Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

Table 4: continued
Stakeholder
group
Logistic
companies/
associations
Farmers
Stakeholder Position
(Comment)
Willingness to pay for
sanitation (0.04 – 0.07 EUR
per adult and day)
Not willing to invest in solid,
permanent sanitation facilities
Can be motivated by
incentives
Landlords Willing to construct UDDTs
(problem: money)
PEA Willing to be involved into the
business of human excreta
WSA Not willing to be involved
into the business of human
excreta logistics
Transporters
Association
―Railway‖
New logistics
company that has
to be established
Sugar cane
growers
Willing to transport the dried
faeces in closed boxes
Reason
(Comment)
Proper facilities are
appreciated to some extent
High rate of fluctuation in
the slums (tenancy)
Money is scarce
No need to keep on building
new toilets or pay for
emptying
Would not differ from their
business as usual.
But not possible due to cross
contamination.
(The price for the service
delivery is high 53 )
Trucks are used for drinking
water.
(The price for the service
delivery would also be high
(similar to PEA))
Business oriented.
(The price for the service
delivery is high)
This company does not exist yet. It is going to be developed
according to the specific needs. Own trucks have to be
purchased.
Not willing to use urine and/or
faeces as fertiliser
No willingness/capacities for
being involved into the
process of collection
Mostly willing to pay (for a
dried fertiliser)
No willingness to invest in
infrastructure
Fear lack of quantity and
quality. (Huge quantities
needed: Up to 2 000 t/a of
conv. fert. per farm)
Application will be too
labour intensive and thus
expensive.
All decisions are based on
economic reasons
Want to focus on their own
business
Know about the value of
nutrients.
Farm expenses have to be
minimised. Why to change?
Case Study Kampala
Partner
(Yes/No; Type)
Yes
(Producer)
No
No
Yes
(Faeces logistics)
Yes
(Urine and faeces
logistics)
No
52