M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation

M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation
DEMO-VERSION: LINKS TO EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS DO NOT WORK! M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation M 4-1: ecosan – strategies for an informed choice GTZ WSSCC Hesperian Foundation Dr. Johannes Heeb, International Ecological Engineering Society & seecon international Prof. Dr. Petter Jenssen, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Dr. Ken Gnanakan, ACTS Bangalore, India Katharina Conradin, seecon international © 2006 seecon International gmbh ACTS Agriculture -Crafts - Trades - Studies

Credits K. Conradin Materials included in this CD-ROM comprise materials from various organisations. The materials complied on this CD are freely available at the internet, following the open-source concept for capacity building and non-profit use, provided proper acknowledgement of the source is made. The publication of these materials on this CD-ROM does not alter any existing copyrights. Material published on this CD for the first time follows the same open-source concept for capacity building and non-profit use, with all rights remaining with the original authors / producing organisations. Therefore the user should please always give credit in citations to the original author, source and copyright holder. We thank all individuals and institutions that have provided information for this CD, especially the German Agency for Technical Cooperation GTZ, Ecosanres, Ecosan Norway, the International Water and Sanitation Centre IRC, the Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, the World Health Organisation WHO, the Hesperian Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIDA, the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries SANDEC of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Sanitation by Communities SANIMAS, the Stockholm International Water Institute SIWI, the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council WSSCC, the World Water Assessment Programme of the UNESCO, the Tear Fund, Wateraid, and all others that have contributed in some way to this curriculum. We apologize in advance if references are missing or incorrect, and welcome feedback if errors are detected. We encourage all feedback on the composition and content of this curriculum. Please direct it either to or seecon K. Conradin

Credits ecosan Curriculum - Credits
K. Conradin ecosan Curriculum - Credits Concept and ecosan expertise: Johannes Heeb, Petter D. Jenssen, Ken Gnanakan Compiling of Information: Katharina Conradin Layout: Katharina Conradin Photo Credits: Mostly Johannes Heeb & Katharina Conradin, otherwise as per credit. Text Credits: As per source indication. Financial support: Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) How to obtain the curriculum material Free download of PDF tutorials: Order full curriculum CD: € 50 (€ 10 Developing Countries) Release: 1.0, March 2006, 1000 copies Feedback: Feedback regarding improvements, errors, experience of use etc. is welcome. Please notify the above -addresses. Sources Copyright: Copyright of the individual sources lies with the authors or producing organizations. Copying is allowed as long as references are properly acknowledged. seecon

The Fuzzy Sanitation Problem
Executive Summary M. Kropac Content Overview The Fuzzy Sanitation Problem Implementing Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing Needs Planning for Sanitation HCES: The Household Centred Sanitation Approach HCES: The Zonal Model of the HCES Approach HCES: Principle of Minimizing Waste Transfer HCES: Decision Making HCES: 10-step process EcoSanRes: Open Planning of Sanitation Systems Step 1: Problem Identification Step 2: Identification of Boundary Conditions Step 3: Terms of Requirement Step 4: Analysis of Possible Solutions Step 5: Choice of the Most Appropriate Solution GTZ: The ecosan project steps CBS: Community Based Sanitation (BORDA) WSSCC: Community Driven Development for Water and Sanitation in Urban Areas

This module is supposed to
Content Overview K. Conradin This module is supposed to give an overview of some decision-making approaches that explain how to chose an appropriate sanitation concept for a certain community. Household Centred Environmental Sanitation (HCES) Approach, the Ecosanres: Open Planning of Sanitation Systems Approach, the GTZ ecosan Project Steps, BORDA Community Based Sanitation Approach. Some of the approaches might show similar project steps or might even overlap. Still, this chapter is meant to clarify some terms and approaches that always reappear in the sanitation discussion around the world. As well, it should give an overview of how decision-making processes can be addressed. Thus, some repetitions are unavoidable.

The Fuzzy Sanitation Problem
When looking at sanitation from a wider angle, one notices that it is not just about clean streets, sewage, or treating and disposing of excreta. Sanitation is actually a much wider problem, concerning various spheres and areas of action. Not only is the ‘common’ and ‘accepted’ version of sanitation very much part of the mainstream culture (e.g. the mindset that flushing-toilets are the state-of-the art concept), but those ideas are also spread to other cultures via globalisation. Sanitation is, on the other hand, also a very private and tabooed affair, and open public discussion may be difficult, as conceptions are influenced not only by personal values, but also individual beliefs and attitudes. In some countries, there is additionally a strong tradition regulating the use (or reuse) of excreta. These beliefs may differ strongly between various ethnic groups, and there might even be community specific cultures in dealing with human excreta. However, many decisions are often not made by the affected population or community themselves, and thus those attitudes and values are neglected or ignored. However, sanitary concepts are very often implemented according to the will of formal institutions and their respective priorities and interests. This can lead to a failure of the implemented concepts. Sanitation also influences development, and is thus part of development strategies. Put shortly, it is easily seen that sanitation is a concept which is influenced by a variety of aspects. They all have to be considered if successful sanitary concepts are to be found, which makes it a complex and difficult task. The following module should give a short overview of other holistic sanitary concepts than ecosan. Looking at sanitation like this, it is clear that decisions cannot be made by committees and politicians on a higher level, but has to be decided and wanted by the users themselves. Just because sanitation is such a complex and multi-layer problem, it is so important that the decisions are rooted in and supported by all stakeholders. Own Text Source: (1)

Implementing Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing Needs
It is important to keep in mind what people actually expect from sanitation and what their greatest needs are. Different solutions will be appropriate in different situations. The next page gives a short overview of what user’s primary needs (which can be satisfied with various options) are, thereby further explaining this graph. Source: Hesperian Foundation (7)

Implementing Sanitation and Hygiene: Assessing Needs
Source: J. Heeb Health is not always the main reason why people want to have clean toilets, better water supplies, or improved hygiene. Other needs may include: Privacy: Safety Comfort Cleanliness Respect Source: (7) “Health is not always the main reason why people want to have clean toilets, better water supplies, or improved hygiene. Other needs may include: Privacy: A toilet can be as simple as a deep hole in the ground. But the need for privacy makes it important for a toilet to have a good shelter. Making a door or enclosed entrance to a toilet, or building it away from where people usually walk, will make it nicer to use. The best shelters are simple and are built from local materials. Safety: If a toilet is badly built it can be dangerous to use. And if it is far from the home, women may be in danger of sexual violence when they take care of their sanitation needs. For a toilet to be safe it must be well-built and in a safe place. Comfort: People will more likely use a toilet with a comfortable place to sit or squat, and a shelter large enough to stand up and move around in. They will also be more likely to use a toilet that is close to the house and that gives protection from wind, rain, or snow. Cleanliness: If a toilet is dirty and smelly, no one will want to use it — and it may spread disease. Sharing the task of cleaning or paying for cleaning with money or other benefits will help to ensure that toilets are kept clean. Respect: A well-kept toilet brings status and respect to its owner. Often this is a very important reason for people to spend the money and effort to build one. Safe water for washing and drinking is also important for health. So are other kinds of cleanliness such as ensuring that women have a way to keep clean during monthly bleeding.” Source: (7) J. Heeb

Planning for Sanitation
Source: Hesperian Foundation (7) Every person and every community has a way of dealing with sanitation: Taking about sanitation is necessary  needs of men/women  needs of children  elderly  disabled All stakeholders must be able to identify with the toilet “Every person and every community has a way of dealing with sanitation. Households and communities can benefit from talking about the sanitation methods that will work best for everyone. Healthy sanitation must consider the needs of children, who cannot take care of themselves. It must also ensure that women have toilets that they feel safe using and a way to keep clean during monthly bleeding. Generally, sanitation concepts must be designed in such a way that all stakeholders can somehow identify with them.” (7) Source: Hesperian Foundation (7) Source: Hesperian Foundation (7)

Small steps to sustainable sanitation Small, step-by-step changes are easier than big changes all at once. • keeping wash water and soap near the toilet • adding a vent to a pit toilet • adding a hard, durable platform to an open pit etc… These small changes may then clear the way for more thorough and sustainable solutions “Small steps to sustainable sanitation In any community — and even in a single household — there may be several sanitation methods in use at one time. Some people may want to change the way they take care of their sanitation needs, while others may not. Whether it means building a new kind of toilet, helping to meet the needs of those without access to safe toilets, or some other kind of change, almost every sanitation method can be improved. Small, step-by-step changes are easier than big changes all at once. Examples of small changes that can have a big impact on health, safety, and comfort are: • keeping wash water and soap near the toilet • adding a vent to a pit toilet • adding a hard, durable platform to an open pit These small changes may then clear the way for more thorough and sustainable solutions.” (7) Source: Hesperian Foundation (7) Source: Hesperian Foundation (7)

Every sanitation method should fulfil the basic considerations listed below: Prevent disease – it should keep waste and insects away from people Protect water supplies – it should not pollute drinking water, surface water, or groundwater. Protect the environment – ecological sanitation can prevent pollution, return nutrients to the soil, and conserve water. Be simple and affordable – it should fit local people’s needs and abilities, and be easy to clean and maintain Be culturally acceptable – it should fit local customs, beliefs, and desires. Work for everyone – it should address the health needs of children and adults, of women and men, as well as disabled people When planning or making changes in household or community sanitation, it must be kept in mind that every sanitation method should fulfil the basic considerations listed below: Prevent disease – it should keep disease-carrying waste and insects away from people, both at the site of the toilet and in nearby homes. Protect water supplies – it should not pollute drinking water, surface water, or groundwater. Protect the environment – ecological sanitation can prevent pollution, return nutrients to the soil, and conserve water. Be simple and affordable – it should fit local people’s needs and abilities, and be easy to clean and maintain. Be culturally acceptable – it should fit local customs, beliefs, and desires. Work for everyone – it should address the health needs of children and adults, of women and men, as well as disabled people Source: Hesperian Foundation (7)

“Generally speaking, the planning of a sanitation system always includes three basic ‘stakeholders’, or agents – technical structure, the organisation and the users of the system. Together these three subsystems constitute the water system, which is analysed from five main perspectives – representing the five groups of criteria where physical criteria can be separated from immaterial criteria. Physical criteria are regarded as impacts on the environment (environmental criteria) and society (health & hygiene criteria). The immaterial criteria, which are socio-culture, economy and to some extent technical function, concern the interactions within the system as well as between the water system and the surrounding society.” (9) Source: (9)

Sanitation decisions are community decisions Because people have different sanitation needs, decisions about sanitation should be made by the people who will be most affected by those decisions. Community participation can make the difference between success and failure when a government or outside agency plans a sanitation program. “Sanitation decisions are community decisions Because people have different sanitation needs, decisions about sanitation should be made by the people who will be most affected by those decisions. And because household and neighbourhood sanitation decisions can affect people downstream, communities need to work together to improve sanitation for all. Community participation can make the difference between success and failure when a government or outside agency plans a sanitation program. When local people participate in sanitation planning, the result is more likely to fit local needs. In 1992, the government of El Salvador spent over 10 million dollars to build thousands of new toilets. The new toilets were different from the kind that local people were used to, and needed more care and cleaning than normal toilets. There was no training in how to use them, and the government did not invite communities to help make them. After the project was done, the government did a study to find out how the toilets were being used. They learned that a large number of the toilets were not being used well, and many were not used at all.” (7) Source: Hesperian Foundation (7)

Who decides what service level the community will receive?
Informed Choice Informed Choice is based on a full understanding of the costs and benefits of all available options. Who decides what service level the community will receive? How are decisions made (meetings, voting, representatives)? Are operation and maintenance responsibilities clear and presented to the stakeholders before decisions are made? Does the project provide qualified assistance to facilitate decision-making? Does the school make an informed choice to participate in the project?” Source: (5)

HCES: The Household Centred Sanitation Approach
“The ‘Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation’ model is strongly based on the Bellagio Principles. It offers the promise of overcoming the shortcomings of business as usual because its two components correct existing unsustainable practices of planning and resource management. These components are: Stakeholder at the core of the planning process: Direct response to the needs and demands of the user It is based on the following principles: Stakeholders are members of a “zone”, and act as members of that zone (“zones” range from households to the nation). Zones may be defined by political boundaries (for example, city wards and towns) or reflect common interests (for example, watersheds or river basins). Decisions: consultation with all stakeholders affected by the decision, in accordance with the methods selected by the zone in question “The ‘Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation’ model is strongly based on the Bellagio Principles. It offers the promise of overcoming the shortcomings of business as usual because its two components correct existing unsustainable practices of planning and resource management. These components are: Household Centred Environmental Sanitation is a radical departure from past central planning approaches. As shown in the figure on the right it places the stakeholder at the core of the planning process. Therefore, the approach responds directly to the needs and demands of the user, rather than central planner’s often ill-informed opinions about them. It is based on the following principles: Stakeholders are members of a “zone”, and act as members of that zone (“zones” range from households to the nation). Participation is in accordance with the manner in which those zones are organized (for example, communities and neighbourhoods consist of households, towns consist of communities, etc.). Zones may be defined by political boundaries (for example, city wards and towns) or reflect common interests (for example, watersheds or river basins). Decisions are reached through consultation with all stakeholders affected by the decision, in accordance with the methods selected by the zone in question (for example, votes at national level in a democratic system, town hall meetings at local level, or informal discussions at neighbourhood level).” (3)  see graph next page Source: (3) BELLAGIO PRINCIPLES: Clean, healthy and productive living: A new approach to environmental sanitation Meeting at Bellagio from 1-4 February 2000, an expert group brought together by the Environmental Sanitation Working Group of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council agreed that current waste management policies and practices are abusive to human well-being, economically unaffordable and environmentally unsustainable. They therefore called for a radical overhaul of conventional policies and practices world-wide, and of the assumptions on which they are based, in order to accelerate progress towards the objective of universal access to safe environmental sanitation, within a framework of water and environmental security and respect for the economic value of wastes. Human dignity, quality of life and environmental security should be at the centre of the new approach, which should be responsive and accountable to needs and demands in the local setting. In line with good governance decision-making should involve participation of all stakeholders, especially the consumers and providers of services. Waste should be considered a resource, and its management should be holistic and form part of integrated water resources, nutrient flows and waste management processes. The domain in which environmental sanitation problems are resolved should be kept to the minimum practicable size (household, community, town, district, catchment, city and wastes diluted as little as possible (12).”

HCES: The Zonal Model of the HCES Approach
“Problems should be solved as close to their source as possible (for example, where feasible, a community should provide services to households within it; common wastewater treatment facilities for several communities should be provided by a consortium of the communities). Only if the affected zone is unable to solve the problem should the problem be “exported”, that is, referred to the zone at the next level. Decisions, and the responsibility for implementing them, flow from the household to the community to the city and finally to the central government (there may also be intervening zones that need to be considered; for example, wards within the city, districts within a province; or provinces within the nation). Thus, individual households determine what on-site sanitation they want; together with other households, they decide on the piped water system they want for their community, together with other communities, they determine how the city should treat and dispose of its wastewater. Policies and regulations are determined by central government, with implementation delegated to the appropriate levels flowing towards the household.” (3) Source: (3)

HCES: Principle of Minimizing Waste Transfer
Source: (3) Circular System of Resource Management: minimize waste transfer across circle boundaries minimizing waste-generating inputs and maximum recycling/ reuse activities in each circle. emphasizes conservation (reducing imports) of resources, and the recycling and reuse of resources waste is a misplaced resource. “Circular System of Resource Management: An important principle of the HCES approach is to minimize waste transfer across circle boundaries by minimizing waste-generating inputs and maximum recycling/ reuse activities in each circle. In contrast to the current linear system, the Circular System of Resource Management (CSRM) emphasizes conservation (reducing imports) of resources, and the recycling and reuse of resources used (minimizing exports). Resources in the case of environmental sanitation are water, goods used by households, commerce and industry, and rainwater. The circular system practices what economists preach: waste is a misplaced resource. By applying this concept, the circular system reduces “downstream” pollution.” (3)

HCES: 10-step process “The scheme above shows how a decision making process can take place. The steps are presented in sequence, but in practice they will usually overlap, some steps may need to be repeated more than once in an iteration to find acceptable solutions, and they will always need to be undertaken bearing in mind the concerns of the municipality as a whole.” (4) For a more detailed description of this decision-making process, see the whole publication (access it via the M4-1_LECTURE.ppt): Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation. Implementing the Bellagio Principles in Urban Environmental Sanitation. Provisional Guideline for Decision-Makers

EcoSanRes: Open Planning of Sanitation Systems
Ultimately: All factors influencing the sustainability of a sanitation system, local conditions, applicable regulations user preference must guide the choice of a sanitation solution. Open planning of sanitation systems attempts to have a cross-cutting approach in its five steps described below. Source: (8) Sustainable household sanitation can be achieved by utilization of different sanitation technologies. Ultimately, all factors influencing the sustainability of a sanitation system, such as local conditions, applicable regulations and user preference must guide the choice of a sanitation solution. This will ensure that the system most appropriate and sustainable for a specific community and its economic and environmental situation is selected. Proper planning is the key to success in any type of project. The more fundamental and controversial the problems addressed by the project are, the more important it is that problem identification and planning are made in a cross-cutting way, taking into consideration the voices of as many stakeholders as possible and as early on as possible. Sanitation planning definitely demands a cross-cutting approach in order to provide sustainable sanitation systems. Open planning of sanitation systems attempts to have a cross-cutting approach in its five steps described below. Some have similarities with the ‘STEPs’ suggested in the Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation approach as described before. Source: (8)

EcoSanRes: Step 1: Problem Identification
J. Heeb “STEP 1: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Stakeholder identification Residents Planners and political decision makers Schools and commercial operations Land owners Contractors Farmers Community-based organizations Other stakeholders, such as neighbours with freshwater wells, people living downstream, etc. Engineers, both public and private Funding agencies “STEP 1: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Problem identification is an important component of successful project planning. If the problem and its causes are not identified, it is most probable that the project will fail down the line. A workshop can be of great help further on in the process. Stakeholder identification The stakeholder groups and their roles need to be identified. The stakeholders themselves or their representatives should be involved in the planning process early on. In sanitation planning, stakeholders may include:” (8) “Residents – users and often owners of the planned sanitation system Planners and political decision makers – e.g. municipal planning and environmental authorities Schools and commercial operations Land owners – owners of the land where components of the sanitation system will be located Contractors – they may be involved in the construction and/or operation and maintenance of the system Farmers – users of treated waste products and, possibly, reclaimed water Community-based organizations Other stakeholders, such as neighbours with freshwater wells, people living downstream, etc. Engineers, both public and private Funding agencies” (8) Source: (8)

EcoSanRes: Step 2: Identification of Boundary Conditions
J. Heeb “STEP 2: IDENTIFICATION OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Socio-economic patterns? cultural habits? Demand for improved sanitation? Willingness to pay vs capacity to pay? Legal framework? Which waste flows exists? What infrastructure is there? Location of nearby streams and lakes? Natural conditions (groundwater level, soil conditions, precipitation)? Amount and quality of the wastewater fractions? Successful sanitation schemes in neighbouring communities?” (8) “STEP 2: IDENTIFICATION OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Having identified the problem, the next step is to investigate the boundary conditions for the project. This could include a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) of the community situation. Additional questions that would have to be answered for identification of boundary conditions include:” (8) “Which socio-economic patterns prevail in the area? Which cultural habits that could affect the choice of a sanitation system can be identified? Is there demand for improved sanitation in the population? How well does the willingness to pay for improved services correspond to the capacity to pay? What is the legal framework? Which waste flows exists within the area, and how do they relate to each other? What does the area look like? What infrastructure is there? Location of nearby streams and lakes? What are the natural conditions such as groundwater level, soil conditions, precipitation? What is the amount and quality of the wastewater fractions to be treated? Are there successful sanitation schemes in neighbouring communities?” (8) “The possibilities for financing construction, operation and maintenance are also analysed at this initial stage. Are the households paying the actual costs, or a subsidized ‘connection fee’? Will the municipality pay for parts of the system? Is it possible to apply for grants? ” (8)

EcoSanRes: Step 2: Identification of Boundary Conditions
J. Heeb system boundaries Where does the system begin and end? All wastewater fractions included? Management in a separate or combined manner? Does the system include other houses? Does the system include treatment or only collection and discharge to a larger system? important for cost calculations the definition of responsibilities “Sanitation system boundaries The boundaries of the sanitation system need to be defined:” (8) “Where does the system begin and end? Does the system include all wastewater fractions of the household? Will the wastewater fractions be managed in a separate or combined manner? Does the system start at the boundary of the garden or within the bathroom? Does the system include other houses? Does the system include treatment or only collection and discharge to a larger system?” “The system boundary definition is important for cost calculations, the definition of responsibilities, and for selecting a sampling point for, if applicable, outgoing wastewater.” (8)

EcoSanRes: Step 3: Terms of Requirement
J. Heeb STEP 3: TERMS OF REQUIREMENT (ToR) ToR should be comprehensive and include all factors needed to ensure sustainable sanitation in the actual context. all criteria need to be adapted to the actual case. In open planning organize the function requirements in two blocks, FIRST BLOCK: primary functions: hygiene and disease protection, environmental protection resource conservation. SECOND BLOCK: geared towards the user, userfriendliness, reliability, affordability responsibility and control are discussed. Balance between the two needs to be identified. Source: (8) STEP 3: TERMS OF REQUIREMENT “The terms of requirement (ToR) for assessing sanitation alternatives are usually set by the facilitator together with the stakeholders and in collaboration with local government to ensure compliance with regulations. ToR should be comprehensive and include all factors needed to ensure sustainable sanitation in the actual context. It is, however, extremely important to remember that all criteria need to be adapted to the actual case. In open planning of sanitation systems we choose to organize the function requirements in two blocks, where the first block contains what could be considered as primary functions, to avoid external effects, of a sustainable sanitation system. These primary functions include hygiene and disease protection, environmental protection and resource conservation. The second block is more geared towards the user, where practical functions such as userfriendliness, reliability, affordability as well as responsibility and control are discussed. These two blocks need to be considered in tandem and a balance between the two needs to be identified. The ToR, with these two blocks, can be compared to a bar for high-jumpers, where the level is set on one side by primary functions and on the other side by practical considerations. ” (8)

EcoSanRes: Step 4 & 5: Analysis of Possible Solutions
J. Heeb STEP 4: ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Analysis of different sanitation solutions complying to the ToR, with respect to all criteria in the ToR feasible? appropriate? Presentation of at least three appropriate solutions to the community  Explanation: why appropriate? Why not? STEP 5: CHOICE OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE SOLUTION Evaluation and comparison of alternatives Final choice by the future users Source: (8) “STEP 4: ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS In Step 4, different sanitation solutions complying to the ToR, as defined in Step 3, are compared. It is important to analyse the solutions not only with regards to their economic performance, but also with respect to all other criteria in the ToR, especially hygiene performance. Moreover, the solutions must be feasible and appropriate for the context in question. At least three appropriate (i.e. solutions that fulfil the ToR) sanitation systems should be presented to the community to choose from. It should be clearly explained why some technologies do not fulfil the ToR, and why others do so. The proposed solutions are studied and discussed in such detail that that the community understands why they are feasible and adequate. The alternatives that do not fulfil the ToR are abandoned. STEP 5: CHOICE OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE SOLUTION The Open Planning of Sanitation Systems Step 4 resulted in at least three sanitation alternatives that comply to the ToR. The final step is to evaluate and compare these alternatives. The final choice should be made by the future users of the proposed sanitation system.” (8)

GTZ: The ecosan Project Steps
Awareness raising Request for assistance End or Repeat Launch planning/consultation process Assessment of current status Assessment of priorities Identification of options Evaluate feasible service/reuse options Decision workshop End or Repeat The figure above shows another graph relating to the implementation of ecosan projects, closely related to the HCES approach. Again, process does not need to follow a straight line, but “loops” i. e. the repetition of several project steps is very likely. Listed below are descriptions for the individual steps. Includes all activities to raise awareness and spread basic information on ecosan, ranging from TV and radio programmes and newspaper articles, training and education, conferences, workshops or excursions to demo-projects. The formulation of request comes from the requesting stakeholder, possibly formulated with feedback from the supporting institution This workshop gives information on the participatory process and further information on ecosan After a joint decision among stakeholders on how to establish the current situation, an investigation is made into the current status quo, which is then presented to all stakeholders Participatory formulation of ground rules for the identification of ecosan options. This step identifies adequate sanitation and reuse solutions including technical, institutional, financial and social feasibility and environmental and health impacts. A range of solutions for different site conditions and reuse options throughout the entire project area are evaluated for their feasibility. The feasible solutions are discussed and adapted and a decision is made on the preferred service and reuse options. A consolidated ecosan plan for the entire study area is drawn up assembling the appropriate ecosan sanitation and reuse options for the specific site conditions. The consolidated plans are presented to all relevant stakeholders for approval Project implementation including elaboration fo technical plans, investment decisions, tendering, construction, training, maintenance and monitoring. Consolidate ecosan plans Finalize plans End or Repeat Source: (10) Implementation

GTZ: ecosan stakeholders
The stakeholder analysis aims to give an overview on the possible types of stakeholders who may be involved in a project. (I) Users of sanitation facilities: (II) Users of the recyclates: (III) CBOs (Community Based Organisation) and self-help groups (IV) NGOs “The stakeholder analysis given below, aims to give an overview on the possible types of stakeholders who may be involved in a project. This list aims to assist reflection on who the stakeholders might be, by providing a general overview of the types of stakeholder. (I) Users of sanitation facilities: In many cases the user of the sanitary facilities can be considered as the individual households. Due to the wide range of household types and their different expectations, the role of the household in an ecosan programme varies enormously. In urban areas, one household might be too small of a unit (i.e. in large apartment blocks). I n such cases it may make more sense to consider all the people living in a building or settlement as a single unit and to work with a neighbourhood group. […] (II) Users of the recyclates: In some cases, these may be the users of the sanitation facilities (e.g. the households) themselves. In urban areas, the users of the sanitation facilities may not be able to fully reuse the recyclates. Here the majority of the recycled organic material and nutrients will be reused outside of the urban area by external users such as farmers or foresters. They may also be used within the town in urban agriculture, by market gardeners, municipal parks etc. Recycled water (including grey water and rainwater) may be used as service water by industry or small businesses, or to irrigate recreational areas, or even in aquaculture. […] (III) CBOs (Community Based Organisation) and self-help groups These organisations may already be in existence before the introduction of ecosan or may be created in response to an ecosan project. CBOs and neighbourhood groups provide the households or other users involved, the opportunity to exchange experiences and to obtain advice from their peers. In an ecosan programme CBOs may eventually develop into (market-oriented) service providers (maintenance, collection, treatment etc.)[…] (IV) NGOs are generally of great importance regarding information and awareness raising among potential users. They also often support the households in forming CBOs and neighbourhood-groups and advising them on the use of eco-sanitation systems, and support (poor) households by connecting them to financing institutions, municipalities, producers of ecosan equipment (bulk buying) etc. “ Source: (10) Source: (10) J. Heeb

(V) Local authorities (VI) Service providers (VII) Developers and investors (VIII) Financial institutions (IX) Research institutions (“V) Local authorities and governmental institutions are responsible for establishing the framework conditions for the implementation of ecosan systems.[…] Governments are also responsible for ensuring the creation of a legislative enabling environment making it possible to install and use ecosan systems to their full potential. […] (VI) Service providers is a term that encompasses a wide range of diverse stakeholders, engaged in public or private market oriented activities of service provision, for situations where user households are either not willing or unable to carry our certain activities on their own (i.e.planners, consultants, equipment producers / suppliers, construction companies, academic institutions, utilities providers, and companies involved in recyclate collection, transport, treatment, packaging and marketing services. […] (VII) Developers and investors: These can be either private or public investors, who initiate the construction of residential units to be sold or rented. […] (VIII) Financial institutions: The introduction of new infrastructure generally requires that the investment and operation costs are secured. Initially in conventional sanitation systems, investment costs for public sewer systems and treatment plants are generally initially covered by local authorities. The costs for both the public part of the system and its operation are however later recovered from the users through fee collection. The private owners of the buildings have to provide the investment and operation costs for the in-house installations and on-plot part of the system (bathroom equipment, house installations, branch and house drains, or on-plot treatment). In any case, new financing instruments may have to be developed in ecosan projects in order to support these private investments as only a small part of the user households may be able to pay these costs immediately, at the time of the installation of the sanitation system. […] (IX) Research institutions: These may be universities or other research oriented institutions or organisations. They can fulfil different tasks by providing advice to programme initiators, such as developers, municipalities and NGOs. Universities and research institutions can also initiate ecosan programmes for research purposes, usually with external financial assistance. They also have the important role of providing research results regarding their research, which can then be disseminated and used for information, advocacy and lobbying activities among the different stakeholders.” Source: (10) Source: (10) J. Heeb

M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "M4: Management: Planning, implementation and operation"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback