IEES Dr. Johannes Heeb Bahnhofstraße 2, CH-6110 Wolhusen, Schweiz Phone: +41-(0) Fax: +41-(0) Network for the Development of Sustainable Approaches for Large Scale Implementation of Sanitation in Africa NETSSAF Coordination Action Proposal/Contract Number: A Coordination Action supported by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme within the " GLOBAL CHANGE AND ECOSYSTEMS " Programme Starting Date: 1st June 2006 Face-to-Face Training Course “Capacity Building for Ecological Sanitation” Economic Aspects of Ecosan

Credits This training material has been compiled by seecon international gmbh and Ecosan Services Foundation (ESF), for face-to-face capacity building courses in the field of ecological sanitation. Following the open-source concept for capacity building and non-profit use, copying is allowed provided proper acknowledgement of the source is made. We apologize in advance if references are missing or are incorrect, and welcome feedback if errors are detected. We encourage all feedback on the composition and content of this training material. Please direct it either to or seecon international gmbh Dr. Johannes Heeb Bahnhofstrasse 2, 6110 Wolhusen, Switzerland Phone:+41-(0) Web: Ecosan Services Foundation (ESF) Mr. Dayanand Panse "Vishwa Chandra", 1002/42 Rajendra Nagar, Pune – , Maharashtra, India Phone:+91-(0) Web:

Contents 1.Introduction 2.Conventional Waterborne Sanitation 3.Costs of Sanitation Systems 4.Benefits of Sanitation Systems 5.Costs & Benefits: Examples 6.Conclusion Source: GTZ

1. Introduction  Economic aspects are not well researched  Comparison with conventional sewage treatment systems is very difficult to conduct as benefits from ecosan not always only material, e.g.: increased dignity better quality of life better health  Figures concerning the true cost of conventional sanitation systems are hardly available.  Conventional Systems: Huge investment cost made in the past (e.g. piping system, treatment plant, etc.) = “sunk costs”, but running costs are even higher (considering technical life span of treatment facilities) J. Heeb

2. Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Investment Cost are Very High Initial investment costs for centralised sewage collection system make up for the largest part, i.e. 70 to 90% of the total cost of sewage treatment.  Collection system %  Treatment % (Otis 1996, Mork et al.2000) Consider lifespan of pipe network! In the US:  37% of all new developments are serviced by onsite or decentralised systems (USEPA 2000) Investment Cost of centralised sewer systems Wastewater treatment plant Sewer lines P. Jenssen Source: adapted from (6)

2. Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Water Cost Source: adapted from (6) “ % of the water consumption in sewered cities is due to the water toilet.” (2)

3. Costs of Sanitation Systems Source: (4) improved traditional practice & hygiene Simple Pit Latrine VIP Latrine Pour Flush Latrine Septic Tank Latrine Sewer Connection with Local Labour Connection to Conventional Sewer Sewer Connection & Secondary WWT Tertiary WWT ECOLOGICAL SANITATION ECOLOGICAL DRY SANITATION WWT = Wastewater Treatment ESTIMATED COSTS/person US$ incl. 15% O&M (140)

3. Costs of Sanitation Systems: Measurement COSTS: Economically measurable? Investment costs: Toilet structure√ Yes Transport (pipe) system √ Yes, but difficult to obtain data for conventional systems Sewage treatment √ Yes, but difficult to obtain data for conventional systems Running costs: Operation & Maintenance √ Yes, but sometimes difficult to obtain data Energy√ Yes Water√ Yes Support costs:Training, Awareness raising√ Yes Source: seecon

3. Cost of Sanitation Systems: Comparison 1. Simple Pit Latrine 2. Urine-Diversion Dehydration (UDD) Ecosan Toilet 3. Conventional Waterborne Sanitation System Source: Sanimas UDD TOILET urine feaces Source: seecon

3. Cost Comparison of Different Sanitation Systems COSTS: Simple Pit Latrine UDD Ecosan Toilet Conventional Sanitation System Investment costs: Toilet structurelowlow-medium Transport (pipe) system nilvery lowvery high Sewage treatmentnillowvery high Running costs: Operation & Maintenance lowLow-mediumhigh Energynil high Waternil very high Support costs: Training, Awareness raising lowhighlow Source: seecon

3. Cost of Sanitation Systems: Comparison Conventional sanitation systems and ecological sanitation systems have a different cost structure: Conventional Sanitation Ecosan Source: Adapted from GTZ (17) ECOSAN: generally lower cost (decentralised, modular nature of systems, no extensive pipe network) Individual household costs may be higher (initial costs)

4. Benefits of Sanitation Systems In contrast to conventional systems ecosan systems have many external benefits:  Preservation of groundwater quality  Preservation of rivers lakes  Higher & better quality food production  Increased dignity (no manholes, no handling of fresh faeces)  Improvement of soil structure and fertility  Increased access to fertilising agents  Reduced energy consumption in the treatment works  Nutrient and resource conservation  Potential for energy production Source: (17) Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

4. Benefits of Sanitation Systems: Measurement BENEFITS: Economically measurable? Direct Economic Benefits: Sale/substitute of compost & fertilizer √ Yes Environ- mental Benefits: Preservation of groundwater quality Very difficult Preservation of rivers lakes Very difficult Food Security: Higher & better quality food production √ Yes, but difficult Human Dignity : Increased dignity (no manholes, no handling of fresh faeces) X No Convenience No smell, no flies X No Maintenance free for user √ Yes, in working hours System stability to misuse X No Improved Health: Improved hygienic conditions for direct user √ Yes, but difficult (more working hours due to fewer illnesses) Preservation of clean drinking water for downstream users Very difficult Source: seecon

4. Benefit Sanitation Systems: Comparison BENEFITS: Simple Pit Latrine UDD Ecosan Toilet Conventional Sanitation System Direct Economic Benefits: Sale/substitute of compost & fertilizer nilhighnil Environ- mental Benefits: Preservation of groundwater qualitylowvery highlow-medium Preservation of rivers & lakesmediumvery high very low - medium Food Security: Higher & better quality food production nil-lowhighnil Human Dignity : Increased dignity (no manholes, handling of fresh faeces) low-mediumhighlow-medium Convenience No smell, no flieslowmedium-highhigh Maintenance free for usermedium-highmediummedium-high System stability to misusehighlowmedium Improved Health: Improved hygienic conditions for direct user medium-highhigh Preservation of clean drinking water for downstream users low-mediumvery highlow-medium Source: seecon

4. Benefits Sanitation Systems: Fertilizer Value  Yearly requirement: 135 Mio tons of mineral fertiliser  Conventional sanitation dumps 50 Mio tons of fertiliser equivalents - worth 15 Billion US dollar.” (9) Ecological Sanitation: Fertilizer Value

5. Costs & Benefits: Cost comparsion UDD pour flush in Sri Lanka, septic tank)

5. Costs & Benefits: Cost comparsion study in the Philippines Scope of Study Cost analysis for selected on-site and decentralized sanitation systems Initial investment costs; construction cost only cost for operation & maintenance operation materials (energy, treatment, cleaning), labour Cost for Development, Planning and Social preparation for UDDT only Benefits of sanitation for health and environment; collection of data

5. Costs & Benefits: Cost comparsion study in the Philippines Decentralized Systems  BORDA – DEWATS Dumaguete City waste water from public market anaerobic baffled reactor, anaerobic filter, planted soil filter, polishing pond  Constructed Wetland Bayawan City domestic wastewater settling tanks, vertical and horizontal planted soil filter On-Site Systems  Ventilated Improve Pit (VIP) Latrine  Flush Toilet with Septic Tank and leaching field (with secondary treatment – e.g. leaching chamber/field)  Urine Diversion Dehydration Toilet (2-vault type) with reuse of treated excreta  Household Biogas Model (PCWS) with use of biogas in household

5. Costs & Benefits: Cost comparsion study in the Philippines Cost included  Construction Cost  Materialfor  LabourSubstructure & Superstructure  Operation & Maintenance  Energy  Water  Other operation materials  Labour

5. Costs & Benefits: Cost comparsion study in the Philippines Investment costs and total O&M costs per household

5. Costs & Benefits: Toilet-linked agricultural biogas plants in Nepal (source:

5. Costs & Benefits: Toilet-linked agricultural biogas plants in Nepal (source: adapted from BSP-Nepal 2007) Average costs of GGC 2047 biogas plants in Nepal in 2006/2007

5. Costs & Benefits: UDDs in India and Nepal ca. INR 11,000 (source: Rural Development Department Karnataka State) USD (where community contributes ca. 40%) (source: ENPHO, Nepal) (photo: Wafler M.) (photo: Shrestha R.R.)

5. Costs & Benefits: UDDs in India ca. INR 12,000 ca. INR 13,000 (source: SCOPE) (source:

5. Costs & Benefits: UDDs in India and Nepal ca. INR 15,000 (photo: N. Zimmermann) Scope for cost reduction: construction material; pan (design, material,...);... but NOT compromising on durability of UDD-Toilet

5. Costs & Benefits: Constructed Wetlands in Nepal private house (500 l/d gw, 6 m 2 VFCW) USD 430 (VFCW, settling, dosing and storage tank) (source: ENPHO, Nepal) Dhulikhel Hospital (20 m 3 /d ww, 140 m 2 HFCW, 120 m 2 VFCW) USD 27,000 (sewer, settlement tank, HFCW, VFCW) (source: ENPHO, Nepal) (photo: R.R. Shrestha)

5. Costs & Benefits: Exemplified costs of vacuum and gravity sewer sample project in Middle East setting:  coastal area,  flat land,  sandy soil  7,500 PE (source: Roediger)

5. Costs & Benefits: Exemplified costs of vacuum and gravity sewer Vacuum sewer line itemcosts [€] Collection chambers Vacuum cewer lines (PVC) Inspections pipes & division valves Vacuum station Custom and transport (vacuum station & sollection chambers TOTAL Gravity flow sewer line itemcosts [€] Gravity sewer lines Manholes pumping stations (concrete and structure, pumps) Biofilters TOTAL ca 40% less investment costs costs cover construction time and material at a length of the lines of ca. 18,000 meters Investment (source: Roediger)

5. Costs & Benefits: Exemplified costs of vacuum and gravity sewer Vacuum Labour: Regular check of collection chambers Regular check of vacuum station Replacement/repair: Oil and filters to vacuum pumps Valve membrane (2-5 years) replacement Gravity Labour: Regular check of manholes Pipeline inspection, camera, cleaning deposits Flushing Replacement/repair: Oil discharge pumps and lifting station pumps Concrete manhole/sewer - repairs Operation & Maintenance (source: Roediger)

5. Costs & Benefits: Exemplified costs of vacuum and gravity sewer Vacuum Electricity consumption: Electricity consumption of vacuum station (15-25 kWh/PE) Cleaning the system: Water treatment: Handle only wastewater Handle fresh waste water, mixed with air Closed system – handle only wastewater of the community Gravity Electricity consumption: Electricity consumption of Lifting stations and discharging pumps Cleaning the system: H 2 S deodorization Flushing, spooling the system Water treatment: Handle big amount of rainwater in several cases Handle aged wastewater Handle wastewater from unsure source Operation & Maintenance (source: Roediger)

Conclusion Emerging countries:  Often no established infrastructure for wastewater handling  Water, money, and fertilisers are scarce resources while labour is cheap and available.  Conditions do not match characteristics of conventional wastewater systems (water intensive + costly infrastructure) Ecological sanitation systems are often locally managed:  low transport costs  minor requirements for water  reuse of nutrients (fertilizer)  Where no established infrastructure for wastewater handling exists, ecological sanitation is a cheaper and more appropriate technology than conventional centralised systems Ecological sanitation can provide both the poor and the wealthy with sustainable sanitary systems at an affordable cost. Source: (3) Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

++ References (1)Bruecher, J. (2005): ecosan & -nomics: A thinkpiece on the costs and benefits of ecological sanitation. Unpublished Power- Point Presentation. Seminar by Dr. Johannes Heeb: Sustainable Resource Management and socially viable technical innovation, University of Basel, January (2)Gardner, G. (1997): Recycling organic waste: From urban pollutant to farm resource. Worldwatch Institute, Paper 135, 58p. (3)Jenssen, P.D. et al (2004): Ecological Sanitation and Reuse of Wastewater – ecosan. A thinkpiece on ecological sanitation. Agricultural University of Norway, March (4)UNEP (2004): Financing wastewater collection and treatment in relation to the Millennium Development Goals and World Summit on Sustainable Development targets on water and sanitation. Eighth special session of the Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum Jeju, Republic of Korea, March UNEP/GCSS.VIII/INF/4 (5)Winblad, U. & M. Simpson-Hébert (2004): Ecological Sanitation. Revised and enlarged edition. Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Stockholm, Sweden. (6)Jenssen, P.D. (2005): Ecological Sanitation – an overview. PP-Presentation, Course: Appropriate Sanitation for the developing world. 15th of August 2005, Agricultural University of Norway. (7)Söderberg, H. & Kärrman, E. (2003) (Eds.). MIKA. Methodologies for integration of knowledge areas. The case of sustainable urban water management. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. In: Refsgaard, K., Jenssen, P. D. & Magid, J. (2005): Possibilities for closing the urban-rural nutrient cycles. – In: CAB International (2005): Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Promises (eds. N. Halberg, H.F. Alrøe, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) (8)Refsgaard, K., Jenssen, P. D. & Magid, J. (2005): Possibilities for closing the urban-rural nutrient cycles. – In: CAB International (2005): Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Promises (eds. N. Halberg, H.F. Alrøe, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) (9)Lystad, H., McKinnon, K. & Henriksen, T. (2002). Organisk avfall som gjødselvare i økologisk landbruk. Resultater fra spørreundersøkelser og identifisering av FoU-behov. Jordforsk-report – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (10)Vatn, A. (forthcoming). Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar. – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (11)Vatn, A. & Bromley, D.W. (1997). Externalities – a market model failure. Environmental and Resource Economics 9: – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (12)Werner, Ch (2004): Ecological sanitation – principles, urban application and challenges. PP-Presentation. UN Commission on Sustainable Development, 12th Session - New York, April (13)M. Maurer, P. Schwegler and T.A. Larsen (2003): Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects of removal and recovery. EAWAG. In: Water Science and Technology Vol. 48 No 1 pp 37–46 IWA Publishing Available at: (Accessed ) (14)UNDP (2000). Human Development Report Oxford University Press. N.Y. – In: (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year):

++ References (15)Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year): Economical and ecological benefits of decentralised, small-scale human excreta management system in Nepal. University of Flensburg & University of Hamburg-Harburg. (16)BSP (Biogas Support Program) (no date): An Introduction to Biogas Technology. Kathmandu – In: (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year): (17)Werner, Ch. Et al (2006): An ecosan source book for the preparation and implementation of ecological sanitation projects. Unesco/IHP and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. (18)Cardone, R. and Fonseca, C. (2003): Financing and Cost recovery. Thematic Overview Paper, IRC (International Water and Sanitation Centre). In: Werner et al. (17). (19)SEI (2005):”Sustainable Pathways to Attain the MDGs: Addressing the Key Role of Water, Energy and Sanitation”. - SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute). – In: Werner et al. (17). (20)Evans, B. (2001) Financing and cost recovery, Sanitation Connection, WSP Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, USA. – In: Werner et al. (17). (21)WHO/UNICEF JMP (World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Programme) for Water Supply and Sanitation (2005):”Water for life: making it happen”. - World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. – In: Werner et al. (17). (22)Jönsson, Håkan; Werner, Christine; Otterpohl, Ralf, Rosmarin, Arno; Calvert, Paul and Vinnerås, Björn (2005):”ecosan - both economic and eco-sane”. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (23)McCann, Bill (2005):”The sanity of ecosan”. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (24)Mara, Duncan (2005):”Duncan Mara responds” - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (25)Mara, Duncan (2005):”Ecological Sanitation - an unaffordable option?”. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (26)Ashworth, John (2005):”Support for the dissent”. - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (27)Otterpohl, Ralf (2005):”A shift to resources management sanitation”. - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: – In: Werner et al. (17). (28)Brikké, F. (2000):Operation and Maintenance of rural water supply and sanitation systems – A training package for managers and planners. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and World Health Organization.

IEES Dr. Johannes Heeb Bahnhofstraße 2, CH-6110 Wolhusen, Schweiz Phone: +41-(0) Fax: +41-(0) Network for the Development of Sustainable Approaches for Large Scale Implementation of Sanitation in Africa NETSSAF Coordination Action Proposal/Contract Number: A Coordination Action supported by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme within the " GLOBAL CHANGE AND ECOSYSTEMS " Programme Starting Date: 1st June 2006 Face-to-Face Training Course “Capacity Building for Ecological Sanitation” Economic Aspects of Ecosan