images/FSM_Conference_Ma...resentation_FdlR.pdf

The summary slide said:
Trash Exclusion mechanism worked in the field; new design ready

- Trash exclusion will
bring multiple
benefits
- Swappable excluder
head to adapt to
specific characteristics
of various pit latrines
- The clearing
mechanism proved to
be efficient in simulated
and real pit latrines
- Opportunity to use the
excluder head in
conjunction with
vacuum trucks (and
basic pumps)

(See more FSM5 presentations here: fsm5.susana.org/en/downloads/conference-materials)

Hello all,

We (Flexcrevator team from NC State) have been quiet for a while as we did field testing of several designs for trash exclusion.
We're happy to report that we have a nearly complete design that we tested in June/July in Kisumu, Kenya, taking the learnings from the previous testing in Lusaka, Zambia.

We hope to present the design at FSM5. Results from testing in Kisumu, Kenya (with assistance from WSUP and KIWASCO) are summarized below:

The prototypes were tested in several wet and dry pits with trash. The clearing auger-Flexcrevator was able to successfully and completely exclude trash in wet pits, with flow rates ranging from 3 to 4 lps. Emptying 1 m3 of FS took a total pump time of 3.8 min, and a total time (including handling barrels) of 27 min. Thus, the pump time was only 14% of the total operation time.

The Flex Excluder was attached to a commercial vacuum truck, and 4.7 m3 of trash-free FS was pumped out in 14 min (5.6 lps). In thicker sludge (> ~12% solids) the flow rates were much lower, ranging from 0.2 to 0.75 lps. Blocking due to fibrous material such as hair and food fiber were also a challenge in thicker sludge. The results of field testing, including the effect of sludge thickness and solids content, hole sizes, auger material, auger clearance, trash types and amounts, deflection vs. clearing, operation, user and customer feedback, among others will be presented at FSM5 (hopefully).

We apologize that we cannot share final design yet- we are in the process of making some tweaks to solve the issue with hair and fiber in thicker sludge (not watery sludge).

Rochelle - thank you ,that is a useful way to think about defining the market for one unit.

Very helpful Georges - thank you! I agree with what you say; I think those are similar thoughts to mine but expressed a lot more clearly. It seems like the next stage would need to a technical validation stage with those 'ideal' partners I think the question applies not only to the Flexcrevator, but maybe also to the eVac, the ROM, the Earth Auger etc.

There are some nifty products out there but the hurdle/expense to actually reach the market post product development seems universally underestimated. Do we have any success stories of new tech penetration via partners in this sector (or similar?!) Do we have any organisations specifically focusing on bridging this early stage market entry gap? Also interested if anyone has recommended reading around this, or indeed, business contacts who have gone through this process with tech before.

@georges in terms of those 'easier' market partners - who do you think we are looking at...
- Sanitation Solutions Group
- Pit Vidura
- Practica
- Sanergy
........?

@shaji - what configuration is preferable to you? Similar to the unit that @JKMakowka pointed out in the thread? That group reconfigured to pump directly to the road. For now the set -up of the Flexcrevator is to those barrels but that suits some markets and not others. I'd be interested to know what set up you would want.

Interesting . Can we change the final shape of the containers.

In my observation in Malawi, towns with a population under 150,000 where pit latrines are a primary household system, only one formal emptying provider and a handful of informal emptiers can be sustained. In town of under 50,000 there are no regular formal providers.

In which case, I see that your ‘technology champions' would need to have a base population of more than 150,000 at least in their startup area.

Rochelle

Hello Nicola,

Interesting question! Just a quick preamble though, I'm not sure how you would go about reaching the market without at some point establishing a company to be the 'technology champion'. It does not have to manufacture the technology (there are plenty of folks that the 'tech champion' could partner with for that), but it would have to as a minimum oversee marketing and sales.

One way to go about it is:
1. identify influential market leaders in different regions (e.g. SSA and Asia) that can prove a strong business case for the technology as *innovators*. Provide them with the technology (for free?) in return for getting hard financial and operational data (partner with a research university?), and allowing access to visitors. There are only a handful of those, so probably very easy to find! They may be social enterprises, utilities, businesses, etc. If they don't have the capacity to give you what you need (data and access), and need some technical support, I'm sure there are non-profits that are keen to help.

2. Define your upcoming customers - both *early adopters* and *major adopters*. Are they existing local businesses, local governments, utilities, foundations, IFIs, all? The challenge with the first category of customer (local businesses) is that even if they do believe in the business case, they may not be willing to take the investment risk required. However, I still think they should be your 'early adopters' - their advantage is that (a) they are much easier to target in the short-term compared to the other customer categories, and (b) you have the opportunity (and thus retain control) to interview / assess their capacity and pick them. Unless there is something wrong with the technology, they would become the foundation necessary for building a good brand (early adopters). To address and mitigate the risk of investment by the business, you might consider designing an enticing financing product. For instance, something like the Rent-to-Own model (rtoafrica.com/).

3. I would target the rest of those customers (major adopters: local government, utilities, foundations, IFIs, non-profits) later, because (a) you have little control of your brand at the crucial time when you're trying to build it (easier to blame the technology rather than the user), and (b) their funding cycles are challenging to align with. You would probably want to start considering them 6 - 12 months before you're hoping for some kind of deal.

I guess all this will need to be put into the business plan of a 'technology champion'. The market assessment you're currently working on could explore these issues (innovators, profile of 'early adopters', risk appetite, potential manufacturing partners, etc.), building the basis for an investible business plan.

Did that come close to answering your question, or did I completely miss the point?

Best,
Georges

Two great points here....
When our pit emptiers in South Africa used an early version of the evac they didnt like it as it took longer to set up and made a lot of mess in the bakkie and in peoples gardens when you disconnected hoses and containers, they preferred manual emptying. You need to look at how emptiers will use the tech beyond operation how the parts fit in and how the come apart, how you clean and store it (sanitation safety planning) and the capex and opex costs.

We had the exact same issue in Rwanda. I actually never ended up totally convinced that the eVac was actually more efficient or cleaner than buckets but we persevered because it brought us legitimacy both in the eyes of the Government and from the customer..and actually that worked out well BUT that won't play in every market right? In Rwanda, this was essential for permission to operate; in Kisumu, Kenya, it was not. As we try to convince Governments to find legalise methods of dealing with pit latrine emptying; the machine can end up a bit tokenistic, but it does the job. I just don't know how 'valuable' that is (I know for sure its of no value without a business case!)

P.S.You're right, the hoses are certainly an issue...and this is not solved.

It might be worth linking with a finance institution or local government who can make the capital investment and rent to pit emptiers. This was one advantage of the a franchise model we could buy the technology and rent it at a monthly fee and if it wasnt fit for purpose the franchisee had not had a major capital outlay. Also with the franchise model it gave us a bulk buy advantage for materials and machinery.

This is also spot on ...but here is my question: this is a technology developed in a University ...without establishing a company directly centred on marketing, manufacturing and selling this, who are likely to be these 'technology champions'? It would take a lot of time, effort and money to set up these systems...and I don't know that I work with many local governments that would be capable of it Would this 'champion' type need to vary country to country based on circumstance. Any thoughts?

Hi Nicola,

I like your approach and I think this is a really well considered bit of kit but from my experience the key thing most of these approaches miss is the infield application after testing, as a purchased product. As you say the number of parts will reduce and new versions are developed and with capital investment in the production. But often in focusing on the technology and a known problem a key use group is missed and that is the purchaser of the tech.

Yes there is rubbish in the pits and most pit emptier's are well aware of the issue and have a system they are using. When our pit emptiers in South Africa used an early version of the evac they didnt like it as it took longer to set up and made a lot of mess in the bakkie and in peoples gardens when you disconnected hoses and containers, they preferred manual emptying. You need to look at how emptiers will use the tech beyond operation how the parts fit in and how the come apart, how you clean and store it (sanitation safety planning) and the capex and opex costs.

It might be worth linking with a finance institution or local government who can make the capital investment and rent to pit emptiers. This was one advantage of the a franchise model we could buy the technology and rent it at a monthly fee and if it wasnt fit for purpose the franchisee had not had a major capital outlay. Also with the franchise model it gave us a bulk buy advantage for materials and machinery.

Hope that helps
Esther