Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RUWASS Reform of the Urban Water & Sanitation Sector Programme SANDEC Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries SEI Stockholm Environment Institute SSWARS Sustainable Sanitation and Water Renewable Systems SuSan Design Sustainable Sanitation Design SuSanA Sustainable Sanitation Alliance t Metric ton UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UDDT Urine-Diversion-Dehydrating-Toilet UGX Ugandan Shilling (exchange rate: 1 Euro = 2.807 UGX, dated: 10.04.2010) UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNHABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme UNHS Uganda National Health Survey UNICEF United Nations Children‘s Fund UOS Uganda Organic Standard VIP Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine WHO World Health Organisation WISA Water Institute Southern Africa WSA Water Suppliers Association (fresh water tank trucks) WSP The World Bank Water and Sanitation Program WSSCC Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council WSSD UN World Summit on Sustainable Development VII
1 Introduction Introduction In the year 2006, 2.6 billion people had no access to improved sanitation on a global scale. More than 5.3 billion incidences of diarrhoea 1 were registered and every day more than 6000 people died because of sanitation-related diseases and poor hygienic conditions (WHO/UNICEF, 2008, p. 7; WHO, 2008, p. 28; SuSanA, 2008, p. 1). Little has changed. But, the effects of infectious diarrhoea cannot be limited to rates of morbidity and mortality. A whole series of other effects among them health care costs, decreased productivity regarding school or job and deficient environmental health can be listed. A certain number of those effects can be connected with an economic dimension: for instance some incidences of infectious diarrhoea need treatment which leads to health care expenses whereas other, less serious incidences, lower the productivity of children or adults resulting in low rates of school attendance, inattention due to weakness or decreased income generation. Apart from that, also effects not connected with health issues show to have economic dimensions. The productive time lost due to bad access to facilities is one popular example for that. All in all the total costs that can be attributed to deficient sanitation, water supply and hygiene, including both health and non-health issues add up to more than 119 billion EUR per year on a global scale. This leads to an average per year and capita burden of 20 EUR (Hutton et al., 2007, p. 492). It has to be kept in mind that this number is calculated based on the global population, whereas the majority of people who suffer are found in developing countries with people often earning less than 2 EUR per day. As a reaction to that, the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7: ―Ensure environmental sustainability‖ - target C: ―Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation‖ was formulated in Johannesburg, in the year 2002, at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 2 . Being neglected when the MDGs were originally formulated in 2000, water supply and sanitation gained importance not only due to numbers such as the ones cited above. There are authors that even consider the MDG 7, target C as instrument for sustainable development, economic growth and poverty reduction, elevating a success of this goal as a crucial factor for the achievement of all other MDGs (Rosemarin, 2008, p. 2). As mentioned above, there are 2.6 billion people globally, who do not have access to improved sanitation. In turn, there must have been around 4 billion 3 who had this opportunity. This deduction raises the question of how different sanitation practices are classified and what is considered improved- and what unimproved sanitation? According to the Joint Monitoring 1 Including, cholera, salmonellosis, shigellosis, amoebiasis and other protozoal-, viral- and bacterial-intestinal diseases (Girard et al., 2006). 2 When the MDGs were originally formulated in New York in the year 2000, „[...] water supply and sanitation services had not been included as one of the environmental targets‖ and had to be added later in 2002 (Rosemarin et al., 2008, p. 1). 3 Total population 6.54 billion (World Bank, 2010) 1
Page 1: Diplomarbeit von Enno Schröder Geo
Page 4 and 5: Summary The present thesis provides
Page 6 and 7: Contents Summary ..................
Page 8 and 9: List of Figures Figure 1: Developme
Page 12 and 13: Introduction Programme (JMP), sanit
Page 14 and 15: Introduction The introduction gave
Page 16 and 17: Sanitation: facts and interrelation
Page 28 and 29: Sustainable sanitation Lower cost
Page 30 and 31: Sustainable sanitation in the chamb
Page 32 and 33: Sustainable sanitation aged 5 to 15
Page 34 and 35: Table 2: Benefits and economic dime
Page 36 and 37: Design backgrounds - The Integrated
Page 38 and 39: 5 Methods Methods Generally, method
Page 40 and 41: Methods The design of the empirical
Page 42 and 43: 1. Expert Level Slum dwellers/landl
Page 44 and 45: Methods the sanitation or agricultu
Page 46 and 47: Methods itself, that is considered
Page 48 and 49: Methods The primary motivation of
Page 50 and 51: Case Study Kampala Figure 12: Kampa
Page 52 and 53: Case Study Kampala awareness regard
Page 54 and 55: Case Study Kampala also other stake
Page 56 and 57: Case Study Kampala application of f
Page 58 and 59: Case Study Kampala Four from eight
Page 60 and 61:
Case Study Kampala decentralised on
Page 62 and 63:
Table 4: continued Stakeholder grou
Page 64 and 65:
Table 4: continued Stakeholder grou
Page 66 and 67:
Case Study Kampala Landlord units:
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 13: Logistics system for uri
Page 70 and 71:
Case Study Kampala scenarios, respe
Page 72 and 73:
Private Company Level Case Study Ka
Page 74 and 75:
Case Study Kampala incentive for ea
Page 76 and 77:
Case Study Kampala Figure 16: Cost
Page 78 and 79:
Case Study Kampala Table 7: Sensiti
Page 80 and 81:
6.2.2.6 Conclusion case study Case
Page 82 and 83:
7 Conclusion Conclusion It could be
Page 84 and 85:
Conclusion dried faecal matter does
Page 86 and 87:
8 Bibliography Bibliography African
Page 88 and 89:
Joensson, H., Stinzing, A. R., Vinn
Page 90 and 91:
Bibliography Still, D., A., 2002: A
Page 92 and 93:
Bibliography World Urbanisation Pro
Page 94 and 95:
9.2 Interview guidelines Guideline
Page 96 and 97:
9.3 Cost calculations 87 Nutrient v
Page 98 and 99:
Logistics systems cost calculations
Page 100 and 101:
Working hours per day [h] 10 Intere
Page 102 and 103:
Collection point space requirements
Page 104 and 105:
Volume storage tank [l] 24.000 Cres
Page 106 and 107:
Collection point rent faeces [UGX]
Page 108 and 109:
With interest [UGX] 72.000.000 20%
Page 110 and 111:
Storage site operators salaries [UG
Page 112 and 113:
Overview Costs Urine Collection poi
Page 114 and 115:
Investement Price for all collectio
show all

Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?