SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:55:34 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: hajo ‘So the real problem for many was the high investment for a bath room not the connection itself.’
‘Probably cheaper for the donor as well as for the user and for the sanitation utility.’

It was these two statements in your (Christoph) contribution which lured me out of only lurking through the forum… to add my two pennies worth working in Africa:

1. I would not be sure whether I can believe the economic reasons given for not having a sewer connection because people may not want to admit that they are not interested (like they cannot admit that they ‘do not know’ something);
2. Sanitation has a very low priority in Africa (as opposed to water or mobile phone or ...), the immediate need as for water is not obvious because the health aspects always quoted by professionals are not ‘visible/tangible’ to the average person; people always complain about poor water supply, low pressure, rationing, even about water quality but rarely about a poor sanitation situation (which is comparable even worse than the WS);
3. And therefore the respondent may prefer to give economic reasons rather than stating ‘non-interest’ and risk being lectured by you/the project about the (health) advantages of safe sanitation.

With regard to the second statement:
1. As described before I do not believe that ‘cheaper’ is an argument for the user as he is basically not interested in sanitation no matter what it costs, he does not see/believe in the health advantages and it is no status symbol for him (yet, here I see a possible driver to spark interest in improved sanitation) to have a ‘nice’ toilet’ (like to have a mobile phone);
2. Sanitation utilities, local authorities, national policies in Tanzania (and possibly elsewhere in Africa) are not interested in on-site sanitation (pit latrines, VIP, UDDT, septic tanks). Official policy is that construction and O&M of these systems are households’ responsibility. Public services only include sewers and WWTPs and although only 1% of Tanzanian population is currently served by sewers they believe to increase this considerably in a short time. This has possibly three reasons: i) technical training only comprises sewers and WWTP; ii) socially sewers have a ‘flair’ of development as opposed to ‘backwards’ VIP and UDDTs being considered as pit latrines; and iii) construction of sewers guarantees much more money flow with associated ‘side effects’.
3. And two of these reasons also apply to donor/funding agencies: i) their (management) consultants may have less knowledge and interest in sustainable on-site sanitation; ii) the administrative overhead costs of ‘cheaper’ projects are comparably too high; and iii) it may be questionable whether donors really want ‘cheaper’ projects as long as a good percentage of the more expensive project supports their home economy (40 to 60% of a 15 millEUR project serving 20% of a town population with sewers may flow back while only 10-20% of a 8millEUR project serving 60% of the town population with on-site sanitation services).

Thus I think that currently neither user, donor nor sanitation authorities have an interest in ‘cheaper’ solutions. The question to us is what are possible drivers for these stakeholders to support sustainable sanitation which can be up-scaled nationwide? And how can we start influencing donors and national policies in that direction? Can/should SUSANA become also a political (sanitation) force, something like Avaaz, Foodwatch or Attac which I feel we need (and possibly not only for sustainable sanitation but for development cooperation overall)?

We have to find ways not only trying to develop alternative sustainable sanitation systems (to which this forum and its participants contribute tremendously) but we must also try convincing the public, the politics and the financiers that sewers and WWTPs are NOT a feasible/affordable/sustainable solution for the majority of areas/population in the developing world and

that -per se- it makes not much sense to use drinking water to flush shit and with the flush increase the contaminated mass hundredfold from 300ml (faeces) to 30 litres black water (2-3 flushes per day); a much bigger mass which needs to be safeguarded from human contact, be transported, treated and disposed off.

Ciao, Hajo]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:28:03 +0000
Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: JKMakowka
The second point that promoting UDDTs makes perfect sense where people do not have water based wash-rooms yet is also important, however I am unsure if the water & sanitation utility would be really the best organisation to pick up the servicing of UDDTs. In these cases there is often a strong correlation to inadequate solid-waste services, which in my opinion are the much more natural point of entry for UDDT emtying services etc... although of course in the European (German?) setting the solid-waste and water&sanitation municipal utilities are usually the same.

Maybe this is the strongest advantage of UDDTs from a user point of view (i.e. one that does care much about the fertilizer by-products): A UDDT can offer a "sewered bathroom" like experience in a non-sewered situation.
Which is probably also why the latrine like UDDTs (as usually build by NGOs) fail to attract any considerable uptake outside of areas where the reuse is seen as important.

Your type of design, maybe improved with the "dry-flush-screw" design showcased elsewhere in this forum (, is probably the only UDDT design poeple will start constructing with their own funds.]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:35:37 +0000
Re: Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: christoph We went in one year in Bolivia in a Project from 21% connected to 63% (see table). This were 3 small towns where the sewer was implanted but the people did not connect.

What was our way?
  • Mapping the main actors in the process.
  • We analayzed the real and apparent reasons for not connecting (as in the first survey everybody wanted to have a connection)
  • We identified the restrictions to overcome.
  • We accompanied the process closely.

We found strong differences between the apparent and real reasons.
From the side of the sanitation utility.
  • Billing was more important than real connection
  • Making effective a connection is a conflictive action and it is street work.

From the side of the authorities:
  • When I (authority) offer the possibility to connect it is sufficient to say “I did it”. If the people use it or not does not bring votes.

The restrictions for connection we analyzed by a 100% survey of the non connected users.
Easy to see that there where strong differences in between the towns in terms of sanitation use.

The result is that these people not only have to pay the connection, but as well the total infrastructure for a bath, 36% to 65% need a complete sanitary installation.
We asked “why did you not do the connection”.

So the real problem for many was the high investment for a bath room not the connection itself.

Furthermore the survey identified a good number of “possible” connections where there were no houses or abandoned houses.
We saw VERY clearly that it was not a lack of sanitation education.
We identified 3 groups of users:
  1. The user with sufficient economic background - we just organized notifications and follow up to enhance connection rate
  2. The user with economic limitations but his own installations – we organized an installment plan linked to the water bill.
  3. The extreme poverty (not)user without any installations and no economic possibilities. WE organized a municipal support program for the construction of minimal bathrooms.

For the cases 1 and 2 it was very helpful that the bolivian regulation allows to bill a user who has the possibility to connect itself, even if he is not connected physically.

I hope these experiences help a bit.

In my opinion these towns could have had perfect UDDT –bathrooms (see picture - sorry for the size did not know how to make it smaller ),

financed with the money which was spend for the sewer and treatment. Probably cheaper for the donor as well as for the user and for the sanitation utility.
Accompanied by a recollection service by the sanitation utility this would have been the perfect sanitation solution for everybody, as the poorest still lack sanitation in these towns.

WG 2 (finance, economics) Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:42:35 +0000
Subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage - by: jonpar
The issue of whether to subsidizing household connections from poor households to sewerage is a "hot potato" in the sector and alot of different approaches / lack of consistency between different projects.

Some projects provide no subsidy and expect households to pay for the connection - this often leads to a poor connection rate because people don't want to pay the connection fee and the ongoing sewerage charge. Other projects fully subsidize the connection.

It is questionable whether the sewerage network should be constructed in the first place if there is insufficient demand... but it is not always as clear cut as this because there may be demand from a proportion of households but lower income households can't afford to pay.

What experiences do you have to share ? Does anyone know of any systematic assessment of experiences / lessons learnt that can help in project design?

best regards,

WG 2 (finance, economics) Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:46:25 +0000
Overview of WSP's Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI) - by: jonpar]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:06:54 +0000
RE: 18th SuSanA meeting in Stockholm September 5th - 6th 2014 - by: jonpar
Stockholm Water Week ( runs from August 31 - September 5, 2014

I am writing to inform you that the SuSanA meetings schedule for the 5th - 6th September will therefore take place after SWWW, not before as I indicated my previous communication.

For more information about what is going on during the week, please refer to

best regards,

WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:04:52 +0000
18th SuSanA meeting in Stockholm September 5th - 6th 2014 - by: jonpar

At the beginning of September (5th and 6th), prior to the Stockholm World Water Week (SWWW), SuSanA is holding its 18th SuSanA meeting . This will be held at Stockholm Environment Institute.

You will find details of the meeting page at :

As well as encouraging you to participate in the main SuSanA meeting, I am writing to enquire if you would be interested to join a knowledge exchange meeting specially for WG2 members.

This could either be organized on 6th September at SEI or during the week in the SWWW venue. If the latter, I need to check on the arrangements for hiring a room.

I therefore kindly ask you:

1) If you are interested in attending?

2) What you would expect from such a meeting?

3) If you would like to share a special topic/issue (e.g. past/current work; ideas for working group activities; etc.) either during the WG meeting or alternatively with the whole SuSanA crowd during the plenary meeting.

As I am not in a position to attend this year, I would be particularly keen to here from anyone who would be willing to play a role in organising the meeting.

I am currently lacking a co-lead for this WG and would therefore appreciate anyone who wants to raise their profile and be more actively involved in the WG to step forward. This does not mean that you need to be an expert in finance and economics. I personally am an engineer with a keen interest in finance and economics. Interest and time is all that is required.

Please contact me directly if you would like to help out with the organisation of the meeting and/or you'd be interested to assist me and support the group as co-lead.

best regards,
WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:54:43 +0000
Resources For WASH Financial Products, Toolkit for Wash Microfinance - by: jayantikc and MicroSave Launch Resources for WASH Financial Products

In an effort to expand our impact in solving the global water crisis, and MicroSave are jointly developing a series of toolkits to provide information and tools for financial institutions to develop microfinance products for water and sanitation investments.

The toolkits present essential information, principles and practices for successful development of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) financial products. The more financial institutions that have WASH products in their portfolios, the more loans that can be made to people in need – giving them safe access to safe water and/or sanitation and a chance to break the cycle of poverty. The toolkits are designed to be applicable across a variety of markets, lending methodologies and business models.

The first two toolkits are now available to download at Toolkit 1 is an introduction to WASH microfinance and toolkit 2 covers the development of a WASH financial product. The remaining three toolkits are scheduled for release over the next 18 months.

The toolkits were made possible with the support and vision of our generous partners – The MasterCard Foundation, the PepsiCo Foundation and the Caterpillar Foundation.
For more information on MicroSave please visit

About has been at the forefront of developing and delivering solutions to the water crisis for about two decades. Founded by Gary White and Matt Damon, challenges the traditional approach by pioneering innovative, community-driven, and market-based solutions to ensure all people have access to safe water and sanitation; giving women hope, children health, and communities a future. has positively transformed the lives of more than 10 lakh (one million) individuals in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean by providing access to safe water and sanitation. in South Asia
In India, has been active since 2003. With the support of 18 local NGOs, is implementing Water and Sanitation programs in the states of Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Rajasthan, Delhi, Bihar and Maharashtra. Similarly, it is implementing two projects in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
For more information, please visit]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:06:56 +0000
Re: Costs of sanitation facilities - by: muench (I moved your post into this category on costs because I think it fits better here)

I agree with what Ben said that costs are very context specific.
My first question back to you would be: for what purpose do you want to know these costs? In which country, which setting (urban/rural) and so forth?
What degree of accuracy is required?

If you want it really accurate then you should work from a concept design and bill of quantity (BoQ) - you find some examples of BoQs in the SuSanA library, e.g. by putting boq in the search field:

If you don't want such a high level of accuracy, have you tried the WASHCost Calculator from IRC? Although this might be confusing because it spits out the whole of life costs, not the capital cost (if I understood correctly). Find it here in the forum:

And also recently this new tool that came out of the CLARA project was advertised. It was called simplified planning tool but on second sight it is also a cost estimating tool. It includes Kenya as an example country. Have you tried it? (does it include the various systems that you are interested in or more the treatment systems?)

(Ah, I just checked, the CLARA costing tool for Kenya does include UDDTs but not simple pit latrines and VIPs, as far as I can see. So maybe also not useful for you?)

Oh and then there is also this financial toolkit from Asian Development Bank, but again, I don't think it includes VIPs and simple latrines - although it does include faecal sludge management:

Please let us know more about why you asked and which resources on the internet you have already found and used and with what result?
You are based in Kenya, right?

WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:09:26 +0000
Re: Costs of sanitation facilities - by: ben
This exercice is unfortunatly impossible to generalise per continent.
Just for example, when latrines are made out of concrete, the cement part of the systems can reach up to 60% of the final infrastructure price. A cement bag is 4.5$ in Cambodia, 12$ in Cameroon ...
Good luck in your research but don't expect anything theoretical to be precise, only fact sheets and experiences will be able to answer your question.


WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:58:31 +0000
Costs of sanitation facilities - by: EstherGlotzbach
I'm trying to find out the average costs of building different sanitation facilities in (peri) urban low income areas such as VIPs, simple latrines, simple latrines with 2 pits, pour flush etc.
I know the costs differ per continent, region and even country.. but I was wondering whether anyone knows where perhaps this information may be available? (I am most interested in costs in African countries)

Thank you!]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:58:48 +0000
Re: CLARA Simplified Planning Tool - by: Langergraber thanks for the question.

In principal there are 2 steps to specify the SPT for another country:
1) Data / information needed form the country (to be provided by the person/organisation that wants an update):
a. Design assumption made for each technology have to be checked if they are applicable in the country (design assumptions are included in the Appendix of the User Manual).
b. Unit prices for the country have to be provided (this list is available and will be provided).
2) Update of cost functions (based on #1) and implementation of updated costs functions in the SPT (to be done by the SPT developers)

As #2 requires personnel resources from the SPT developers, the update of the SPT for new countries can not be provided for free of charge.
If you are interested for a country-specific SPT please feel free to contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for discussing details.

With best regards,
Guenter Langergraber]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 14 Apr 2014 07:20:35 +0000
3rd ADB–Developing Member Country and Partners Sanitation Dialogue May 27-29, 2014 - by: arno

One of the items to be discussed further during the Sanitation Dialogue meetings is the innovative "Financial Toolkit" for the urban sewerage and septage sector. A first workshop was held on this in January, 2014.

Here is a link to that workshop with links to the presentations:

The financial toolkits (in the form of Excel files) are available under Day 3.

Information provided by Paul Bulson (ADB): "This toolkit was prepared for ADB’s Philippines’ septage borrowers but ultimately is intended for all ADB clients or any one that wants to use it. You can find the toolkit, technology data sheets, case studies and more at "

--Arno Rosemarin/SEI]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:04:15 +0000
Re: CLARA Simplified Planning Tool - by: F H Mughal
SPT (Simplified Planning Tool) is specific to Burkina Faso; Ethiopia; Kenya; Morocco; and South Africa

How can it be made specific to other countries, e.g., Pakistan?


F H Mughal]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Wed, 02 Apr 2014 04:57:08 +0000
Re: CLARA Simplified Planning Tool - by: leonellhabarreto
thank you very much for your post related to the CLARA Simplified Planning Tool.

The SSWM Toolbox team is very pleased to count with a Factsheet in our knowledge platform (, only devoted to present the CLARA SPT. For those local planners, who would like to have a direct access to it, please visit us at:

It is actually a very effective and simple way to compare different options for water and sanitation systems at an early planning stage! The fact that it is especially adapted to the different requirements in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco and South Africa, should not discourage others to revise it and use it as a reference!

Please let us know more about recent developments of the tool!


Leonellha Barreto Dillon

Project Manager
Seecon international gmbh
society - economy - ecology – consulting

Dornacherstrasse 192
CH-4053 Basel
Mob (CH). +41 (0)79 511 02 54
Mob (IN). +91 (0)97 300 81 011
Tel. +41 (0)61 261 40 04
Fax. +41 (0)61 261 40 22

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
WG 2 (finance, economics) Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:30:23 +0000