Sanitation 21 planning framework - IWA

Sanitation 21Simple Approaches toComplex SanitationA Draft Framework for Analysis

Sanitation 21Sanitation 21Simple Approaches to Complex SanitationA Draft Framework for AnalysisCONTENTSPREFACE 4FOREWORD 5Executive Summary 61 Background 71.1 The Scale of the Problem 71.2 Benchmarking a ‘Good’ Sanitation System 81.3 Areas of Controversy 82 Why Do ‘Well-designed’ Urban Sanitation Systems fail? 92.1 Introducing a Problem 92.2 The gap between households and urban systems 102.2.1 The Household Focus on Health 102.2.2 The Utility manager’s focus on the external environment and finance 112.2.3 The Resulting Gap 112.3 Lack of Flexibility 122.4 Inertia and Capacity 132.5 In Summary: Matching Supply and Demand 143 The Framework 15PART ONE: The Context 153.1 Decision Making Domains 153.2 Objectives and Interests 153.2.1 Developing a checklist 153.2.2 At the Household Level 163.2.3 At the neighbourhood and ward/district level 173.2.4 The city 173.2.5 Beyond the City 173.3 External Influencing factors 18– –

Sanitation 213.4 Actors, Mandates, Manpower and Budgets 183.5 The Context Checklist 19PART TWO: Technical Options 193.6 The components of the system 193.7 The system as a whole 193.8 Making use of some Generic systems 203.9 Management Requirements 24PART THREE: Fit for Purpose? 243.10 Does It Meet Objectives? 243.11 Do the Management Requirements Match? 253.12 Does it/ Will it work? 254 Using the Framework 254.1 Simple depiction of a complex problem 254.2 Steps in an Approach 254.3 Case Study Examples 295 Conclusions 335.1 It all adds up to good planning 335.2 Thinking ahead 33Annexe One: Summary Terms of Reference for the Task Force 34Annexe Two: Preliminary Analysis of Drivers at each Levelin the Sanitation System 35Annexe 3: Analytical Tools to Use at Each Level 36– –

Sanitation 21PrefaceIWA represents a key group of actors in thecompelling development drama of sanitation;namely the engineers, water scientists andtechnicians who often carry much of theresponsibility for decisions about sanitationinvestments. Over the years a number of IWASpecialist Groups have grown up to addressparticular elements of the technical challengeassociated with sanitation. However, until nowthere has been no Specialist Group dedicatedto examining the overall challenges of sanitationplanning and design and able to provide supportand guidance to members to improve the qualityat-entryof sanitation investments, particularly inlow-income areas in and countries with low GDP.In recognition of this, IWA has instituted a TaskForce to consider this challenge (see Annex 1 forthe terms of reference). The members of the TaskForce are listed below. This paper represents asummary of the key ideas developed by the CoreGroup of the Task Force to date and is currentlysubject to review by the Advisory Group and alsothrough an open process of discussion at the IWACongress in Beijing.The paper is intended to help IWA members andinterested professionals think about how excretamanagement could be better planned so thatinvestments are more likely to generate the neededhealth and environmental benefits. It focuses on aparticular topic and context which is of relevanceand interest to IWA members and which is notspecifically covered by an existing IWA specialistgroup:Topic: management of human excreta !The Task ForceCore Group MembersAndrew CottonBarbara Evans(Core Group Leader)Andreas KnappTove LarsenDarren Saywell (Secretary)Rebecca ScottLászló Somlyody(Chair)Markus StarklSteven SugdenAdvisory GroupMembersMogens HenzeGoen HoZaini JangPeter KolskySaburo MatsuiRalf OtterpohlRolandSchertenleibPeter WildererChristian ZurbruggAdditional contributions of Brian Reed aregratefully acknowledged.Context: dense settlements with multi- layeredsanitation needs (i.e. urban utility settings, townsand small urban settlements, rather than ruralcommunities).The paper is intended to be used as a startingpoint for discussion and debate amongst sanitationprofessionals, it does not offer a ‘solution’ butrather, in recognising the complexity of thechallenge, it offers a framework which can be usedto develop appropriate, sustainable and effectivesolutions tailored to a specific time and place.1 While excreta management is impacted by other environmental services including water supply, stormwater drainage, solid waste management andsullage management, this wider arena of environmental sanitation is beyond the remit of the existing working group.– –

Sanitation 21ForewordThe debate around the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) has thrown into sharp relief theenormous development task which faces the worldin reducing poverty. In the run up to the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development intenselobbying from sector professionals resulted in theinclusion in 2002 of sanitation as a specific MDGtarget alongside water. This decision reflects thecrucial importance of sanitation both in its ownright (conferring as it does dignity, privacy, safetyand convenience) and its central role in achievingother goals (health, education and povertyreduction in particular).However the sanitation challenge remainsenormous for a number of reasons not leastbecause:(1) Coverage of sanitation in urban areas in generalis low and even where reported coverage is highthe quality of service is often very poor;(2) the challenge of serving urban populations isgrowing both because of urbanisation and theincreasing degree to which cities and townsare characterised by unplanned and informalsettlements (in other words, the real challengeslie in the slums, illegal settlements, unplannedareas and growing peripheries of cities where‘conventional’ approaches to sanitation havedemonstrated extremely limited impact); and(3) The challenge of serving both rural and urbanpopulations is concentrated in the poorestcountries that lack the institutions, andparticularly the financial means to supporteither massive public or widespread private/household investment.Frustratingly much of the investment which ismade may be wasted either because sanitationsystems fail to reach a significant percentage ofpeople living in the areas they are expected toserve or because management requirements of theinstalled systems do not match the capacity andresources of the actors expected to manage themand they rapidly fall into disrepair.During 2006 an IWA-constituted Task Force hasbeen grappling with this challenge. The Task Forcehas begun to develop an analysis of what is goingwrong and how better approaches to sanitationplanning could improve the ‘quality at entry’ ofsanitation investments. The Task Force workedthrough real-life case studies and built on the workof existing groups to identify a framework whichcould be used to both to analyse a citywide systemand also to assess elements within that system;importantly the framework can also be used toidentify a development path over time.The framework addresses some key failings incurrent approaches which result in a mismatchbetween the stated objectives of investmentsand the outcomes. It puts the focus on results –effective and workable sanitation systems which areproperly used - based on the real situation on theground rather than the imposition of pre-selectedtechnologies. It also enables the interests of peopleengaged in sanitation from the household down tothe city and beyond to be reviewed and balanced.The work of the Task Force is of course only afirst step in this process but we hope that themembership of IWA will respond to the challengeswhich the task force has identified and committo working towards improved quality of planningand design in urban sanitation systems so that thecommitments made at the Millennium Summit canbe met.László SomlyódyIWA President– –

Sanitation 21Executive SummaryConventional approaches to sanitation planning anddesign seem to fail with depressing regularity. Indeveloping utility situations where coverage is low,the norms and approaches that are being appliedin general seem to result in too frequent failureswhich either sees the perpetuation of low accessto services, or short term failures in operation andmaintenance.Current technical planning and design practices,based as they are on logical normative technicalplanning approaches, seem to be failing because:• the objectives upon which decision are basedare distorted by special interests, or by apoor understanding of the real needs of thepopulation,• they result in plans which do not respond tothe rapidly changing urban context and diverseconditions which pertain in modern urbanspaces;• they fail to make a realistic assessment of shortterm inertia which impedes capital investment;and• They result in systems which place an unrealisticmanagement burden on all levels of the city.In this document we argue that improving thequality and effectiveness of sanitation investmentsis not particularly about technologies (althoughthe appropriate application of technology isimportant) rather it is about developing an explicitunderstanding of what the objectives of a systemare and then designing a system which meetsthose objectives. We should not be surprisedthat significant investments in wastewatertreatment plants often do not result in significantimprovements in access to sanitation services.Likewise we cannot expect subsidies which helppoor families to construct on-site latrines to resultin better overall sludge management in the city.The Sanitation 21 Task Force argues that technicalplanners and designers have to get smarter atplanning systems which respond to the needs ofthe modern city. This requires a sea-change in theway technical decisions are taken, so that they canrespond better to the human and political contextin which they are made. Yet, paradoxically, whatwe are proposing is not rocket science; it’s not verynew at all. It draws on well-established principles ofgood planning and design practice from within thetechnical world and also from much thinking in thedevelopment world 1 All we are really saying is ‘let’sdo planning and design better.’We lay out an approach which:• promotes an analysis of the objectives of asanitation system across all domains of the city,including the household (other domains includethe neighbourhood, city and beyond the city)• promotes an analysis of the external drivers andcontexts which impact on behaviour in eachdomain• analyses technical options in terms which relateelements of the system to these domains• encourages a realistic assessment of themanagement requirements in each domain; andthen• Prompts the planner/ designer to ask, will it work?Are the management requirements matched bymanagement capacity throughout the system? Iswhat we are proposing fit for the purpose?We hope this publication will form the basis for areal discussion amongst practitioners, designersand planners, so that sanitation investments in thiscentury can be effective at meeting the needs ofthose who are currently unserved.1 In particular for example Albert Wright, SSP, Roland Schertenleib/ John Kalbermatten, HCES, Steven Esrey Closing the Loop etc.– –

Sanitation 21605040302010Sanitation 211 Background1.1 The Scale of the ProblemThe scale of the problem is enormous. This isbecause urban populations are growing, urbanareas are becoming increasingly informal andcoverage (our starting point) is extremely low,with the main challenges focused in the poorestcountries.Urbanisation: There is no doubt that one ofthe defining characteristics of the late 20th andearly 21st centuries has been the rapid rate ofurbanisation. During the 20th century, the world’surban population increased more than tenfold.Today, nearly half the world’s population lives inurban centres, compared to less than 15 percent in1900 (see Table 1 and Figure 1) ).Growth of slums: Within cities themselvesexclusion and marginalization of the poorestappears not only to be deepening (the gapsbetween rich and poor widening) but alsospreading, so that an increasing percentage of theurban population is living “outside” the systems offormal service provision. UN-HABITAT estimates% of total population which is urbanOceaniaNorthern AmericaLatin America and the CaribbeanEuropeAsiaAfricaFig1 Data in Table 1 and Figure 1 are derived from United Nations2004 and cited in World Water Development Report 2005 Chapteron Water and Human Settlements (forthcoming). Figures forrural and urban populations for 1900 are drawn from Graumann,John V. (1977), “Orders of magnitude of the world’s urban andrural population in history”, United Nations Population Bulletin 8,United Nations, New York, pp. 16‐33. Data for 2000 are aggregatenational statistics, many of which draw on national censuses heldin 1999, 2000 or 2001 – but some are based on estimates orprojections from statistics drawn from censuses held around 1990.There is also a group of countries (mostly in Africa) for which thereare no census data since the 1970s or early 1980s so all figuresfor their urban (and rural) populations are based on estimates andprojections.Urban population (millions of inhabitants)Table1Region 1950 1970 1990 2000 2010Africa 33 83 199 295 417Asia 232 486 1012 1367 1770Europe 280 413 516 529 534Latin America andthe Caribbean70 163 314 393 472Northern America 110 171 214 250 286Oceania 8 14 19 23 26World 733 1330 2273 2857 3505indicate that in 2001, 924 million people, or 31.6%of the world’s urban population, lived in slums. Indeveloping regions, slum dwellers account for 43%of the urban population. If current growth rates aremaintained, by 2030, half of humanity will be slumdwellers.Low Coverage: The percentage of this urbanpopulation which is served with improved sanitationis difficult to determine. Official data are analysedand presented by the ‘Joint Monitoring Program’(JMP) of UNICEF and WHO . A summary of thelatest data for urban sanitation coverage is shownin Table 2 and illustrates the magnitude of thechallenge; in 2002 more than a quarter of the urbanpopulation in developing countries was recordedas not having access to improved sanitation, fewerthan 40% had a house connection.Low Coverage correlates with poverty: Table 2also shows us that the situation is even morecomplicated for the least developed countries.Most observers suggest that the situation mayin fact be much worse, since coverage of urbanareas is often counted in terms of whether asettlement has a system in place sometimes withlittle attention to the status of the system, ratherthan by assessing household access to services.The correlation shows even more clearly in Figure2 which relates sanitation coverage against GDPand population. The figure indicates the generalcorrelation between low coverage and low GDP percapita. More specifically: http://www.wssinfo.org/en/welcome.html The quality andreliability of the data in the JMP data set is subject to much debateand there is no doubt that the real picture may be slightly different;but in one essential aspect JMP tells the right story; the challengeis enormous and, at least in Africa, still growing.– –

Sanitation 210-80% 0-90%0-70%0-100%600-60%0-50%0-40%0-30%Fig2Sanitation (%)40200-20%0-10%Sanitation Coverage andWealth: All countriesgrouped by cumulativewealth decile showing% sanitation coverage,average GDP percapita and cumulativepopulation.1000200030004000500060002000GDP (US $/capita)4000Population (million)6000• About one-fifth of the world’s population, livingon approximately US$500 capita/pa, have justabove 20% access.• This figure rises to approximately 4 billionpeople (two thirds of humanity) living onapproximately US$1000 capita/pa, with only50% access to sanitation.• The figure points to the redundancy of hightechnology, high cost solutions for the majorityof the world’s poorly served inhabitantsMoreover, these figures tend to mask the factthat (a) the quality of the coverage, the extent towhich the sanitation systems which count towardscoverage may be inadequate or sub-standard, andthat (b) there is divergence between the relativerate of coverage and the rate of urban populationgrowth (that is the rate of growth outstrips the rateof supply).1.2 Benchmarking a ‘Good’ SanitationSystemIn this paper we are going to discuss the manythings that a ‘good’ sanitation system needs toachieve. To start at a simple level however, wecan consider this definition (see Box 1) taken froma popular document widely used in the sanitationsector in developing countries :1.3 Areas of ControversyThis simple description however conceals a widerange of differing interests and incentives. Inrecent years the immense complexity of thisdiscussion has occasionally been stereotyped into aconflict between those who promote ‘conventional’networked sewerage and waste water treatmentand those who promote ‘closed loop’ systemswhich in various ways seek to reuse the nutrientsin human wastes as close to their origin aspossible (see Box 2). But this stereotyping doesBox 1A sanitation system:• Collects excreta• Transports it to a suitable location and/or stores it fortreatment• Treats it• Reuses it and/or discharges it to the environmentA good sanitation system also minimizes or removeshealth risks and negative impacts on the environment. Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion - Programming Guidance(2005) Authors: USAID, WSSCC, UNICEF, WHO/PAHO, WEDC, theWater and Sanitation Program (WSP) and the London School ofTropical Medicine and Hygiene JMP Data. There has been much discussion about thedefinition of access to ‘improved sanitation’ systems, For thepurposes of JMP reporting an ‘Improved Sanitation facility’ maybe connection to the public sewer, connection to a septic system,pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine or ventilated improved pitlatrine. JMP describes public or shared latrines, open pit latrinesand bucket latrines as ‘Unimproved sanitation facilities’.– –

Sanitation 21There is rarely much concern for the widerenvironment of the city or downstream areas.Where competent utilities are operating and thereis a history of environmental management, thissimply translates into household willingness topay (usually through a sewerage ‘cess’ – a tax orfee) for the utility to ‘take care’ of downstreamissues. Where there is no ‘trusted’ or competentutility provider this translates into households orneighbourhoods discharging wastes downstreamto contaminate the next quarter of the city or town(see Figure 3 on previous page) .2.2.2 The Utility manager’s focus on theexternal environment and financeBy contrast service providers, often utilities, mayhave a focus on water management rather thansanitation provision, resulting in a particular focuson networked solutions. Even where utilities orservice providers focus on alternative sanitationoptions external drivers such as environmentallegislation, regulation or technical norms andstandards may result in decisions which donot take household interests fully into account.Financial structures which steer investmentsfrom national to local governments may alsohave a bigger impact on investment decisionsthan household needs. Furthermore techniciansmay sometimes concentrate on designing themost efficient and technically elegant solution.These institutional constraints are significant andseem disproportionately to result in a decision tobuild a wastewater treatment plant. This, in turndetermines the selection of the collection system This diagram is taken from the DFID Guidance Manual onWater Supply and Sanitation Programmes LSHTM/WEDC 1998.Section 2 of the guide provides and excellent summary of thehealth-analysis which drives much sanitation decision making andhas contributed to the thinking about this framework.(usually a sewerage network), the layout fortrunk sewers and hence local technical choicesfor collection further upstream. Finally, at thehousehold domain, options have been narrowed tothe use of a water closet and a sewer connection,with all their associated financial implications.Many poorer households or those without waterconnections are automatically excluded. Ininformal settlements where the utility cannot or willnot construct sewers the result is no connectionand no service. Thus it happens that the utility/city may have met a set of reasonable criteria andconnected hardly anyone.2.2.3 The Resulting GapThus investments made at one ‘end’ of thesystem may have neutral or even negativeimpacts at the other end. Left without accessto sewerage, households or communities mayinvest in local solutions (onsite pit latrines, localinformal sewerage etc) which, since they are notofficially recognised as part of the system, are atbest unregulated with pit wastes and effluents forexample being ‘dumped’ on downstream areas.Meanwhile utilities who invest heavily in expensivereticulated sewerage and costly wastewatertreatment systems may seek to raise tariffs to offsetthese investments, or may charge high connectionfees, or may exclude households who live ininformal unplanned settlements from connecting– thus creating multiple barriers to householdsaccessing an ‘improved service.Alternatively utility managers may decide toencourage and support the development ofon-site systems but fail to put in place sludgemanagement strategies.Box 3: Kibera – People in the WayIn Kibera, Nairobi almost a million people reside in an unplanned and technically illegal settlement, manyhouseholds have constructed rudimentary pits and many people make a living emptying them. Furthermore Kiberaresidents have consistently resisted removal and redevelopment efforts and represent a potent political force inthe city. Nonetheless the city master plan depends on a network of trunk sewers, some passing through an areaof well-planned housing right where Kibera lies today. Since these trunk sewers are a key element of the Nairobisanitation system Kibera effectively prevents the development of the ‘ideal’ solution. As a result utility investmentsin sanitation for Kibera are more or less stalled despite goodwill on all sides to improve the situation.– 11 –

Sanitation 21Box 4: Development of Reticulated Sewerage in Western Europe and AmericaThe most widely used sanitation system in the developed worldconsists of toilet, sewerage, wastewater treatment and sludgemanagement. Its development has a long history. The epochmakinginnovation of the flushing toilet dates back to the end ofthe 16 th century (though in a primitive form it was already usedin the Royal Court of Minos, 3700 years ago). Its widespread useis the consequence of dramatic epidemics in the 19 th century:the solution to this problem was by the combined applicationof toilets with a collection network which efficiently and safelyremoved pollutants and pathogens from homes. The systemclearly depends on the use of large amounts of water as atransport media which obviously becomes contaminated.Increased organic loads in rivers (such as the Thames,Ohio etc.) and their severe impacts (oxygen depletion, fishkills, unbearable smell etc.) led to the first introduction ofwastewater treatment after the turn of the century. Activatedsludge processes were discovered at the beginning of the 20 thcentury, but the widespread application only took place duringthe 1960’s and ‘70’s. For instance, the first, relatively smallmunicipal wastewater treatment plants in Vienna and Budapeststarted to operate in the 1960’s when the core of the seweragenetwork was already nearly hundred years old. The largecentral plant in Vienna started to operate at the early 1980’s,while an extended, advanced version came into production in2005. Due to political and economic reasons, the developmentin Budapest was much slower: the treatment ratio remained 30% for a long time; at present it is close to 60 % and will reach95 % in about five years time when the new central plant in theSouth of the city will be completed.Conventional sanitation is probably the only system which iswidely and reliably used. It is “hidden”, safe and an obviouspart of our comfort with negligible or modest environmentalimpacts. Thus, seemingly it is the “perfect” solution. But isthis really true in practice? The answer is “no” and reasons aremanifold: (i) water consumption is high, (ii) the sewer networkis expensive, (iii) maintenance is often neglected leading toin- and ex-filtration, and related problems, (iv) rehabilitationof ageing infrastructure requires tremendous investments - aserious issue of today in many parts of the world, (v) the idealimplementation model is missing nearly all the time: partial,often distorted infrastructure can cause severe pollution andother problems, and (vi) the system is not flexible and can notbe adjusted to conditions changing over its long economic life.This is manifested in the developing world through frequentoverloads, while in the Central and Eastern European countries;the huge reduction in wastewater generation due to proper waterprice setting after political change is the problem. Changingconcepts - sustainability - and new technological options whichwould call for and allow closed water and material cycles onthe household level also belong to this category. We need tocope with conventional sanitation where it exists, but would wedesign new systems on the basis of the same principles from the19 th century? And which concept would we follow for large scaleand long term future rehabilitation?Either way the end result is a system with a ‘gap’– a failure to connect target households to city-widesystems. The gap is critical; it prevents householdsfrom realising the health benefits they desire, andit prevents cities from realising the environmentalbenefits they have planned. It results in enormouswasted investment and may even result in aworsening of both the health and environmentalconditions in a city .2.3 Lack of FlexibilityThe interests and incentives of households andutilities are not fixed. Over time the urban systemis dynamic. Population growth, new settlements,formalisation of slums, redevelopment of inner-cityareas, economic growth, commercial developmentand changing policy priorities will all change the No-one knows the full extend of this ‘failed’ investment, butmany sector practitioners recognise that it is very large indeed andmay dwarf the effective investments which have been made overthe past 25 years.way households and cities relate to sanitation.For many technicians used to working with wellestablished mature utilities this dynamism comesas a surprise. Typically master plans propose anidealised end-point (almost invariably sewerageand centralised wastewater treatment) and asequence of development steps to reach that endpoint, without taking into account the future growthand changing aspirations of the city. This idea of‘staged development’ simply as steps towards afixed end point fails to recognise two crucial facts.First that everyone, from the household to the citylevel, may change their interests over time andsecondly that there is rarely a ‘greenfield’ sanitationsite to start with. In most areas people haveinvested in some sort of sanitation even if it is onlyof the most basic kind (see Box 3)Lessons from history should teach us that thedevelopment of ‘conventional’ sanitation in manywestern cities was itself the product of a dynamicand practical approach. Given more than a– 12 –

Sanitation 21Box 5: Are we dealing with Single Sanitation Systems?The answer is no: due to reasons of historical development, variable population density within a city/settlement andmany other reasons, mixed schemes exist most of the time. By way of example, we can use the case of Hungary wherethe last two decades have brought tremendous developments. Sanitation is based on conventional systems approach.The overall setting is probably typical for Central Europe and a large part of the old continent. What can we see in thesummary table below?Ratio of population connected to the collection network in Hungary, depending on settlement sizesSettlement size No. of settlements Sewerage %Budapest 1 95> 100 000 8 8225 000 – 100 000 39 7310 000 – 25 000 93 635 000 – 10 000 141 442 000 – 5 000 500 39We note that with decreasing settlement size, connection to the sewerage system is decreasing while sanitation issolved one way or another nearly everywhere. Thus in the > 2 000 population range, 5 % to 60% of the populationrelies upon a system other than conventional. It is a septic tank combined with wastewater transportation to treatmentplants which is accepted by legislation in many countries in Europe or on-site treatment depending on groundwatervulnerability. On average in towns above 100 000 inhabitants, about 20 % of the population use local solutions,but this ratio for individual cases may reach 40 %. In the course of the coming decade sewerage and wastewatertreatment will be further developed (the present country wide connection level is close to 65 %), but the presence ofmixed systems will remain for economic and other reasons. In reality, we have mixed solutions operating nearly allthe time.100 years of reliance on networked sanitationhowever, this understanding appears to have fadedfrom the collective professional consciousness(see Box 4). Furthermore the idea that a singleunified technological approach is necessarilyappropriate for the entire urban space has clearlybeen demonstrated to be faulty (see Box 5) butstill apparently features in many discussions andsanitation master plans.2.4 Inertia and CapacityIn addition to this ‘mismatch’ between theobjectives of different domains of the city, thereis also the problem of inertia. Since householddemand for sanitation is often suppressed, theremay be little upward pressure on city governmentsand utilities to ensure that sanitation investmentsare made and made effectively. Furthermore, asattested by the proceedings of almost every urbansanitation workshop held in the last 20 years,roles and responsibilities for sanitation in urbanareas are often poorly articulated, conflicting andmismatched with staff and financial capacities tofulfil them. The result, in the absence of a clearbudget line in a competent agency, is inaction andworse, a resistance to action, since everyone’sresponsibility becomes no-one’s responsibility.When action is taken, poor planning and lack offocus on long-term operation and maintenancerequirements may often result in the constructionof sanitation systems whose requirements faroutstrip the capacity of the relevant agency. Thisis the underlying reason why we often find sewagepumping stations operating with the wet-wellin flooded condition, and the upstream sewerssurcharged; to reduce the electricity bill of theutility’s district office. This is also why trunk sewernetworks may lack branches and branches maylack connections; because there are no staff andno funds to extend the service up to the household.This is why on-site sanitation systems may fill upand pits remain full, or sludge may be removedby households and dumped into the storm drains;simply because there is no budget and no staff fordownstream sludge management.While the international conferences call for bettercoordination, it may be more pertinent to call forgreater accountability to deliver a project with well– 13 –

Sanitation 21articulated objectives, a clear budget line for capitaland operational expenses and more realism whenassessing the management requirements of newbuildsanitation systems.2.5 In Summary: Matching Supply andDemandIn summary current practice, based as it is onlogical normative technical planning approaches,may often fail to because:• they do not take into account the mismatchbetween the objectives which drive investmentdecisions across the domains of the city, allowingone set of objectives to outweigh another;• they cannot respond to the rapidly changingurban context and diverse conditions whichpertain in modern urban spaces;• they fail to make realistic assessment of shortterm inertia which impedes capital investment;and• they result in systems which place an unrealisticmanagement burden on all levels of the city.In short, looking back at Figure 3, what wecommonly find are systems which across alldomains of the city fail to match the supply of anappropriate service to the demands and capacitiesof the actors in that domain. Understandingthis dynamic better is essential if the quality andeffectiveness of sanitation investments is to improveand if objectives are to be widely met (see Box 6)Box 6: Matching supply and demandSupplyDemandA recent analysis of sanitation inDar Es Salaam showed that far fromthe supply of services reachinghouseholds (see left) there was atotal mismatch between the limitedsupply of networked sanitation andthe strong demand for servicesfrom households (see below).The weak regulatory and policyenvironment did little to change thestatus quo. (For more informationsee section 4.3 below).Policy and RegulationSupplyDemandPolicy and Regulation– 14 –

Sanitation 213 The FrameworkIn this section of the document we have drawnon the arguments in Section 2 above to developan approach which could improve the quality-atentryor planning of urban sanitation systems. It issimple, and based on principles of good planning,but clearly the gaps we have identified suggestthat good planning must sometimes be missingin reality. In the following three sections we willsee how to analyse context across the domainsof the city; how to develop or evaluate a range oftechnical options and then use a simple frameworkto show that optimum solutions are those wherethe latter satisfies the former across all domains ofthe city.PART ONE: The Context3.1 Decision Making DomainsTo help understand how interests and incentivesplay out across the city, we have used a simplifiedversion of Figure 3 where the city is divided intofive domains. In reality the domains of a cityvary enormously with social and political normsand structures, so this approach can be appliedflexibly to the situation that the reader is actuallyconsidering. IN general however in the sectionsbelow the following generalised terminology is usedto describe the domains of the city:• Household to describe the personal spherewithin which households (families, individuals,small units etc) take investment and behaviouraldecisions;• Neighbourhood/ ward/ district to describe acontinuum of ‘areas’ within the city at whichlevel households either act jointly, are jointlyrepresented by the political process or can beorganised for planning purposes;• The City to describe the level at which servicesare centrally planned and organised, andfinancial decisions are taken; and• Beyond the city to describe the sphere in whichpolicy and practice is set which impacts ontodecisions made at the city level.3.2 Objectives and Interests3.2.1 Developing a checklistAs we already saw in Section 2 there are a widerange of interests and objectives which maycome into play when an urban sanitation systemis being planned. These variable interests arisepartly because there are usually a number of‘stakeholders’ or interested parties each of whomhas a different perspective on the problem. Forexample, while the elected government of themunicipality may have an over-riding interest incleaning up the city and preventing outbreaksof disease, the river basin authority may bemore interested in preventing pollutants fromentering the basin system . Beyond health andthe environmental protection, other interests fordifferent stakeholders may include:• Economic development• Improved water resources management• Poverty reduction• Improved urban planning or• Reducing operational costsThe way different interests play out depends toa large extent on power relations and incentivesbetween actors in different domains. The interestof a design consultant to minimise reputationalrisk by recommending a ‘conventional’ solutioninvolving networked sewerage with limited technicalinnovation may, for example, outweigh the interestsof poor households whose interests are to gainprivacy and dignity while minimising upfront costs.Thus poor households may remain excludedbecause connection fees to the network areprohibitively high.Annexe One contains a summary of our preliminaryanalysis and discussion about how differentinterests/ objectives are likely to impact on systemdecisions in each domain of the city. The analysisis discussed briefly in the sections below andsummarised in Table 3. The analysis will also vary enormously in different contextswhich have differing institutional arrangements.– 15 –

Sanitation 21Checklist of Contextual FactorsDOMAINHouseholdNeighbourhoodWard/ DistrictCityBeyond the cityINTERESTS/ OBJECTIVESPrimary• Status• Cleanliness• ConvenienceSecondary• Health (secondary)Primary• Status• Cleanliness• Community servicesSecondary• HealthPrimary• Status• Cleanliness• HealthSecondary• Environmental protection• Economic developmentPrimary• Environmental protection• Economic development• Formalisation of the city• Health• Utility cash flowSecondary• Achieving water security/food security• Promoting urban andrural developmentPrimary• Environmental protection• Economic development• Achieving water security/food securitySecondary• Achieving equity andincreasing access• Meeting the MDGsContextExternal influencing FACTORS• Levels of poverty• Access to serviceproviders• Influence ondownstream systems• Land Tenure• Levels of poverty• Access to serviceproviders• Influence ondownstream systems• Relations with the city(political and social)• Financial structures• Decentralisation• Economic priorities/profile• Strength of externalpolicy driversNOTE also the importanceof seemingly insignificantpolicies which often drivetechnical decisions.• Economic priorities/profile• International/ regionalwater sharing issues• Political prioritiesCAPACITYActorsMandateHuman ResourcesBudgetGender relations, decision makingwithin the household, householdfinances.Interests likely to be highly dynamicover time.Community cohesion is important.Role of wards in local politicalprocessesLocal budgets/ links to community/ability to raise funds locallyThis level of analysis may notalways be relevantCity institutions may themselves bedisparate and even in conflict. Mayinclude elected body, administrativebody, utility etc.River basin management is usuallyweak, particularly institutions.Basic environmental legislation mayover-ride holistic planning. Alsoconsider power relations betweenthe city (both institutions andindividuals) and external/ nationalinstitutionsTable33.2.2 At the Household LevelHouseholders usually change their attitude tosanitation over time so understanding householdinterests is not a static one-off exercise. Commonlyhouseholds are interested in improvements totheir immediate environment, including improvingprivacy and safety for family members as wediscussed above. Marketing experts understandthat the level of household interest (demand) willbe dynamic and depends on:• Awareness - household knowing that sanitationgoods/services exist and have benefits whichcould satisfy their interests (usually status,– 16 –

Sanitation 21cleanliness and convenience/ privacy/safety,occasionally health).• Priority – household having sufficient cash andinterest to steer expenditure towards sanitation(i.e. deciding to build a latrine rather than buy asewing machine or an extra TV)• Access – households being able to get theservice (households may place a priority onsanitation but they will not make an investmentif they cannot find a mason to build a toilet or ifthey do not meet legal requirements for a formalconnection to the sewerage network for example• Influence – households may often hesitate inmaking an investment in sanitation if they areunsure about the ‘downstream’ system. Forexample where utilities have a poor reputationfor operating and maintaining collectorsewers households may not want to invest ina connection if they feel they are powerlessto influence the utility’s performance in theirarea. Such hesitations are often overcome forexample through the intermediation of a localcouncillor who can act as an intermediary fora poor community with the utility company.Utilities which develop a track record of goodperformance may find it increasingly easyto encourage households to connect to theirnetworks.Households who have no prior experience of aworking sanitation system thus move graduallytowards being willing to invest in householdlevel infrastructure and services. Their attitudeat any time is impacted both by internal factors(household knowledge, wealth, priorities) andexternal factors (performance of the city/ utility,availability of artisans etc) .3.2.3 At the neighbourhood and ward/district levelThe interests of the neighbourhood are still likelyto be heavily focused on cleanliness and statusand some urban communities also see collectiveservice delivery as a means to general stronger While it may seem strange for professionals working in areaswith well established sanitation systems that households maybe unwilling or unable to make investments in sanitation, it isimportant to recall that for most cities it is less than a 150 yearssince the existence of networked sanitation began to becomea norm, and in many cases less than 75 years since internalplumbing became standard for new-built dwellings.social cohesion; part of the development processitself. However, the ability of communities toexpress ideas and act may be severely constrained.Many have other priorities and in many casesthere is in fact no ‘community’ at all – simplypeople living in the same area in an atmosphere ofextreme stress.Like households though, community attitudesand interests change over time and are stronglyaffected by external factors such as levels ofpoverty and the nature of city authorities andutility service providers. Community capacitiesand cohesion may grow with other developmentactivities.The importance of the political ward/district willvary in different institutional contexts. In many casesthe boundaries between the ‘community’ and theward are blurred, particularly where local electedcouncillors are active. Interests at this level are stilllikely to focus on cleanliness and status but may alsoinclude health, particularly where responsibilities forhealth services are devolved to this level.In reality there may be one or more than onedomain at this level – each case needs to beassessed individually depending on the dynamicsof communities and the realities of politicalorganisation in any given city.3.2.4 The cityThe objectives of city authorities are stronglyimpacted by (a) who those authorities are and(b) the external incentives they face throughhigher levels of government (incentives whichmay be created by financial flows, penalties,electoral relationships and law). Generally at thecity level the focus shifts markedly away fromconvenience, status and access, towards protectingthe economy and environment of the city, andmeeting externally-established targets. Health alsobecomes more prominent here, as major outbreaksof disease impact directly on the political credibilityand economic attractiveness of the city. Wherefinancially independent utilities exist, financialconsiderations will also come into play at this level.3.2.5 Beyond the CityFinally beyond the city, considerations around themanagement of water resources, food resources,– 17 –

Sanitation 21the protection of the environment and macrodevelopment considerations (usually focusedon economic development) come into play. Atthis level primary objectives are rarely to do withhousehold access and are concerned with theimpact exerted by the city on wider society. Heathand access will remain secondary concerns ofcourse; most national governments are stronglycommitted, at least on paper, to a generalimprovement in health status and in meeting theMDGs. Relationships with water users downstream(which may be international users) may alsoimpact at this level.3.3 External Influencing factorsFrom the above sections we can also see that inaddition to internal objectives, for actors at eachlevel there are external factors which tend toinfluence decision making. Many of these createincentives for actors to make particular decisions.For example poverty, tenure security or insecurityand the relationship with service providers willall influence how households act even if theirobjectives are clear. Further ‘downstream’ externalpolicy drivers become more important so thatwards may be influenced by city politics andcities by national policies, financial structures andeconomic priorities. Interestingly it is probablyonly at the ‘beyond city’ domain that internationalcommitments to targets such as the MDGs becomerelevant.A key group of external influencing factors can becategorised as technical norms and standards –either those practices which have become standardthrough widespread application, or those which areenshrined in technical standards, design manuals,standard bills of quantities and sometimes even inlaw. Technical norms and standards can influenceboth the types and levels of service which are putin place and which ‘count’ towards national orlocal targets, and can also influence the cost ofdelivering certain types of service, thus influencinginvestment decisions. While written norms aredifficult to deal with, unwritten ones may be harderstill (see Box 7)A checklist of indicative external influencing factorsis shown on Table 3.Box 7: Standards andRegulations – checks andbalances or barriers toinnovation?In El Alto, Bolivia, a partnership between thewater operator, the regulator and civil societygroups, with support from external supportagencies, was required to introduce andnormalise the use of condominial sewers toserve an area of the city which had very lowcoverage. The local population were unwillingto adopt any form of on-site sanitation dueto their cultural beliefs, but there was initialreluctance on the part of the water company toprovide conventional sewerage which, due thedemanding technical standards in place, had avery high investment cost. Furthermore, very lowwater consumption cast doubt on the viabilityof conventional sewers. By creating political‘space’ for innovation, the external supportagencies were able to facilitate a change inapproach which has ultimately resulted in achange in Bolivia’s national standards to allowsome forms of shallow and condominial sewers.By contrast in Linz, Vienna, an innovativeattempt to equip a new area of housing withecological toilets employing urine separationhas fallen foul of external concerns about thesafety of reusing human excreta in agriculture.A lack of formal consultation early in theprocess may have resulted in construction ofa system which, while viable, cannot be usedeffectively.For more information see TF case studiessummarised in Section 4.33.4 Actors, Mandates, Manpower andBudgetsThe final group of crucial contextual factors relatesto the capacity of actors in each domain. Capacitycan be analysed using full-blown institutionalanalysis but this sometimes generates such awealth of information that key issues get lost. Thekey question is; at this level, who are the actors– 18 –

Sanitation 21who have an interest in promoting or hinderingprogress on sanitation and what are their capacitiesin terms of mandate, staff power and skills andcrucially funds.3.5 The Context ChecklistBased on our interpretation of the order ofimportance of interests, external factors andcapacity considerations we have developed thefollowing generic checklist (Table 3). Table 3can be used as a starting point for assessingthe context within which sanitation systems areoperating. Clearly the details of the analysis willvary between different towns and cities. Thebroad outline however holds good for a widerange of cases and is worth examining in detail.A range of tools are available for assessing thedrivers/objectives in detail at each level. These aresummarised in Annexe 2.PART TWO:Technical Options3.6 The components of the systemIn systems-terms sanitation consists of somecombination of:• A toilet• Collection mechanism• Transportation mechanism• Treatment process• Disposal/ re-use mechanism/ process.Engineers or technicians generally considerthemselves familiar with the full range of technicaloptions for each of these components. However, inmany cases, they exhibit biases which may excludesome options from consideration altogether. Toillustrate, a list of technologies taken from a recentpublication on ‘Smart Sanitation Solutions’ isshown in the first column of Table 4. Alternative Smart Sanitation Smart Sanitation Solutions - Examplesof innovative, low-cost technologies for toilets, collection,transportation, treatment and use of sanitation products (2006)NetherlandsWater Partnership, WASTE, PRACTICA, IRC and SIMAVI. Thispublication as its title suggests is an excellent introduction andpractical guide for use of more innovative and less ‘conventional’technologies which can have many advantages in the rightcircumstances. The authors are clearly aware of a much widerrange of options but have chosen to focus attention on nonnetworkedsolutions because of the relative lack of attention theyusually attract.options, taken from a more ‘conventional’ sourcewith a focus on networked sanitation are includedin the second column of the table. Both lists havemerit in their own right – for the situations forwhich they were developed. But it only when theyare taken together that the two columns begin toshow a more comprehensive listing of technicaloptions; and even then the list is probably notcomplete. Taken alone neither column presents thefull picture.This table also illustrates an interesting effectof making the fundamental assumption thatnetworked conventional sanitation is to be used;options for wastewater treatment proliferate,but options further upstream are extremelyconstrained. For example water borne seweragerequires water flushed toilets and its useprecludes most other toilet options. By contrastnon-networked and dry systems present morechoices and options at the toilet/ collection endof the system while also offering some additionaltreatment/disposal/ re-use options.3.7 The system as a wholeOf course, technical choices made for eachcomponent of a system are highly interdependent(no engineer would suggest the need for a cartageapproach if water closets are in use). But iftechnical assumptions are fixed and not challengedsome of the objectives of the sanitation systemwe discussed earlier may not be achievable. Toexpand on the example given above, if only waterflushed toilets can be used because networkedsewerage has already been selected, then onlypeople with house connections to the water systemare likely to be connected to sanitation. If theutility only serves 40% of the population, thenthe remaining 60% are by definition not goingto benefit from investments made in sanitation.Similarly, if water flushed toilets are the norm anda networked sewerage system exists, but there isneither land nor operating budget available to runa wastewater treatment plant, then downstreamwaterbodies are going to receive large volumes ofuntreated effluent and environmental objectivesmay not be achievable.The challenge for the planners, designers andmanagers of the system is, while understanding allthe drivers and options, to balance the objectives– 19 –

Sanitation 21Some technical options for components of the sanitation systemNon-networked and nonconventionalNetworkednetworkedToilets • Dry toilets• Water closet (various types)• Dry urine diversion toilets• Pour flush slabs• Waterless urinalsTable4Collection • Fossa Alterna• Oil drums and containers• Vaults and Chambers• Collectors/ secondary sewersTransportation • Cartage systems• MAPET and Vacutug systems• Settled sewerage (smalldiameter)Treatment/ reuses• Co-composting• Dehydration• Planted soil filter• Anaerobic digestionDisposal/ re-use • re-use of wastes in gardens,urban agriculture or sale toagricultural market• Main sewers• Sewerage pumping stations• Baffled reactor• Upflow anaerobic filter• Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor• Facultative and maturation waste stabilisation ponds• Constructed wetlands• Duckweed ponds and other aquatic plant systems *• Disposal to downstream areas• Some reuse of sludge* These last two are not strictly ‘conventional’ but are definitely only appropriate for use with networked systemsand identify the optimal solution for a givensituation at a given time.Further challenges and constraints arise from whatmight be considered more ‘conventional’ technicalconsiderations – including ground and groundwaterconditions, availability of water, social practices,and the need to handle grey water and stormwater.3.8 Making use of some Generic systemsTo avoid the need to consider every permutationof technical components even where these are notrealistic, various publications and organisationshave developed generic urban sanitation system‘types’ which can be used to simplify the planningprocess. To assist with the discussion here we areadopting this approach and have identified eightgeneralised system types. These are summarisedbelow and in Table 5.ON-SITE DRY SYSTEMSDry systems are appropriate where water is notrequired for anal cleansing. A simple or double pitlatrine is used, with urine infiltrating away throughthe bottom and sides of the pit. Excreta are storedfor a period during which treatment occurs andthe material can subsequently be re-used as asoil conditioner. The level of treatment will varyand some latrines use composting technologyincluding the addition of materials such as ash ororganic matter which improve the quality of theend product. Particularly in urban areas, wastesfrom simple latrines may be collected (using handcarts or similar) and transported to a location in theneighbourhood or ward for decentralised treatment,often using composting technologies.An advanced form of dry sanitation uses a speciallydesigned latrine pan to separate urine and faeces.Urine is then available for use as a fertiliser, whiles– 20 –

Sanitation 21Sanitation Systems TypologyTable5SYSTEMGeneral DescriptionTechnical optionsToilet Grey water Stormwater1AOn-site dryDry latrineshygienisation andre-use of excreta ingardens.Twin pits or ,composting toiletInfiltration, onsitereuse or dischargeinto drainsOnsite reuse,infiltration ordischarge intodrains1BOn site dry with(semi-) centralisedtreatmentDry latrines, collection& treatment offaecal sludge atneighbourhood or citylevel before reuse inagricultureSimple pit latrinesInfiltration ordischarge intodrainsInfiltration ordischarge intodrains1COn site dry with urinediversionHH latrine with urineseparation. Onsitereuse of urinein garden. Faecesdehydrated on-site.Possible reuse onsite orfurther downstreamUrine separatinglatrines, cocompostingtoilets,twin pitsTreatmentand reuse athousehold level(eg constructedwetland)Infiltration ordischarge intodrains2AOn site semi wet(pour-flush)Latrine system at hhlevel with infiltration ofliquid wastes, emptyingof faecal sludgewhen full (additionalhygienisation?) andreuse in garden ordisposalTwin pit pour flushor similarInfiltration, onsitereuse or dischargeinto drainsInfiltration, onsitereuse or dischargeinto drains2BOn site wet with(semi) centralisedtreatmentAs 2A with faecalsludge evacuationsystem, transportand treatment onneighbourhood orcentralised level beforereuse in agricultureTwin pit pour flushor similar mayhave septic tank orABRMixed withblackwater andtreated on hh orneighbourhoodlevel, infiltrated orreused in gardenand agricultureOn-site use orinfiltration as in1A; discharge intodrains, possiblereuse in agriculture3AWaterborne with(pre) treatment and(semi) centralizedtreatmentToilet with on-site pretreatmentlinked tosmall bore seweragesystem.Pour flush or flushtoilet with septictank/ vault orsimilarMixed withblackwater andtransported fortreatmentDischarge intodrainage.3BWaterborne with(semi) centralizedtreatmentSame as 3A howeverwithout pretreatmenton hh level and usessimplified sewersPour flush or flushtoiletOn-site use orinfiltration as in 1A;or else dischargeinto drains forevacuation anddischarge insurface water orreuse in agricultureOn-site use orinfiltration as in 1A;or else dischargeinto drains forevacuation anddischarge insurface water orreuse in agriculture3CWaterborne withcentralized treatmentFlush toilets andconventional combinedsewersFlush toiletMixed with blackwater in the sewerMixed withblackwater– possibility ofstorm-overflow anddischarge to waterbodies.– 21 –

Sanitation 21Sanitation system options and Management RequirementsDOMAIN1A Onsite DrySanitationElementsManagement1B Onsite Dry with semi centralisedtreatmentSanitationManagementElementsHouse-HoldToiletCollectionTreatmentDisposalMEDIUM:Management andreuse of pit wastesToiletCollectionMEDIUM: Responsibleuse of the toiletNeighbourhoodOption 1TransportTreatmentDisposal orRe-useWard/ DistrictHIGH: Responsibilityfor management of pitemptying and treatmentfacilities (could becommunity/ districtgovt or small scaleprivate operation)CityOption 2TransportTreatmentDisposal orRe-useHIGH: City responsibilityfor treatment (with localcommunity or privatesector) collection,or possible privateoperation of treatmentBeyond thecitySub-Option 3TransportRe-useHIGH: Base decisionon whether there areacceptable disposal/ reuseoptions?Table61C Onsite Dry with urine diversion 2A Onsite semi wet (pour flush)SanitationElementsOption 1ToiletCollectionTreatmentRe-useManagementHIGH: Household useof urin divering toiletand management ovurine and feaces reuseSanitationElementsOption 1ToiletCollectionTreatmentRe-useManagementHIGH (1) MEDIUM(2): Responsibleuse of the toilet,management ot twinpits, re-use of treatedwastesOption 2TransportRe-useMEDIUM: Wherehouseholds have nodemand for re-useoncsider if there areoptions for re-usefurther downstream.If so what arethe managementand regulationrequirements? (couldbe community/ districtgovt or small scaleprivate operation)Option 2TransportRe-useMEDIUM: Wherehouseholds have nodemand for re-useoncsider if there areoptions for re-usefurther downstream.If so what arethe managementand regulationrequirements? (couldbe community/district govt orsmall scale privateoperation)Sub Option 3Re-useHIGH: Is there amarket for re-use ofmaterials?Sub Option 3Re-useHIGH: Is there amarket for re-use ofmaterials?– 22 –

Sanitation 21Sanitation system options and Management Requirements (cont.)2B Onsite wet with (semi) centralisedtreatmentDOMAIN SanitationManagementElementsHouse-HoldToiletCollectionMEDIUM: Responsibleuse of the toilet –requires adequate waterNeighbourhoodWard/ DistrictOption 1TransportTreatmentRe-useHIGH (1) LOW (2):Where households haveno demand for re-useoncsider if there areoptions for re-use furtherdownstream. If so whatare the management andregulation requirements?(could be community/district govt or smallscale private operation)CityOption 2TransportTreatmentDisposal orRe-useMEDIUM(1) HIGH (2):At city level treatmentoptions includecombination withconventional wastewatertreatmentBeyond thecitySub-Option3TransportDisposal orRe-useHIGH: Base decisionon whether there areacceptable disposal/ reuseoptions? How willthis be financed?3A Waterbourne with pre treatment and(semi) centralised treatmentSanitationManagementElementsToiletPre-treatmentMEDIUM/HIGH:Household responsibilityfor pre-treatment– consider availabilityof small operators toempty silt traps etc.Option 1TransportTreatmentDisposalHIGH (1) Low (2):Management options:could be community/district govt or smallscale private operationOption 2TransportTreatmentDisposal orRe-useSub-Option 3TransportDisposal orRe-useMEDIUM (1)HIGH(2):City responsibility forpublic or possibleprivate operation oftreatment. Re-usehas high managementrequirementsHIGH: Base decisionon whether there areacceptable disposal/re-use options.High managementrequirements3B Water bourne with (semi) centralisedtreatmentSanitationManagementElementsToiletLOWOption 1TransportTreatmentDisposalHIGH (1) LOW (2):Management options:could be community/district govt or smallscale private operationOption 2TreatmentDisposalMEDIUM (1) HIGH(2): City responsibilityfor public or possibleprivate operation oftreatment. Re-usehas high managementrequirementsSub Option 3Re-useHIGH: Is there amarket for re-use ofwaste – this has highoperational costs.Table63C Waterbourne with centralisedtreatmentSanitationManagementElementsToiletLOWTransport LOWOption 1TreatmentDisposalHIGH: Cityresponsibility fortreatment publicor possible privateoperation of treatment.Re-use has high mgt.requirementsSub Option 2Re-useHIGH: Is there amarket for re-use ofwaste – this has highoperational costs.– 23 –

Sanitation 21faeces is treated in the pit and re-used.Grey water and stowmwater are either handledseparately through the drainage network or canseparately or jointly be disposed of throughinfiltration depending on local climate and groundconditions.Semi wet systemsWhere water is used for anal cleansing on-sitesystems must handle additional water. This canbe done by infiltration, with semi solid wastesbeing treated onsite in latrine pits, compostingpits or similar in which case the most commonlatrine technology is the twin-pit pour-flush latrine.Alternatively or wastes can be collected onsite andremoved for further centralised or decentralisedtreatment. In this case, pre-treatment in a septictank is an option. The nature and cost of collectionand treatment is determined in part by whethergrey water is separated and dealt with separately(through infiltration, drainage, or re-use) or mixedwith black water.Waterborne systemsWater borne systems can be clustered into threegroups. The first group uses pre-treatment ofsome kind (septic tank, ABR or a settling chamber)and only black and grey water are transportedusing small-bore sewers for decentralisedor centralised treatment. The second groupdispenses with pre-treatment but, keeping greyand stormwater separate is able to make use ofsimplified sewers to transport excreta for treatment.Finally in a conventional system, black, grey andstorm water is handled together in combinedsewers or through conventional separate sewers.In the case of waterborne sewerage theopportunities for re-use of treated wastes are fewerthan for the other system types, and re-use tendsto move progressively downstream. In the case ofconventional sewered sanitation, re-use of faecalsludge wastes is only rarely an option, tends tohave high costs associated, and is dependent onmoving wastes well away from the urban area.3.9 Management RequirementsIn addition to technical considerations, weargue here that the management implications ofsanitation system choice have a major impact onthe outcome in terms of long term sustainableoperation. The evidence of failed systems (seesection 1 above) suggests that sufficient attentionis not being paid to the nuances of managementrequirements of sanitation systems. This maybe because management responsibility is notanalysed across all the domains of the city andall the elements of the sanitation system selected;thus attention may be paid to capital costs foron-site sanitation systems but long-term sludgemanagement questions remain unanswered, orby contrast in a conventional system finances foroperation of the wastewater treatment plant areanalysed in detail but the costs of purchasing inhouseplumbing and the additional costs of waterusage to households are not factored in.In Table 6 we show how the choice of technicalsystem can impact management requirements.PART THREE:Fit for Purpose?3.10 Does It Meet Objectives?The key step in the framework comes whenassessing how well a proposed (or existing)sanitation system fits with the context. The firstquestion (although rarely asked) should be whetherit is likely to meet objectives. For example in asituation of constrained finances, a decision maybe taken that the system will not include secondarywastewater treatment. An early question shouldthen be whether this will impact on the city’s andwider environs’ objectives. If yes, then this flagsa potential challenge which requires either (a) achange in the design or (b) a process wherebydownstream expectations can be managed in theshort term and longer term plans for enhancedwastewater treatment set in place. By contrast,an investment which focuses on providing waterclosets may not meet the objectives of poorhouseholds if they do not have a water connectionor cannot afford the internal plumbing required toconnect to the system. Changing objectives overtime can also be considered – in terms of whetherwhat is proposed is likely to meet objectives in 5or 10 years time for example, and if not, whetherthe system has flexibility built in to enable it to– 24 –

Sanitation 21be brought up to another level at a later date ifappropriate.3.11 Do the Management RequirementsMatch?Having assessed whether the objectives are met,systems can also be assessed in terms of theirmanagement requirements. Here the process ofanalysis which divides the city into domains assistsbecause it enables a disaggregated assessmentof whether sufficient skills and finances exist ineach domain to effectively operate the system.Where management requirements do not matchwith existing capacity adjustments to the designare possible which either shift responsibilitiesup or down the system or alter the managementrequirements at a given level. Thus for exampleif the costs of pumping are excessively highthroughout the network this may point to theneed to consider shallow sewers with significantlylower pumping costs. This in turn may shiftsome management responsibilities upstream toneighborhoods and households which in turn canbe assessed against available capacity.A key point here is to anticipate potential cuts,particularly in funding and manpower, which maypossibly arise in the future and consider howvulnerable a system may be to such, often political,decisions.3.12 Does it/ Will it work?Finally, it should be possible to ask and answerthe question “will it work?” or for existing systems“does it work, and if not, why not?” A useful test atthis point in the analysis is to ask the open question“what could go wrong?” Using the framework,potential challenges can be identified from theupstream to the downstream end of the system.Once again, the framework is not a scientifictool for this purpose but rather a way of thinkingthat helps to ensure that elements and potentialproblems are not overlooked.4 Using the Framework4.1 Simple depiction of a complex problemThis framework of course does not really capturethe enormous complexity of the challenge of urbansanitation. In reality urban sanitation plannersand designers need to take into account a widerange of additional factors. What it does dohowever is serve as a useful preliminary tool tooutline the options and to open a debate about thereal objectives of a given sanitation investment;to raise the right questions systematically. Itenables stakeholders to evaluate their interestsalongside some of the technical drivers whichmight otherwise be used in isolation to developtechnically ‘orthodox’ solutions.In time, what is really needed is a new paradigmfor urban sanitation planning which links thehuman challenge of excreta management withthe organisational challenges of modern city life.What we argue here is that this paradigm needs tomove beyond the normative approach presentedin conventional texts towards a more realisticassessment of how proposed technical solutionsmeet the objectives in each domain of the city.In this way, well-designed systems can be tailoredso that they really link the household with its localinterests in cleanliness and convenience to thecity and the wider world with its policy imperativesto protect the environment and deliver nationaldevelopment goals.4.2 Steps in an ApproachSo our framework is really an embryonic approachwhich seeks to enhance conventional urbansanitation planning. It draws on huge cannon ofexisting literature both from the “development”world and the “technical” world. It suggests thata sanitation system which works will probablycomprise a range of elements and a range oftechnologies performing various functions indifferent quarters and domains of the city andselected with both institutional and technicalconsiderations in mind. While some people maymake use of reticulated sewerage others may makeuse of a well-functioning on-site managementsystem, and, in an ideal world, they will enjoythe same level of service within the household.Thus the framework can be used not only to help– 25 –

Sanitation 21Using the Framework – describing the CONTEXTTable7aStep CONTEXTSANITATION SYSTEM/OPTIONSFIT FOR PURPOSE?FactorInterests/objectivesExternalFactorsCapacitySanitationElementsManagementDoes it meetObjectives?Do Managementrequirementsmatch?Will it/does itwork?HouseholdNeighbourhoodWard/DistrictCityStep OneIdentify who are the key actors in each domain of the city. Assesscarefully the range of interest groups and ensure that all the key actorsare identified (for example at household level, consider decision makingwithin the home and variations between different communities)Step TwoIdentify the interests of the key groups identified in step one (shat do theywant from a sanitation system?), Use this analysis to generalise groups iftheir interests convergeStep ThreeUnderstand what external factors drive decisions at this level (rangingfrom poverty/land tenure for households to institutional realities,regulation and technical norms at the city level). Consider who many ofthese could or should be addressed/ changed and how many are fixedBeyond thecityStep FourIdentify the capacities which exist in each domain for implementation andlong term management of any system. Capacities include interests, butalso skills, numbers of people, resources (especially money) and timeanalyse a citywide system but also elements withinthat system, and can also be used to identify adevelopment path over time.What the framework offers is a way of ensuringthat the institutional realities of the whole city (alldomains) are matched to the technical optionsunder consideration or in operation. Unfortunatelya simple two-dimensional representation of theframework does little to convey the complexity ofurban sanitation or the mental athletics requiredto identify systems which can work in the longterm. The representations in Table 7 (a-c) shouldtherefore not be taken too literally but used ratheras a tool to remind practitioners how institutionalanalysis can be matched with technical decisionmaking.In a general sense then the framework can beused to help the designer or planner consider:1. The Context (see Table 7(a))By first understanding the dynamics of the citythe planner can identify groups whose interestsare likely to diverge. By formalising this througha simple process of ‘institutional mapping’ theplanner can disaggregate between the interestsof different groups across all domains of the city.Developing some kind of understanding of interestsin each domain the planner rapidly develops a– 26 –

Sanitation 21Using the Framework – describing SANITATION SYSTEM/ OPTIONSTable7bStep CONTEXTSANITATION SYSTEM/OPTIONSFIT FOR PURPOSE?FactorInterests/objectivesExternalFactorsCapacitySanitationElementsManagementDoes it meetObjectives?Do Managementrequirementsmatch?Will it/does itwork?HouseholdNeighbourhoodWard/DistrictCityBeyond thecityStep Five(a) Analysis of existing systemsWhere there is an existing system,‘map’ this against the domainsidentified. Disaggregate the systemso it is clear what elements existand/or function in each domain. Inthis way for example the existenceof a wastewater treatment plant canbe separated from the households,and the existence of put latrines canbe separated from the downstreamareas.(b) New systems/ development ofsystems over timeWhere new systems are beingproposed, the various options can bemapped in turn against the domainsidentified.Step Six (existingand new systems)Identify IN DETAILthe managementrequirements for thesystems disaggregatedacross each domain.These requirementsinclude skills,manpower, time,money, tools, etc.checklist against which later proposals can bemeasured. Some assessment of the externalfactors which drive decisions and priorities at eachlevel will also help at the later stages of planning.Finally, having separated out various interestgroups and disaggregated these across domainsthe planner can make a realistic assessmentof capacities at each level – thus preparing theground for sensible decision making about shortterm implementation and long term managementof sanitation systems.At this stage the planner can also review howinterests, external factors and capacities are likelyto change over time2. Sanitation Systems/ Options(see Table 7(b))Having put in place a relatively sophisticatedinstitutional framework, sanitation systems (eitherexisting or proposed) can be ‘mapped’ againstit. This means that each element of the system(collection, transport, treatment, disposal, re-useetc) can be accurately located in the relevantdomain of the city and assessed against theprevailing and likely future context within thatdomain. This approach forces the planner toconsider the implications of technical decisionsagainst the full range of interests, external driversand capacities in the city – allowing a more realistic– 27 –

Sanitation 21Using the Framework – is the existing/ proposed system FIT FOR PURPOSE?Table7aStep CONTEXTSANITATION SYSTEM/OPTIONSFIT FOR PURPOSE?FactorHouseholdNeighbourhoodWard/DistrictCityInterests/objectivesExternalFactorsCapacitySanitationElementsManagementDoes it meetObjectives?Step SevenAssess whether the proposed/ existing system meets the objectives ineach domain. Does it provide the sort of service and outcomes thathouseholds expect? Will it address environmental concerns at the citylevel? Once this question has been asked across each domain it maybe necessary to consider some pay-offs between interests at each level(typically in a resource-scarce world pay-offs between different interestgroups are inevitable). The advantage here is that the payoffs can beassessed explicitly – with a clear weight being placed on interests rightacross all domains of the city.Step EightEqually importantly assess whether the system can be managed inthe way it needs to be managed in each domain. If not are therealternative arrangements or minor adjustments in the system (eitherinstitutionally or technically) which would make it more likely thatmanagement can be carried out in the long term?Do Managementrequirementsmatch?Will it/does itwork?Beyond thecityStep NineFinally ask the question ‘will it (or does it) work? Taking all theprevious steps and technical considerations into account. If anumber of workable options are thus identified these (and onlythese) may be suitable for an economic and financial assessment toidentify the least-cost solution.assessment of the pay-offs inherent in selectingone system over another. Thus it becomespossible for example to understand what are theimplications at the household level of decisionsabout wastewater treatment options taken on theperiphery of the city. Similarly it is possible toask how decisions taken by households to adoptcertain technologies (ecological toilets say or pitlatrines) will impact on the wider city.3. Fit for Purpose? (See Table 7(c))Finally the likelihood of success can be assessed.The beauty of the domains approach is thatit enables an assessment of the proposed orexisting system across all the domains of the city– thus revealing why a system which appears tomeet the city’s objectives may not result in betterservices for households, or why a system selectedby households may have resulted in a worseningsituation in ‘downstream’ domains. Key questionsare to be asked in each domain by comparing whatelements of the sanitation system will exist thereagainst the context. Three simple questions canhelp to identify potential problems. These are:• Does it meet objectives (will people/ institutions inthat domain get what they expect?)– 28 –

Sanitation 21• Do management requirements match? (Are thereinstitutions – people, skills, money – available todo what is needed to keep the system working ineach domain?)• Will it/ does it work?This final question is one which is asked less oftenthan it should be.The process is shown graphically in Table 7 (a)-(c) which shows a blank notional framework. Wewould however like to emphasise again that theprocess itself may be complex and varied and thereality is by no means captured on a table printedon a single A4 sheet. A more comfortable way toillustrate the framework is through the use of casestudies and it is to these that we turn in the nextsection.4.3 Case Study ExamplesThe Task Force are developing a series of casestudies to demonstrate the usefulness of theframework developed here. Until these arecompleted the following sections provide somebrief examples of how the framework has beenused, utilising some sample cases. .Post Conflict KabulOne of the worse-case scenarios of sanitationplanning arises in situations where existinginfrastructure and institutions are badly damagedand the urban situation is in a state of insecurityand flux. An example in recent years is postconflictKabul where, in 2002, there was little or nosanitation provision but an urgent need to provideaccess to basic services. The existing pipedsewerage network had been severely damagedand in any case served a very small portion of thecity. Meanwhile many of the traditional dry toiletshad fallen out of use because of disruption to thetraditional agricultural market for solid wastes.This disruption arose because of both insecurityand also because introduction of cheap chemicalfertilisers had severely depressed demand.Furthermore in-migration to the city was happeningat a rapid rate but the urban authorities werebarely in existence and struggling to manage evenbasic day to day urban service delivery.In such cases it is not untypical to find‘conventional’ systems being promoted orselected for rehabilitation simply because thereis no capacity to analyse and understand anolder existing or traditional system and certainlyno capacity to deal with the rapid changes inconditions. In Kabul this was indeed the case,with consultants recommending rehabilitation ofthe sewerage network serving an estimated 5% ofthe population but unable to propose any effectivemeans of delivering services to the peripheralurban areas, low income settlements, high densityhousing or hilly locations. The consultants andtheir clients exhibited an unwillingness or inabilityto analyse how interventions in the agriculturalmarket and attention to people’s own culturalpreferences could lead to an alternative, moreflexible and disaggregated solution. A focuson conventional technologies appeared tocompromise the consultants’ ability to make moreradical suggestions while pressures both fromadministrators and technicians biased the initialanalysis in favour of investments in wastewatertreatment and trunk sewerage.In such a case use of the framework could haveshown how local solutions could work in substantialareas of the city; subsequent work supported bythe World Bank and reinforcing excellent workalready undertaken by ICRC amongst many othershas resulted in the proposition of more effectiveoptions for various areas of the city; it remains tobe seen whether these meet the ‘objectives’ of thecity administrators and the international donorswho will be providing financial support.Small Town realities in Bharatpur, IndiaIn the late 1990s the Water and Sanitation Program(WSP) worked with the municipal government ofBharatpur, a ‘small’ Indian town with a populationof around 200,000 people, to develop a ‘StrategicSanitation Plan’. Bharatpur is a site of interest totourists due to a large and unique bird reserve on itsoutskirts and a number of historic buildings in thecity itself. However the sanitation situation of the citywas extremely poor, with many families relying onbadly-maintained septic tanks and pour-flush latrinesand widespread incidence of open defecation.Furthermore the city was subject to periodic severeflooding, particularly in the area around a central‘fort’ and its moat, the Sujjan Ganga.A recent report summarised some of the interests– 29 –

Sanitation 21Range of sanitation options proposed for Greater Kampala, UgandaDensity Average income Within sewerage areas Outside sewerage areasLow density High income Predominately sewerage Septic tanksMedium income Predominately sewerage Septic tanksLow income Household non-water bornesanitationHousehold non-water borne sanitationMediumdensityMedium income Predominately sewerage Septic tanks, but perhaps upgrade tosewerage on environmental groundsLow income Household non-water bornesanitationHousehold non-water borne sanitationHigh density Medium income Predominately sewerage Septic tanks, but perhaps upgrade tosewerage on environmental groundsLow income Sewered public toilets andhousehold non-water bornesanitationInformal Low income Sewered public toilets andhousehold non-water bornesanitationPublic toilets and household non-water bornesanitationPublic toilets and household non-water bornesanitationTable8Source: Sanitation strategy and Master Plan for Kampala City.Better Consult, Mott MacDonald and M&E Associatesas follows:‘The Municipality was primarily concerned atthe effect of the polluted moat (Sujan Ganga)on tourism and therefore economic growth inBharatpur. The Water and Sanitation Program,South Asia (WSP-SA), greatly concerned at thehighly subsidized nature of existing services,sought a solution in which users would contributetowards sanitation services. Households andNGO representatives were seeking environmentalimprovements (frequent flooding caused byblocked drains was damaging the homes of poorerresidents living in the flood-prone areas), but witha focus on bettering their immediate environmentand increasing convenience from improvedhousehold-level services.’ (Tayler, K (2003).However, all of these concerns were overshadowedby the very limited institutional capacity of themunicipality and in particular their almost-totalreliance on funding from state and nationalprograms to cover both capital and operationalcosts. For example the Government of India’s LCSprogramme promoted only one type of latrine – atwin-pit pour-flush latrine. While the supply-drivenapproach resulted in the construction of over 4,000latrines in Bharatpur, it did not include healthand hygiene promotion, or educating householdsin how to correctly operate and maintain theirlatrines. Incorrect use and maintenance eventuallyled to overflowing pits and localized flooding withhighly polluted wastewater. (Colin and Brocklehurst(2000)). Despite the fact that the municipalitydeveloped a workable long term investment planfor sanitation, involving the gradual improvement ofthe system and adoption of a range of technologiesto address various sanitation needs, theimplementation of the plan stalled in the absence ofexternal support. The interests and criteria of stateand national programs and agencies continued todominate whatever small piece meal investmentscould subsequently be made.The problem in Bharatpur could be summarisedas a dominance of the interests of state andnational agencies over the interests and needs ofhouseholds, neighbourhoods and even the city itself.What are the engineering options? – A More PositiveStory from KampalaThe National Water and Sewerage Corporationof Uganda commissioned a study to develop astrategy and master plan for the city. The currentestimate of service provision is shown in Figure 4.The possibility of providing a sewerage connectionfor all inhabitants in the medium term was remote,for technical, economic and social reasons. In– 30 –

Sanitation 21order to plan for the general improvement ofsanitation for all parts of the city and society, arange of options was proposed, based on theexisting physical and financial constraints (Table8). Using this strategic approach, it could beseen that sewerage coverage was only likely toincrease marginally in the near future, as existingcatchment sewers were in-filled to make a denserpipe network. Extensions outside the existingcatchments are unlikely for 20 years.Solar City, City of Linz, AustriaThe city of Linz is the capital of the province ofUpper Austria, has about 200.000 inhabitants andis situated around the river Danube. In the secondhalf of the 1990s the city council decided to builda new ecological housing area (low energy type,solar energy) in the South of the city comprised ofabout 1400 flats and a school. The constructionstarted in 1999 and the first flats were ready forhousing in 2003. Whereas about 90% of thishousing area was connected to the nearby sanitationsystem (a sewer connecting to a recently renovatedcentral wastewater treatment plant for the Cityof Linz), there was a wish to furnish a small partof this new housing area (about 100 flats) withadditional ecological features. After some discussionthe decision was taken that innovative options for itswastewater management should be considered.Considered options and assessmentOriginally it was planned to furnish the entire newhousing area with a non-conventional wastewatermanagement system. About 14 different alternatives,including both conventional and non-conventionalones, were studied. However, the cost assessmenthas shown that the cheapest option would be toconnect the housing area to the existing centralisedtreatment plant (as an existing sewer passes byclose to the new housing area) and therefore it waseconomically not justifiable to construct an alterativesystem. However, for various reasons it was decidedthat a smaller area (only 88 flats and a school) wouldcomprise the pilot project for a urine separatingsystem.Decision making processFor the pilot area it was decided to implement anoption which was comprised of the separation ofthe wastewater in its constituent’s parts, urine,brownwater and greywater, and to furnish around100 flats with urine sorting toilets of the company‘Roediger’. The main reason for this decision wasfirstly the possibility to close the nutrient cycle andsecondly the possibility to treat only urine, if micropollutantswill get more attention in the future (i.e. itis assumed that reduction of micro-pollutants fromBreakdown of existing sanitation coveragein Greater Kampala, UgandaFig4100 %All households93.8 %Have own toilet (private/shared)6.2 %Do not have own toilet69.8 %Latrines24 %Flush toilet69.8 2.5 %Public Latrines toilet1.0 %Neighbours’ toilet2.7 %Garden, bag, drain69.6 %Pit latrine0.1 %Bucket0.1 %Other6.4%Sewer17.5 %Septic tank5.6 %To NWSCsewer0.8 %To other sewerSource: Sanitation strategy andMaster Plan for Kampala City.Better Consult, Mott MacDonaldand M&E Associates– 31 –

Sanitation 21urine is more efficient than to reduce it from theentire wastewater stream in view of eventual stricterregulations in future).This decision was driven by the board of directors ofLinz AG. Furthermore, a discussion with the directorof the Board on 30.09.2003 showed that Linz AG, asa public company, is not only looking at maximisingits profits, but also to provide contributions to society.Therefore, implementing an innovative wastewatersystem perceived to be ecologically superior toother options was considered an opportunity toposition Linz AG in this field as an innovative serviceprovider. Moreover, this option was considered to beviable in particular for rural areas, to which Linz AGalso provides its services.Conclusions and lessons learnedThe analysis has shown that some technicalassumptions did not occur. For instance, it wasassumed that no urine fall out would occur, butdid. Social analysis highlighted that user’s wouldbe willing to accept some reduction of comfort inthe new system if there is a positive contribution toenvironmental protection.This prompted a second question to be addressed bythe project: how relevant is the contribution of suchsystems to solving nutrient cycles in agriculture?This question was analysed from the perspectivethat agriculture should not be ‘misused’ for disposalof any substrates. And in order to reach a real levelof ‘recycling’ two aspects need to be ensured: first,the substrate should have a benefit for agricultureand at the same time cause no harm to it.This study indicated that even large scaleimplementation of urine sorting systems would onlyprovide marginal quantities of nutrients comparedto the used commercial fertilizer; and secondly, thatmany areas in Austria have even too many nutrientsavailable; third, that the benefits of urine would bemarginal (around 5EUR commercial value of 1m 3 ofurine based on its nutrient composition). However,by contrast, there would be no problem to applythe urine in agriculture (if appropriate measures forrisk management are taken and it would be legallypossible) as the quantities are very low.In the planning and design of the system, futureusers’ needs could not be included. Even if thenthey had the choice, they may not have been fullyinformed about the implications of the new system.This resulted in the end to the lack of acceptanceoutlined above. However, this case highlights thepotential for innovation if a multi-utility companyis willing to demonstrate and experiment withalternative solutions. In this context the Solar Cityis also mainly perceived as a demonstration projectto look at if and how such a system can work inpractice, and to provide lessons learned.Dar es Salaam – absence of decision makingIn practice, the existing situation in Dar es Salaamregarding excreta management in the city’sunplanned areas can be characterised as follows:• The supply chain for sanitation is reaching thericher, sewer based wards within the city, butfailing to reach excreta disposal needs of the2 million population dependent on on-sitesanitation.• Policy and regulation is fragmented at the nationallevel and failing to have any impact other thanwith city based sewerage systems.• Although demand for sustainable latrines in theunplanned area is high, it is being expressedbeyond the boundary of the household.This raises the interesting question of why theexcreta management of nearly million people hasbeen allowed to develop into such a dangerousand neglected situation? There is no one ministry,department or person in Dar es Salaam who hasintentionally and deliberately set out to ensure thepeople living in the unplanned areas have to resort toopen defection and flying toilets. If this was the caseDar es Salaam would be the exception rather thanthe rule, and unfortunately similar situations can befound in Kampala, Addis Abba, Nairobi, and themajority of Africa’s rapidly growing cities. Althoughit may be a simplification, the root of the problemcan be attributed to a lack of flexibility regardingsolutions and an inertia in decision making.Lack of flexibility regarding solutionsAlthough pit latrines serve the vast majority ofthe population, they are regarded as an inferiortechnology by many engineers to the more expensivewater borne sewered system. This technology nodoubt has its place in the arsenal of possiblesolutions and in some contexts it will be. In Dar es– 32 –

Sanitation 21Salaam and many other African cities is one contextwhere the narrow winding nature of the streets,the poverty of the occupants and the topographyof the area, make the laying and maintenance of afinancially viability sewer system extremely unlikely;a pipe dream. When challenged with the difficultiesof serving the poor area with sewers, planners anddesigners respond along the lines of “Not yet , butin 20 years when the rest of the system is working,we plan to connect all the areas”. In the meantime residents of the unplanned area have to waitamongst the growing pile of their own excrement.There are other options. From a public healthperspective, as long as humans are separated andremain separated from their excrement, healthbenefits will follow.Inertia in decision makingThe unplanned areas do not appear overnight; theygrow and their housing density gradually increasesover time. Nobody chooses to live in a slum areaand the people who live there do so because theylack other housing options. The unplanned areasare now officially recognised, but for a long timethey were considered illegal settlements. Movingthe residents and bulldozing their houses is not apolitically acceptable option so the next, easiest andrisk adverse solution is to pretend they did not exist.In the meantime the environmental conditions in theunplanned areas are left to fate and the individualactions of the residents. If the planers at an earlystage only insisted and enforced minimum plot sizesand the layout of the area in a grid, then many ofthe problems the resident now face would becomemanageable.Similar consequences occur with the inabilityto decide which ministry or department isresponsible and accountable for excreta disposalin the unplanned areas, about the inability to agree,develop and enforce a coordinated approach, withthe lack of clear subsidy policy, and with theinability to improve an inappropriate and outdatedlegislation. This results in one of the most importantand fundamental aspects of public health beingleft directionless and leaderless. This, coupledwith unwillingness amongst the politicians andprofessionals to tackle a problem that has littlekudos, has developed into a downward spiral ofpassive inactivity. In medical terms, the problem isdegenerating from acute to chronic.5 Conclusions5.1 It all adds up to good planningAt the outset we asked the question “what is goingwrong”? In this paper we argue that the problemand challenge in urban sanitation lies principallynot in debates about technologies but in questionsabout how these can best be applied to solveimportant development questions. Planners needto plan in the real world where things change andthings go wrong. The conventional approach tosanitation planning creates an artificial barrierbetween technical decision making and institutionalanalysis in its broadest sense. This results intechnically ‘appropriate’ systems which don’t work,or which don’t achieve the objectives that somepeople value highly. Crucial to changing thisparadigm is to acknowledge in a more effective waythat many of the ‘objectives’ of urban sanitationsystems may actually be in conflict; a realdiscussion about the payoffs is needed. The firststep is to learn to understand what these objectivesare and what external factors drive decisionmaking across all the domains of the city. Thesecond step is to build in flexibility and begin toanticipate how these objectives and the urbancontext itself may change over time. It is nothingmore than good planning, and has been describedin many publications but for some reason it is nothappening. Acknowledging and facing up to theopen and hidden drivers of sanitation planning willbe an important first step in improving the qualityat-entryof many sanitation investments.5.2 Thinking aheadIWA members have a crucial role to play inimproving the effectiveness of urban sanitationinvestments. IWA members constitute a largeproportion of the technicians, engineers, waterscientists and planners who are involved in theprocess of urban sanitation planning, design,implementation and management. As such theexperience of the membership could be brought tobear to improve the quality of planning and designand to bringing reality into the process. Thisdocument represents a potential first step in thisvital process.– 33 –

Sanitation 21Annex One:Summary Terms of Reference for the Task ForceThe Sanitation 21 task force will consist of a Coregroup supported by an Advisory group of seniorexperts in the field. The Core Group’s objective isto contribute to thinking about sanitation in urbanareas in a way which will address the challengesof increasing sustained access to services of anacceptable standard. The Task Force will achieveits objectives in the following ways:• Identify and convene a cross-section of leadingthinkers from different backgrounds working onall aspects of sanitation (hardware, software,planning, etc);• Involve task force members in development ofkey outputs, namely:> Classification and review of a range ofsanitation technology options (including interalia technical, social, financial, institutional,etc, issues), focusing primarily on existingtechnologies, with a review of innovativeoptions at the 2006 IWA World Congress;> Identification of a framework for evaluation ofthese technology options;> Review of selected case studies where suchevaluation criteria can be applied;> Identification of a longer-term process as tohow the issue of sanitation should be handledin the future;• Publish, communicate and disseminate theresults from task force activities to policy makersand practitioners alike.– 34 –

Sanitation 21Annex Two:Preliminary Analysis of Drivers at each Levelin the Sanitation System ! continued >>>DriverHome (personal/ family concerns)StatusCleanlinessConvenienceSafety and securityIncome / employment generationFood/ water securityTenure status/ legislationImpactsAt the household level the interplay of these drivers with the conditionsof awareness, priority, access and influence will determine how readyhouseholds are to make investments. The relative weight of differentdrivers, the state of the local market and cultural factors will determinewhat types of toilets are in demand. The nature of demand at this levelis dynamic and will usually grow over time, Note that the environmentbeyond the peri-domestic arena rarely drives decisions at this levelHealth, environmentThese are usually unlikely to drive decisions at this level.Peri domestic (community concerns / social pressures)Income/ employment generation May promote collective demand for household facilities (ie for home-basedworkers) and for ecological toilets if urban agriculture is feasible andpracticed.Status/ land valuesWill impact if communities are relatively homogeneous or where landlordspredict an increase in rental or land values,. Note where tenancy is highthis may have a negative impact on the status of many tenant familieswho face higher rents if household investments are made. May tend toencourage public investment in household facilities if % of landlords ishigh.CleanlinessMay impact and encourage communities to take joint action if relativelyhomogeneous (ie investing in small local sewer networks, shared septictanks, pit emptying services) but usually a rather weak driver.Water securityMay have significant impact on household willingness to pay andparticipate in community sanitation programmes if shallow water tables arethreatened.Health, environmentThese are usually unlikely to drive decisions at this level.Ward/ district (community/ local government/ political concerns)Status/ land valuesMay encourage local politicians/ leaders to promote household or cityinvestments – may impact negatively on tenants (as above). Will not tendto drive one particular technology over another.CleanlinessOften a strong driver for high visibility, possibly low- sustainabilityinterventions by local politicians (ie one-off clean up campaigns, publictoilets but without attention to long term management etc ).Water securityAgain unlikely to result in significant sustained investments except whereproblems are acute and gains are likely to be highly visible (ie whereshallow groundwater is so severely contaminated as to be unusable)Service delivery/ patronageOften a strong driver for investments (commonly for public and communitytoilets, but could also be for local collection system, small sewer networksor public financing of household latrines etc). Sometimes a good driver tohelp households access maintenance services, pit emptying etc but onlyon a sporadic basis.1 Note this is a VERY preliminary first cut based on the brainstorming at Budapest #1 and on various documents provided by the core group.– 35 –

Sanitation 21Annex Two (continued)DriverImpactsHealthMay be a strong driver for local politicians to use own funds or lobby forfunds if major health impacts are visible (cholera outbreaks etc). Rarely agood driver for ongoing a responsible operation and maintenance.EnvironmentMay be a driver for collective investments or for politicians to use ownfunds, where communities are mixed and there are sufficient numbers ofmiddle-income households.City (city government/ utility/ political/ wider societal concernsEquity/ access/ MDGsShould be a driver for pro-poor service delivery and attention to access tousable toilets but may not be where urban coverage is counted in terms ofareas served by sewers in which case, will have little impact on householdaccess.Economic developmentOften drives investments in the CBD, and may also promote high-costinvestments (ie in downstream services such as WWTP). Should be astrong driver for appropriate household sanitation but only where citiesperceive unserved populations in terms of their contribution to theeconomy of the city.Reducing costsRelevant in mature utilities – should drive adoption of efficient newtechnologies and also encourage promotion of low-water use toilets etc.In immature utilities, should encourage wholistic response and balancedapproach to household access and downstream services but this israrely the case. In some cases may encourage unregulated dumping ofuntreated wastes.Increasing revenueMay tend to encourage utilities to think in terms of sewerage connections.Should encourage attention to well-managed pit-emptying servicesmanaged on a commercial basis.HealthShould encourage a focus on increasing access and promoting the use ofhousehold facilities.Environmental protectionTends to have little impact on household access and the adoption of thebest possible local solutions (including ecological toilets, decentralisedcollection and treatment etc). Often results in costly investments in underutiliseddownstream services trunk sewers and (WWTPs)Water resources managementShould encourage low-water use technologies, maximising re-use andrecycling and minimising pollution of water courses but more commonlyresults in attention to downstream treatment.Wider environs (national/ international concerns)Water security/ food securityEquity/ access/ MDGsEconomic developmentShould encourage low-water use technologies, maximising re-use andrecycling and minimising pollution of water courses.Should be a driver for pro-poor service delivery and attention to access tousable toilets but may not be where urban coverage is counted in terms ofareas served by sewers in which case, will have little impact on householdaccess. May steer investments away from urban sanitation if rural povertyis perceived to be a greater priority.May counteract effect of above by steering national funds towardsurban administrations, but this may result in high- cost investments anda focus on industrial areas and the CBD. Historically (ie the UK) anunderstanding of the negative impacts of sanitation-related ill health onthe workforce eventually resulted in serious household/ peri-domestic andward investments in sanitation.continued >>>– 36 –

Sanitation 21Annex Two (continued)DriverHealthUrban and rural developmentEnvironmental protectionWater resources managementImpactsShould result in attention to household access and peri-domestic services(possibly through financing of national sanitation promotion programmes,hygiene promotion programmes and financing for local investments) butthere is little evidence that this actually happens. More commonly resultsin ad hoc responses to crises rather than serious planning.May result in national funds being made available to local administrationsfor urban, peri-urban and rural sanitation investments, but this may notoccur in practice.May result in heavy environmental legislation which requires largeinvestments in WWTP or which means local administrations (and donors)are unwilling to invest in sanitation because of the onerous requirementsof environmental protection. Should however have the opposite effect;of encouraging a shift away from open defecation and promoting localsolutions where possible including ecological toilets if appropriate anddecentralized collection and treatment.Should encourage low-water use technologies, maximising re-use andrecycling and minimising pollution of water courses. Where countriesput in place robust mechanisms for IWRM within river basins this mighthappen, but only if there are sector specialists with the skills to presentthe importance of such interventions, more commonly results in punativelegislation relating to wastewater discharges and the may steer attentionand investments towards downstream treatment.– 37 –

Sanitation 21Annex 3:Analytical Tools to Use at Each LevelClearly the design of a sanitation system has to consider the status and drivers which are operating at each level, toprioritise these. Various tools are available which can be used at each level (Table A2):Table A2: Analytical tools for assessing the sanitation systemToolsHome Peri-domestic Ward/district City River/ environs• Situationalanalysis• KAP studies• Householddemand surveys(including WTP)• Communicationstudies• Consumerresearch• Social/institutionalmapping• Participatorypovertyassessments• supply sidemarketsurveys (latrineproviders,masons etc)• communitymanagementoptions study• environmentalimpactassessment• productidentification,developmentand testing• supply sidemarket surveys(latrine providers,masons etc)• institutions study– utility/ LGfinance review• policy/ regulatoryenvironmentreview• policy/ regulatoryenvironmentreview• environmentalimpactassessment– 38 –

Sanitation 21– notes –– 39 –

Interational Water Association, Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street, London SW1H 0QSTel: +44 (0)20 7654 5500 Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555 E-mail: water@iwahq.org.uk www.iwahq.orgCOMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE. REGISTERED IN ENGLAND NO. 3597005. REGISTERED OFFICE AS ABOVE.REGISTERED CHARITY (ENGLAND) NO. 1076690