Transcript Pathways for Sustainable Sanitation: Achieving the

Sanitation Definitions
Arno Rosemarin
EcoSanRes Programme
Stockholm Environment Institute
partner of
SACOSAN Workshop, SL, April 27, 2009
Improved Sanitation (UN)
 flush or pour-flush toilet/latrine to:
 piped sewer system
 septic tank
 pit latrine
 ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine
 pit latrine with slab
 composting toilet (ecosan)
Unimproved Sanitation Facilities
 Flush or pour-flush to street, yard,
plot, open sewer, ditch or drainage
way
 Pit latrine without slab
 Open pit
 Bucket
 Hanging toilet or latrine
 No facilities, bush, field (open
defecation)
Improved sanitation coverage in 2006 (JMP -WHO/Unicef, 2008)
Prevalence of Unimproved Sanitation in South Asia
Unimproved Sanitation - Total - Rural - Urban
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Nepal
total unimproved
rural unimproved
urban unimproved
India
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
JMP, 2008
Prevalence of Open Defecation in South Asia
Open Defecation - Total - Rural - Urban
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Nepal
total open defecation
rural open defecation
urban open defecation
India
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
0
20
40
60
80
%
JMP, 2008
Where the pipes are: Sewage sludge production from public
sewerage systems mapped in terms of relative proportion of the
global total for 1999. (Worldmapper)
Diarrhoea-caused mortality mapped in terms of relative proportion of the
global total for 2002 (Worldmapper)
Sustainable Sanitation
 Sustainable sanitation goes beyond
”improved” and focuses on systems that
 protect and promote human health by
providing a clean environment and breaking
the cycle of disease
 are economically viable, socially acceptable,
and technically and institutionally
appropriate
 protect the environment and natural
resources
 can involve a wide selection of technologies
Components of Sustainable Sanitation
Ecological Sanitation
 source separation of urine & faeces
and even greywater
 containment of each product
 sanitisation and treatment
 recycling of the nutrients, humus
and water to soil and agricultural
systems
Opportunities for Alternative Solutions
 Humans produce only 50 L of faeces and 500 L of
urine per year per person
 A normal flush toilet uses an additional 15,000 L of
drinking water per person per year
 The greywater from kitchens and bathrooms adds
an additional 35,000 L per person per year
 Mixing the above and adding storm water makes
centralised sewage systems often unaffordable for
poor cities
 Source separation allows for the development of
new sustainable alternatives
 These are being tested in small towns at present
within the EcoSanRes Programme and other
international programmes
Complete household-based urine–diversion ecosan and eco-water
use, closing the nutrient and water cycles (exp from Otterwasser)
Sanitation Technologies (modified from NETSSAF, 2008)
Toilet & collection technologies
Cistern-flush toilet
Low-flush toilet
Pour-flush toilet
Urine-diversion toilet
-Flush toilet
-Waterless toilet
Urinal
-Waterless urinals
-Low-flush urinals
Dry toilet squatting slab
Simple pit latrine
Ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP)
Double pit latrine
Double vault latrine
Composting toilet
-shallow pit
-vault
-Arborloo latrine
-Fossa alterna
Transport technologies
Gravity sewers
Small bore sewers
Simplified sewerage
Vacuum sewerage
Open drains
Urine pipes
Manual urine transport
Trucked urine transport
Manual or suction truck faecal sludge
emptying and transport
On-site storage and treatment technologies
Related to wastewater
Septic tank
Cesspit
Anaerobic baffled reactor
Anaerobic digester
Trickling filter
UASB reactor (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket)
Related to urine
Urine long-term storage
-in different types of containers
-in large storage tank
Urine can, bucket or container storage
Urine desiccation
Off-site treatment technologies
Related to wastewater
Pre-treatment
Waste stabilization ponds
Advanced Integrated Pond Systems
Floating macrophyte ponds
Constructed wetlands
UASB technologies
Conventional activated sludge systems
Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge
Membrane biological reactors
Related to urine
Off-site urine storage tank
Urine MAP-dissipation
Related to excreta and faecal sludge
Faecal sludge co-composting
Faecal sludge treatment by
-constructed wetlands (humification)
-unplanted drying beds
-settling ponds
-anaerobic digestion
Related to greywater
Greywater pre-treatment (screens, seals, filters)
Flotation – grease trap
Slow sand filtration
Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland
Horizontal free flow constructed wetland system
Vertical flow constructed wetland system
Greywater garden (mulch trench)
Green walls/Tower garden
Subsurface wastewater infiltration system
Anaerobic filtration
Reuse technologies
Urine direct application
Urine on-site reuse
Urine mechanized off-site reuse
Faecal sludge & excreta use in agriculture
Effluent (wastewater) application in agriculture
Effluent (wastewater) and faecal sludge (excreta)
use in aquaculture
Disposal technologies
Soakaway pit
Infiltration trench/field
General cost ladder for various sanitation options
1600
1500
1500
local captial cost for installation (US$)
1400
1200
1000
800
675
600
400
600
400
400
260
200
75
0
flush toilet
urban urine
connected to sewer diverting dry or wet
or septic tank
toilets
50
35
40
40
10
soil composting
toilet (Arboloo;
Fossa alterna)
12
communal
toilet/latrine (50
persons per seat)
40
10
flush or pour flush urine diverting dry ventilated improved basic pit latrine with
toilet with septic
toilet (UDDT)
pit latrine or with
slab
tank connected to
pour flush toilet
condominial sewers
(VIP)
type of provision of sanitation
(UNDP, 2006; Satterthwaite and McGranahan, 2007; Water and Sanitation Fund of
Namibia, 2008; UNICEF-SEI India, 2008; WESnet India, 2008; SEI, 2005)
Annual Cost to meet the MDG Sanitation Target by 2015 is well under 0.5% GDP
$10
$9
$8
0.1% GDP
0.2% GDP
0.5% GDP
Sanitation Cost
Southern
Asia
SubSaharan
Africa
Cost (Billions US$)
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
East Asia
Eurasia
Latin
America
and the
Caribbean
North
Africa
Oceania
SE Asia
West Asia
Sanitation cost (red horizontal bars) as annual expenditures (Y-axis). The blue, green and
yellow bars are the GDP expenditure levels of the regions also identified as 0.1, 0.2 and
0.5% of the GDP respectively. (Source: SEI, 2005)
Double-vault urine-diverting dry ecotoilet
used in e.g. China, Vietnam, Mexico, Bolivia, India, Sri Lanka, W. Africa,
S. Africa, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, etc…..
SARAR,
Mexico
Lin Jiang, Guangxi
Guangxi Province
Southern China
Double vault
urine-diverting toilet
ca 1,000,000 installations
in villages in China
ca 500,000 installations
in Vietnam
Kvarnström et al 2006
Mexico - Tepoztlan
double vault urinediverting toilets &
waterless urinals
100 peri-urban
households completed
Burkina Faso
Double vault
urine-diverting toilet
Zimbabwe - Harare
The Fossa Alterna – soil composting pit toilet
Urine diversion toilets for washers
Dan Lapid, Philippines
Paul Calvert, Kerala, India
Kannan, Sri Lanka
India – Trichy, TN (Scope)
Well-functioning
dry vault
Sweden Urine-diverting Toilets, Gebers
South Africa - Kimberley
Urine-diverting dry toilets
100 households completed – 2000 planned
China-Sweden
Erdos
Ecotown
Project
4-5 story bldgs
greywater
storage pond for
reuse
urine diverting dry
toilets
faecal collection
832 apartments completed
Braunchsweig
Germany
Call for Action – Some Key Questions
is there a national sanitation policy?
are national targets in line with the MDG target?
what weighting is given to sanitation in the PRSP?
is there a sector investment plan?
is there a single body to coordinate action?
are donors coordinating their support to sanitation?
is there sufficient budget allocation to meet
targets?
 is there a single budget line for sanitation?
 is there a performance monitoring mechanism?







(WaterAid, 2008)
Planning Tools
 Generic steps:
 problem identification
 define objectives
 identify options
 selection process
 action plan for
implementation
 monitoring and
evaluation









PHAST (Wood et al. 1998)
Open Planning of
Sanitation (Ridderstolpe,
2000)
Strategic Choice Approach
(Friend, 1992; Wright,
1997)
HCES (EAWAG, 2005)
Sanitation 21 (IWA,
2006)
MCDSS (Wiwe, 2005)
Guidelines for Municipal
Wastewater Management
(UNEP et al 2004)
CLTS (Kar, 2005)
NETSSAF (2008)
Lack of Capacity – Top Concern
 Limited absorptive capacity, i.e.
inability to make use of available
resources
 Poor service delivery and
performance
 Limited transfer of knowledge
 Construction of infrastructures
without consultation with end-users
Sustainable Sanitation Alliance
Thematic working groups
 capacity development
 costs & economics
 renewable energy/groundwater/
 climate change
 technology
options/hygiene/health
 food security
 cities & planning
 community & rural sanitation
 emergency & reconstruction
 sanitation as a business
 public awareness & marketing
 operations & maintenance
 100 partners organisations
Conclusions
Size of the Problem is
Underestimated
 the UN definition of improved sanitation
does not strictly take into account
dysfunction and contamination of the
environment
 the UN coverage data may be providing
an unrealistic picture
 if a definition including sustainability
criteria were to be used, the global
sanitation crisis would be even larger
than it is perceived to be today
Not Given High Enough Priority
 the health burden (e.g. diarrhoeal
diseases & worm infestations) imposed
by dysfunctional or non-existent hygiene
& sanitation should be given as high a
priority as other diseases like malaria,
HIV/AIDS & tuberculosis
 informal settlements such as slums and
peri-urban areas require special added
attention in terms of provision of safe
water and sanitation systems
Sustainability Criteria Are Not Yet
Being Used
 the introduction of sustainability criteria into
the definition, planning and implementation of
sanitation systems will have long-term positive
impacts and make the investments even more
cost-effective
 more appropriate, affordable and resilient
sanitation systems are available than those
currently being chosen and that professionals
need to be better informed and trained about
these
Public Dialogue and Demand is
Lacking
 sanitation pays for itself several times over in improved
health and livelihoods
 there are many active institutional players involved
 but lack of public dialogue and awareness prevents large
strides in progress
 sanitation must be seen as an interplay between human
behaviour (cultural attitudes and norms)
 appropriate technologies needed
 stakeholder and gender-sensitive planning and
implementation needed
 scaling up needs planning systems, public ownership,
local political leadership and stable financing
Local Financing the Key
 financing of sanitation systems needs to be
predictable and reliable
 based on the local ability to pay
 not entirely on external subsidies
 the costing out must also include operations
and maintenance
 innovative financing can be developed e.g. with
micro-credit loans also involving inclusive
financial sectors not before linked to sanitation
Sanitation Value Chain
 sanitation products e.g. water and nutrients are not
waste products but valuable resources
 sanitation systems should be designed around
possible reuse options
 this will have significant impacts on nutrition and food
security
 productive sanitation can significantly substitute the
use of chemical fertilisers in developing countries
 capacity building at the individual and institutional
levels is needed globally to lift the sanitation sector
into the era of sustainable development
www.ecosanres.org