SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Mon, 01 Sep 2014 07:27:58 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Re: Results based financing - by: JKMakowka
Another point often overlooked are the very different credit access conditions, with a government or other large organisation being able to pre-finance very cheaply, while a local organisation in a developing country might have to pay a huge interest rate (or not get any credit at all). This is also a question of cost efficiency by the way.

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I recently looked into it for a project here in Uganda. My impression is that can make a lot of sense for direct bilateral government support on paper, but usually the administrative budget structures have a hard time adjusting to it.

When it comes to local NGOs, the above limits in credit apply, but more in general one also have to acknowledge that a shift in risk should also come with a shift in benefits. This is still a big taboo in development circles, but if one talks about RBF one also needs to talk about potential profits and employee bonuses (also because as mentioned in the article they are often the ones that go without pay for months).

In regards to international NGOs it doesn't seem to make a big difference unless the donors would give them more leeway in designing their own approaches instead of just applying to pre-determined calls as it is usually the case. However here again I see issues in conflicting spending with individual earmarked donations which do not allow easy shifting.

Overall I am a bit sceptical when it comes to RBF outside of what it seems to have been originally invented for (bilateral government support and large utility parastatals contracts).
If implemented at NGO level it will result in a further commercialisation of those, just like many already operate on a quasi consultancy level. This has certainly some good aspects to it, but I think the sector as a whole is not really willing to go down that road. This is especially because people employed in development aid largely fall into the charity / social worker or alternatively government like administrator categories, plus some technicians... however all of these are not business minded people for the most case. Thus a top down donor driven RBF approach is doomed to fail.

A bit outside of the typical RBF debates, a community fund piloted here in Uganda is a nice example of creative thinking though. Instead of funding typical "software" activities directly, the target communities are invited to apply for a financial support to a self administrated "village bank" under the precondition that certain criteria are met. This is what I would call a "soft RBF" as from a community perspective the donor intended results are only a side effect and the resulting "profits" can be used as they see fit.
In addition it lowers the efforts and costs of monitoring by the donor agency, as it is in the interest of the communities to provide the "proof" of the met criteria themselves (and that at a much lower opportunity cost than the donor agency could do it).]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 01 Sep 2014 07:15:11 +0000
Re: Results based financing - by: jonpar
I'd be interested to read about people's opinions/experience of results based financing as applied to sanitation. I've been involved on the preparation of the proposal to BMBF for Freetown (the different cities are listed in Roshan's posting on the link in your message).

I too think that there is a lot of potential and can be used at various points in the sanitation chain. One example of results based financing (not a non-sewer based solution) that I think has great potential is the River Basin Clean-Up Program (PRODES) in Brazil. I think the programme stopped for a while and then recommenced but I've only read brief documentation. I'd be really keen to read a more detailed evaluation of PRODES because to date. Could India adopt a similar approach for the Ganges Action Plan which seems to have already failed twice ?

What other examples are there where RBF has been applied ? What are the experiences ? How successful have the projects been - can we conclude that they RBF does achieve greater cost efficiency? Or is it too early to say?

WG 2 (finance, economics) Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:46:16 +0000
Re: Sanitation Matters - Issue 6 - by: SudhirPillay
Thanks for the input and advice. We call it a magazine because it is made as a popular article for both professionals and non-professionals. And it is more to be informative. And if people want more especially on technical aspects, they can read the research reports or contact the researchers.

Hope that helps. Kind Regards]]>
New publications Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:33:34 +0000
Re: Results based financing - by: christoph
thanks for posting and interesting reading indeed.... but... what comments do you expect?

This is an extremely broad field. I will concentrate in my answer to the aspect of non sewer sanitation.

I think/hope the Results-Based Financing for Sanitation approach "City Partnerships for Urban Sanitation Service Delivery (BMGF and DfID funded)" will show interesting results.

My very strong belief is that mass movement can only be achieved when the countries see in practical examples that integral non sewer santiation solutions are possible. And hopefully they start using their own (and let them be limited) funds to promote Results-Based Financing for Sanitation approaches for the sanitation utilities.
Let’s see what happens.


WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:39:27 +0000
Results based financing - by: jonpar
Please take a few minutes to read the short article by Antoinette Kome (Global Sector Coordinator for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, SNV) entitled "The promise of results based finance in WASH" at:

A very pragmatic perspective of results based financing which I concur with.

It would be interesting you opinions/experience of results based financing as applied to sanitation.

For further information about results based financing, I encourage you to read
"Identifying the Potential for Results-Based Financing for Sanitation" by Sophie Trémolet (November 2011)

best regards,

Jonathan Parkinson]]>
WG 2 (finance, economics) Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:49:35 +0000
Re: Is there a difference between faecal sludge and septage? - The issue of confusing terminology - by: Florian one more definition, from the US EPA Handbook on Septage Treatment and Disposal, 1984:

Septage is generally defined as the liquid and solid material pumped from a septic tank or a cesspool during cleaning

This is in line with the definition quoted by Elisabeth in the first post.

The main point to distinguish between septage and fecal sludge probably lies on the word "septic", which implies that the sludge has gone through some time of biological degradation and thus is at least partly stablised. Feacal sludge seems to be used as a a wider term and also includes fresher types of sludge such as from latrines or public toilets.

I'm not sure if I understand the last two posts by FH Mughal and Lucas correctly, but I don't think that only the liquid part in a septic tank should be considered septage. According to the quoted definitions (and my own understanding) septage is both liquid fraction and the solids accumulated on the bottom. The fact that more or less solids often remain in tanks after cleaning makes for part of the variability in septage characteristics.

Again another type of sludge (I think FH Mughal refers to this in part of his post) and not part of what Sandec considers as "Faecal sludge" is sewage sludge, e.i sludge separated in primary and secondary clarifiers in larger facilites for treatment of wastewater/sewage.

But well, I guess the lesson from this discussion is that when talking about sludge, we should always make clear what kind of sludge we are talking about, from wich faciliteies it is colleced.

Best, Florian]]>
Faecal sludge management Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:19:31 +0000
Re: Sanitation Matters - Issue 6 - by: F H Mughal
I suggest that in future issues, there may be a spotlight on the sanitation champions of South Africa.

F H Mughal]]>
New publications Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:19:44 +0000
Use of Aids in the Forum - by: F H Mughal
I remember, back in 1990 (24 years back), when use of computers first started in Pakistan, in the Word program, we used to have programs like WordStar and WordPerfect.
In these programs, if you want to, say, have a sentence in bold, then, at the start and end of a sentence, we used to press Ctrl and B.

In this forum, almost same pattern is reflected. If you want to have a sentence in bold, then all those things, like [b], come up. Yes, they go away when you hit the submit button.

My contention is: why not have a system, as we have in MSWord now - just press B and you get to see the word in bold, rather those brackets.

If we are not having a system here that is 24 years old, then, could we have a writing format, just like we have in MSWord system.

F H Mughal]]>
Your suggestions for improvements of the forum Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:04:50 +0000
Re: Is there a difference between faecal sludge and septage? - The issue of confusing terminology - by: F H Mughal
There could be local variations in the terms used. In government schemes here, sewerage is termed drainage. There is a major difference between the two.

Sewage is the term mostly used here in rural areas, while urban areas use the term wastewater. In rural areas here, the excreta from toilets is taken as solid waste!! - mind boggling, isn't it??!!

F H Mughal]]>
Faecal sludge management Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:49:15 +0000
Re: Brian Arbogast's blog post: Choosing the right post-2015 sanitation indicators - by: christoph
Joes comment about the Blog of Brian Arbogast´s post was the reason to open this question.

Joe point out that it is not enough to have the reduction of untreated fecal material, he is of the opinion that it is necessary to link it to health indicators.

I am working in several countries in Latin America. One of our tasks is to prove that investment in sanitation really enhances the health of the population. This is quite tricky. Very often the health aspects are overlapped by a serious of aspects. We identified the following aspects as factors which make the health indicator only a “secondary” indicator as the direct relation is not valid:
  • Hospital statistics often do not differentiate between the rural and the city population. How do you measure the effects in a certain area if the numbers are just for a whole municipality?
  • There are practices where the family lives very close to domestic animals – therefore the positive effect of sanitation is overlapped by other factors.
  • The sewerage of an area for sure enhances the sanitation situation of that area but at the same time might be worse by the production of untreated wastewater for another area. When this affects less people, a positive balance points to a gain in health. Is that true?

But in contrary to Brian I do think the indicator should be treated fecal material or better “safe final destination for fecal matter”. Why? I saw to many treatment plants which are not working. So does a not working treatment plant count as “treated fecal waste or not”? I admit…this indicator is far more difficult to judge than “non treated fecal waste”. But I think it is not sufficient just to build fecal matter treatment plants – they have to be operated as well.

I agree as well that there might be a very large (necessary) discussion about what is treated. So I think the best indicator would be “safe final destination for fecal matter” - with a need to discuss "what is safe final destination".

Looking forward to your comments.

Global political processes Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:22:49 +0000
Re: Nitrification reactor set up - by: winniek Thanks a lot.]]> Resource recovery from excreta or faecal sludge Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:39:31 +0000 Re: Nitrification reactor set up - by: kudert Resource recovery from excreta or faecal sludge Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:13:12 +0000 Re: Nitrification reactor set up - by: winniek Thanks for the attached and I have already read through the paper.
I was thinking of using this "hybrid membrane-aerated biofilm reactor (MABR) was
used for the nitrification experiment" as i believe i wont have easy access to the Kaldnes rings.
I have seen the reactor but if you have more pictures of it. I would be grateful as i will get a better understanding on the set-up]]>
Resource recovery from excreta or faecal sludge Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:08:42 +0000
Re: Nitrification reactor set up - by: kudert 4+. Since nitrification lowers the pH value, this amount of ammonium is not lost during distillation (except for a very small fraction). I attach a paper, in which we describe the fate of ammonia during distillation in more detail.]]> Resource recovery from excreta or faecal sludge Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:50:42 +0000 Re: Nitrification reactor set up - by: winniek did you anaylse the effluent N- concentrations, i.e. NH4+, NO2- and NO3- ? is so what was were there.
If the urine was partially nitrified does it mean only 50% of ammonium was converted to N03- . In that case what happened to the rest of the NH4+ when the effluent proceeded to the vacuum distiller]]>
Resource recovery from excreta or faecal sludge Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:44:08 +0000