Sanitation 21 planning framework - IWA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 –
Page 1 and 2: Sanitation 21Simple Approaches toCo
Page 3 and 4: Sanitation 213.4 Actors, Mandates,
Page 5 and 6: Sanitation 21ForewordThe debate aro
Page 7 and 8: Sanitation 21605040302010Sanitation
Page 11 and 12: Sanitation 21There is rarely much c
Page 13 and 14: Sanitation 21Box 5: Are we dealing
Page 15 and 16: Sanitation 213 The FrameworkIn this
Page 17: Sanitation 21cleanliness and conven
Page 21 and 22: Sanitation 21Sanitation Systems Typ
Page 23 and 24: Sanitation 21Sanitation system opti
Page 25 and 26: Sanitation 21be brought up to anoth
Page 27 and 28: Sanitation 21Using the Framework -
Page 29 and 30: Sanitation 21• Do management requ
Page 31 and 32: Sanitation 21order to plan for the
Page 33 and 34: Sanitation 21Salaam and many other
Page 35 and 36: Sanitation 21Annex Two:Preliminary
Page 37 and 38: Sanitation 21Annex Two (continued)D
Page 39 and 40: Sanitation 21- notes -- 39 -

Sanitation 21 planning framework - IWA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?