Sanitation 21 planning framework - IWA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 –
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 and 18: Sanitation 21cleanliness and conven
Page 19 and 20: Sanitation 21who have an interest i
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: Sanitation 21Annex Two:Preliminary
Page 39 and 40: Sanitation 21- notes -- 39 -

Sanitation 21 planning framework - IWA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?