0. Institutional Frameworks for Fecal Sludge Management:
An Introduction
Isabel Blackett and Peter Hawkins

1. Video intro clips Peter Isabel
Snr WSS with World Bank for last 9 years, based in Maputo working on urban sanitation and small town water supplies, and supporting urban sanitation projects in Ghana, Zambia, Ethiopia and globally. Previously working mostly in Africa on sanitation. Interested in pit emptying and fecal sludge management since 1980 when working for the London school of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Isabel
Snr WSS with World Bank for last 10 years, based in Jakarta and working on EA urban sanitation, Pacific WASH and on WB Global urban sanitation agenda with a special passion for Fecal sludge management (said not written!) Previously I worked for 15 years in East and Southern Africa for bilateral agencies, NGOs and in the private sector.

2. Sanitation Service Chain
MDGs
Proposed Post 2015 Goals
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Collection
Containment
Sewerage
Conventional focus: sewage treatment and trunk sewers
Water closet
Sewer network
Pumping stations
Treatment plant
Reuse/ disposal
Largely neglected to date …
Fecal Sludge Management
Fecal Sludge Management for on-site systems
Due to high population density there is not enough space in the dense urban environment to accumulate (bury) fecal sludge.
So It must be removed from the household environment and we get a urban sanitation is a service chain composed of several steps.
From household containment, as a shared or private investment at one end, to treatment, which is typically a large lumpy public investment.
In conventional sewerage, these are connected by a publicly operated sewer service which is ideally bundled with treatment.
A fecal sludge management service to support on-site services may be simple, but may require more steps due to difficult access to latrines
The MDGs we have focused only on the first step, and the downstream steps were not monitored. However the proposed at that the Post MDG development goals, propose reducing by 50% the fecal waste going into the immediate residential environment.
But in practice, for most cities the situation is often much more complicated than this…
Latrine or
septic tank
Vacuum truck
Treatment plant
Reuse/ disposal
Primary emptying
Transfer
Safe burial

3. Fecal Waste Flow Diagram… helping get priorities straight
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment
WC to sewer
On-site facility
87% safe
13% unsafe
Open defecation 9%
90%
Reduce leakage
Improve treatment
Leakage
Illegally discharged
Legally discharged
Effectively treated
Not treated 3%
Safely abandoned and covered when full
Safely emptied
Unsafely emptied
Fecal sludge management
46%
Explain the SFD
We developed the shitflow diagram to visualize the population contributing to fecal waste flows in the various service chains, and where it is leaking out and where it ends up. It has proven helpful, both in convincing decision-makers of the need to improve sanitation, and for technical folk, in breaking the problem down into component parts whilst showing their interrelationships
This the SFD need interpretation at the local level for instance:
Pollution in some places may be more dangerous than in others, so the contributing populations are only part of the story
In some cities, groundwater may be an important water source, so we would need to look at how on-site sanitation affects its potability
We are working together with SuSanA, GIZ, BMGF and some academic and civil society institutions on refining it, developing a standard methodology with quality controls, and supporting other partners to develop SFDs for more cities, which we will discuss further later in this session
This one is for Maputo, and it is clear that unsafe manual emptying of latrines is a major issue. But we also note that about half the safely emptied fecal sludge is illegally dumped into the environment. And that more than half the sewage overflows into the bay, mostly due to degraded sewers and non-functional pumping stations
On the left side you see containment in dry latrines and septic tanks which flow via a range of routes to different ultimate disposal points and mostly going into Maputo Bay.
Reduce OD
Sanitation for rented housing
43%
38% 5% 7% 2% 1%
54% 1%
Residential environment
Drainage system
Receiving waters
Data from Maputo

4. Why Fecal Sludge Management is Important
Most urban dwellers with sanitation access use on-site: <10% of urban Africa has sewer access
Virtually all poor people use on-site sanitation – if they have any sanitation at all
On-site sanitation is rarely managed as an integrated system including transport and treatment, resulting in major environmental pollution.
Urban Access to Improved Sanitation
Paraguay
Vietnam
Philippines
India
Sierra Leone
Ghana
Why is FSM important? JMP data shows increasing numbers of the urban pop now have access to improved san. But this conceals three important points….
In developing countries urban sanitation access is achieved mostly through on-site systems, e.g.
In Sub-Saharan Africa among utilities serving the largest cities, only half of them report operating a sewerage network at all. (AICD report by Vivien Foster)
Poorer people only have access to lower levels of service (graph)
In LAC there is still a substantial reliance on unplanned onsite systems and even some open defecation in many cities. (latest JMP data reported at the Berlin consultation in December)
In all regions inadequate and ad hoc services are concentrated in slums and informal settlements. (AICD & from interviews with city managers and mayors) and IBNet )
The fecal waste from the on-site sanitation facilities rarely reaches a treatment facility for safe reuse or legal disposal.
Sources: Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic Background Paper 13 (2008) Elvira Morella, Vivien Foster, and Sudeshna Ghosh Banerjee
UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Program (2015) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 update and MDG assessment

5. Urban Sanitation is About Services
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment
Water closet
Sewer network
Pumping stations
Sewage treatment plant
Reuse/ disposal
Septic tank
Vacuum truck
Latrine
Septage treatment plant
Primary emptying
Three levels of services:
Consumer services, provided directly to users – often viable on a commercial basis as they are essentially private goods
Public services, downstream of users, serving the general public by keeping the environment clean and healthy. These produce public goods, and as such may not be able to be financed by direct user charges
Infrastructure development, often an important component of public services, but frequently undertaken by a different actor
Hence the need to ensure that all these components are in place and link up as they are supposed to
Public Services
Sludge treatment
Sewerage O&M
Drainage maintenance
Solid waste management
Infrastructure Development
Customer Services
Materials supply
Construction
Public toilets
Desludging
Private Goods
Public Goods

6. Institutions to Deliver Services along the Sanitation Chain
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment
Malaysia
A national wastewater utility
Here we can start with two positive examples … (BTW I am going all out promoting Malaysia, as its NATIONAL – and if its not helpful its at least it no more unhelpful than Durban! I heard a comment last week that Durban has spent about $3000/person on sanitation over the last 10 years. But would like to verify before quoting tha to anyone)
But not every where is like Dhaka… and there are examples of places where FSM is well managed - the ones that come to mind are Durban / eThekwini in South Africa, Malaysia and Manila in Philippines.
There are also countries and cities as far apart as Senegal, Indonesia, Santa Cruz and Mozambique have ‘emerging’ FSM systems and others who have developed policies and plans and are busy with th
But many countries have not yet accepted that FSM needs managing – and maybe you can be part of the process by which that changes?

7. Institutions to Deliver Services along the Sanitation Chain
eThekwini
(Durban)  South Africa
Water and Sanitation Unit within
eThekwini Municipality 

8. Ladder of Institutional Options – Indonesia
Each City:
Self-assesses the existing situation and identifies which step they are on
City decision makers review recommendations and plan how they will move up the ladder
A more typical situation compared to Durban and Malaysia where this is ‘not much happening’ in Indonesia.
Back in 2011 we assessed a number of cities to look at the institutional arrangements for FSM -- they varied widely and included::
no institution at all
the solid waste unit running a few tanker trucks to collect fecal waste – often on the quiet, with staff using them in an almost semi-private way….
an semi-independent local company which offered ‘on request’ services for a tariff, and
one water and sewerage utility one which charged everyone a 30% wastewater surcharge of the water fees – which was used for both sewerage services and FSM.
But mostly the private sector emptied peoples pits and tanks and disposed of the waste when no one was looking in an out of the way place. Except in one city called Jombang, where the companies actually were worried about getting court and used the treatment plant.
We plotted att the current option on a latter and gave recommendation of the next Steps that should be taken – depending on where they start. Ideally and where possible cities are encouraged to jump up several rungs of the later .. Of the political will is there to do it.

9. Institutional Arrangements in Maputo
CRA – Regulator
AIAS – Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Board
National Water Directorate
Technical assistance
Capacity building
Policy
Strategy
Legislation
Regulation
Municipal Council
Regulation
Development
Licencing
Management
Coordination
Providers of goods & services
Operators of public services
NGOs and other partners
Here we see a situation where there is no utility involved, with the municipal council playing a pivotal integrating and coordinating role. However, in practice, many of these functions are not being carried out. In addition, financing recurrent costs is a problem, and the municipality is introducing a sanitation fee to be charged on water bills collected by the water utility and passed on to the municipal council.
Monitoring
Promotion
Goods
Services
Services
Services
Customers

10. Assessing the Enabling Environment
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment
Developing
Enabling
Policy
Planning
Budget
Expenditure
Equity
Outputs
Maintenance
Expansion
User outcomes
Sustaining
Participatory Process
2.5 2
1.5 1
0.5
Example: Kampala

11. FSM Typology of cities… From informal to managed
Enabling
Developing
Sustaining
Poor FSM
e.g. Delhi, Dhaka
Basic FSM
e.g. Kampala
Improving FSM
e.g. Dumaguete, Palu, Dakar
Type 1 –
Poor FSM – no framework and almost no services e.g. Dhaka and Delhi
Type 2 –
Basic or Improving FSM - some of the service delivery framework, some services, eg. Kampala
Type 3 –
Partial FSM – most the framework in place, widly avaiable services exist, but still room for improvement Eg Palu, Dumagete, Dakar, Senegal
And finally to check our SDA tool was realistic, we found good data from Malaysia and could conclude that they have a ‘Managed FSM” system, through the whole service chain and effective regulation.
Comparator:
Managed FSM
e.g. Malaysian cities
Poor
Basic
Good

12. Poor FSM… Institutional open defecation
Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Disposal
No framework; almost no services 1
0.5
Policy
Planning
Budget
Enabling
e.g. Dhaka, Bangladesh
Policy for containment at household
Almost no services, some informal emptying and transport
Expenditure
Equity
Output
Developing
The next result came from the modified SDA framework of Enabling, developing and Sustaining) to better understand the intuitional side if Fecal Sludge Management --- Alongside the sanitation service chain of Containment, Emptying, Transport, treatment and disposal
We call the First type - Poor FSM – Institionalized Open Defection --
different…
In 2008, the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) issued the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP). The policy sets goals to: raise awareness and promote behavior change; achieve ODF cities; develop citywide sanitation plans; and provide 100% safe confinement, transport, treatment and disposal of human excreta and liquid wastes. The NUSP mandates states to develop state urban sanitation strategies and work with cities to develop city sanitation plans. Furthermore, it explicitly states that cities and states must issue policies and technical solutions that address onsite sanitation, including the safe confinement of fecal sludge (USAID, 2010).
Nevertheless, the NUSP is relatively new and FSM in India continues to receive little attention and inadequate funding. The Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) who are mandated with responsibility for sanitation in cities are critically understaffed and underfunded.
The provisions for regulating sewage management exist under environmental laws that cover water and disposal of wastewater but management of on-site sanitation and fecal sludge is not covered, except in specifying prohibition of its discharge into water bodies. By default, FSM is covered under Municipal Wastes (Handling and Management) Rules 2000 but separate regulation does not exist and guidelines and enforcement laws are completely absent. This lack of existing local and state policies and management practices is restricting the ULBs capacity to manage FS.
Now using a Fecal Sludge Tracking Diagram for Dhaka what we find is…
0.5
Maintenance
Service expansion
User outcomes
Sustaining
Poor
Basic
Good

13. Not effectively treated
Poor FSM: Institutional Open Defecation Sludge direct to the environment: no service chain
Treatment
Reuse/ disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment 9% 2%
Effectively treated
Not effectively treated
WC to
sewer
On-site facility
Open defecation
20%
79% 1%
Left to overflow
or abandoned
Safely emptied
Unsafely emptied 9%
69% 2%
Leakage
Illegally dumped 9% 1%
98%
Local Area
Drainage system
Receiving waters
Data from Dhaka

14. Improving FSM… Services available, sustainability challenges
Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Disposal
Framework; Partial services
1.5 1
2.5 3
Policy
Planning
Budget
Enabling
e.g. Dakar, Senegal
Most parts of framework in place
Services developed and partly sustained
Reuse and disposal still weak
1.5 1
Expenditure
Equity
Output
Developing
By contrast – here is a typical Type 3 city - Dakar, Senegal. The core parts of the enabling framework are in place and there is considerable improvement in the developing and sustaining pillars. Much higher SDA scores and more yellow and green
Services have been developed and maintained – but more at the start of the service chain than at the end.
The World Banks PAQPUD project looks at the whole service chain from containment to treatment and having a positive influence. However, the challenge remains to develop and sustain progress aftercompletion of the project.
Remaining weaknesses appears in ‘sustaining’ treatment (CLICK) and
A lack of a framework and positive management for reuse and proper disposal (CLICK)
1.5 1 2
Maintenance
Service expansion
User outcomes
Sustaining
Poor
Basic
Good

15. Improving FSM: Framework, services exist Some sludge safely transported and treated
Treatment
Reuse/ Disposal
Transport
Emptying
Containment
WC to
sewer
On-site facility
Open defecation 2%
10%
Safely abandoned when full
Safely emptied
Unsafely emptied
29%
Effectively treated
Discharge without treatment 3% 6%
17%
18%
Not effectively treated
25%
Dysfunctional pumping
Illegally dumped
Legally dumped
10% 5%
31%
73%
In this example we can see the service chain is strengthening, although performance is lagging behind the development of the enabling environment and investments which are taking place.
Now only 30% of waste ends up in the immediate residential environment…
The challenge now is to
consolidate and expand services
for more safe emptying and
incentives to reduce illegal dumping of waste
69%
Data from Dakar
Domestic environment
Drainage system
Receiving waters

16. Sanitary Services, Water and Public Health
Groundwater pollution
Groundwater for drinking
Treatment
End-use, Disposal
Toilet
(containment)
Emptying,
Transport
Dirty
toilet
Unsafe emptying
Drainage system,
Leaky sewers
Drainage system,
Leaky sewers
Inadequate solid waste management
Contaminated water, produce
Poor personal hygiene
Inadequate water supply
Uncontrolled land-use

17. Complementary Services
Sanitation only works well alongside effective
Drainage
Solid waste management
Urban planning
So we need drainage (and at a more macro level, flood management) if the sanitation systems are to work
And for drainage to work, the solid waste has to be well managed

18. …so Need to Integrate Urban Sanitary Services
Physical planning
Land-use control
Solid Waste
Collection
Sanitary Landfill
Tenure and land-use control
Physical planning
Urban upgrading
Flooding, downstream pollution
Stormwater
Drainage Maintenance
SepticTanks
Latrines
Pit and Tank Emptying
Treatment Works
Pumping Stations
Sewerage Network
Treatment Works

19. Service Delivery Action Framework
National Enabling Environment
Policy
Regulation
Cap. Bld’g
Planning
Financing
Monitoring
Local Governance Functions
Planning and coordination
Legislation, enforcement (service standards, land use)
Promotion and monitoring of improved services
Support to development of local services
Housing policy and tenure arrangements
Public-Private Partnerships
Customer Services
Toilet construction
Hardware supplies
Pit emptying
Public toilets
Public Services
Fecal sludge treatment
Sewerage operation
Drainage management
Solid waste management
Infrastructure
Development
FS treatment facilities
Sewerage
Drainage
Many factors need to come together to achieve a positive sanitation outcome. These are some of the key ones. Both the public and private sectors will typically be involved. At the upstream end of the service chain, people are usually willing to pay to free themselves of fecal waste, but they may be less willing or able to pay for the public benefits provided by the downstream parts of the chain, so public funds are usually required as well. Whoever provides the services, effective local governance is needed to provide an enabling environment, which itself depends on the national policy, legal, institutional, regulatory and financial environment.
Private Sector
Public Sector

20. Forget Everything - except these points
Sanitation is a series of interconnected services that needs to function 24/7
Services can only be delivered reliably by motivated people in institutions with well defined roles and accountabilities
Planning, budgeting and monitoring are essential elements of accountability and sustainability
Use the SFD and other diagnostic tools to prioritize and focus interventions – never assume a solution before assessing current problems and future scenarios
FSM should be a formal, regulated, city-wide service, explicitly recognized in byelaws and regulations
National policies, plans, funding and reporting mechanisms can support implementation at scale.

21. Thank You