Dear all,

The final version of Sanitation 21 is now available as a free download here .

Or can be found in the SuSanA library here.

Enjoy and comment!

Dear F H Mughal,

Thanks very for your message.

I agree the document could be longer (although initially we were trying to produce something quite a bit shorter that what is available. It could in fact be a full book but there are two reasons why it isn't

Firstly, although it would provide more comprehensive technical guidance, we didn't set out to prepare a book on the topic as we wanted a document that was more accessible.

Secondly, even if we had wanted to produce a book, it would have taken alot more time to prepare and we didn't have this time available.

It would however be great if it could be expanded with a SuSanA/IWA working group taking this on board.

Maybe I am not understanding your point but I am a bit confused by your comment in reference to Box 1 which describes the experiences from Dschang, Cameroon. The information is from PS-Eau. The predominant type of sanitation in the city is on-site not sewerage and therefore it would be of less relevance to cities which are predominantly covered by sewerage

best regards,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

The publication is interesting, though it is too short (38 pp) for such an important topic. Kindly help me out on an aspect that is bothering me. The document is meant for urban sanitation services (pp. 11). Urban centers (for example, in Pakistan – cities like Karachi, Lahore, and Hyderabad) have sewer system laid and managed by the municipal authorities. We don’t have to undergo any headache. Domestic and industrial wastewaters flow in the sewer system, conveyed to wastewater treatment plants and onwards for disposal.

Box 1 says: “Install systems for safe management of pit latrine faecal sludge and septage from septic tanks.” This would pertain to the sanitary conditions in rural areas here, where households have pit latrines, or septic tank-soak pit systems. This is not quite clear to me, perhaps, you can help me out.

Or, is it that the publication was written for sanitation systems in developed countries?

Regards,

F H Mughal

Thanks for telling us about this revised version of Sanitation 21, Jonathan. I was wondering what is different to the previous version from 2005 and found it now on page 11:

Relationship to the previous Sanitation21
document

In 2006, an IWA Task Group produced a framework for
city sanitation planning entitled Sanitation21 – Simple
Approaches to Complex Sanitation: A Draft Framework for
Analysis. This document was based on the realization that
improving the quality and effectiveness of sanitation services
requires a much broader range of considerations other than
those related to the type of technology employed. The Task
Force recognised that successful sanitation planning activities
need to be based on a sound understanding of the existing
situation and respond to demand from an improved sanitation
service at different levels – from the household level to the
municipal authorities (IWA, 2006).

This new publication encapsulates experiences in sanitation
planning, particularly from those from India and Indonesia, to
ground the conceptual framework into reality. It also draws
from other relevant documentation such as Effective Strategic
Planning for Urban Sanitation Service - Fundamentals
of Good Practice produced by GHK, Urban Sanitation: A
Guide to Strategic Planning published by Practical Action
Publishing, and documentation from
Eawag-Sandec related to the Household-Centre Environmental
Sanitation Approach and, more recently, the Community-Led
Urban Environmental Sanitation (CLUES) planning guidelines.

Readers familiar with the original Sanitation21 planning
framework will see that the fundamentals of Sanitation21
presented below are essentially the same. This new document
builds on the previous document, but places stronger emphasis
on the planning process and activities to strengthen planning
to ensure that the outcomes from investments to improve
sanitation service delivery are sustainable.

And about the target group:

Who should read this document?

This document is for those who are concerned about the quality
of urban sanitation services and are looking for guidance to
improve these services. Therefore, it will be of interest to those
who work for local authorities, utilities or non-governmental
organizations as well as consultants providing advice about
ways to improve sanitation service delivery. Box 1 provides a
good example of how efforts put into the planning process can
pay off in terms of attracting investment for implementation.
This can be used to illustrate to institutional stakeholders the
benefit of planning.

I assume but haven't checked that some of the comments made in this thread were also taken into consideration in one way or another. I might check with Christoph Lüthi as well if he can say something about that.

In case you are wondering why I am talking about this document right now, it's because when I recently edited the Wikipedia page on sustainable sanitation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_sanitation) I added a section on planning systems and thought it's an important reference to cite. If anyone wants to improve the Wikipedia article further, or tell me what I should do to improve it further please be my guest. :-)

I think good thorough planning is paramount for achieving sustainable sanitation systems.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear all, please find attached the revised edition of Sanitation21. I've uploaded a high resolution and a low resolution version. regards, Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

I agree with the previous comment and your suggestion of new title for stage 1. In that case, maybe it would also be better to add the reference on the need to consider policies and regulations in step 2. Furthermore, some more minor comments:

PAGE 8 - Principles
I feel that two other principles are as important as the ones mentioned in page 8: the “need to build on what already exists”, as referred to in pages 16 and 19, and the "incremental approach", referred in page 20.

PAGE 11 - "Linking city-level planning with local initiatives"
I think this document is a good opportunity to reinforce the linkages between city-level and local initiatives with practical references as the ones referred to in Lüthi, C. and Parkinson, J. (2011). Environmental sanitation planning for cities of the South - linking local level initiatives with city-wide action. 35th WEDC International Conference, Loughborough, UK.under the title "Compatibility between CLUES and S21".

PAGE 14 - "Identify stakeholders; assess key priorities and incentives"
Besides "interests", Table 3 of the previous San 21 draft included also "external influencing factors", which appear to me as more complete rather than only mentioning the interests of the stakeholders.

PAGE 23 - Stage 4
I suggest adapting the title for its contents: "Formulate appropriate management and financing arrangements"

PAGE 30 - "Creation of an enabling environment"
As this expression is extensively used in CLUES with a broader meaning, I suggest changing it to something like "Supportive national policy".

Regards,
Ana Rita Ramôa
PhD student
Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal

Dear Conrad,

Many thanks for your feedback and comment on Stage 1.

It is a challenge indeed to do justice to the complexities of city sanitation planning in a relatively short document. Originally we planned for a 16 page document but it ended up being double that !

The aspect of the institutional and regulatory/legal environment is of critical to the successful development of CSPs and we will have a good look at this. On reflection I am wondering if "Define institutional framework for service delivery" is the right title for Stage 1 because is probably too early in the planning process to be definitive about any aspects of the plan. The definition would come about as a result of the planning process, based on an understanding of the existing context (Stage 2), formulation of appropriate management arrangements (Stage 4) and final agreement on the institutional framework in Stage 5.

Therefore, I think Stage 1 would be better entitled "Build institutional commitment and partnership for planning" or something along those lines. I think that would be more appropriate and would to some extend answer your question why Stage 1 does not in fact go into much detail on the institutional framework.

What do you think ?

Any other comments from you or others would be most welcome.

best regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan Parkinson PhD.
Programme Manager – Urban Sanitation Initiative

email : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Telephone: + 44 20 300 48528
Mobile: + 44 770 220 2646

I have a remark to Sanitation 21 draft: In

“Stage 1: Define institutional framework for service delivery”, I’m asking myself if the legal and institutional environment has been appropriately mentioned as the background for all institutional framework and arrangements to be developed. Did you not want to deepen that, so as not to make the text too long? However, I went into the CLUES document as well on that point, and there I find a solid reference to that aspect (see Box 2 in the Clues). CLUES being the local, decentralized planning approach, and thus located at a lower strategic level then city sanitation planning.


KR Conrad Thombansen
GIZ Sust. Sanitation

Dear all,

At the recent IWA Development Congress in Nairobi, IWA in partnership with Eawag-Sandec and GIZ were pleased to unveil the revised Sanitation21 planning framework.

For those who are familiar with the previous version, you will see some significant changes. The rationale for the new edition are explained in the document.

We would value your comments before the end of November, but would welcome your comments posted on line prior to then so that we can engage in discussion about areas where you consider the planning framework can be further refined/strengthened.

You will find the presentation associated with this at :

www.susana.org/docs_ccbk/susana_download...ntation-16102013.pdf

We look forward to hearing from you and receiving your feedback.

best regards,

Jonathan Parkinson(IWA), also on behalf of co-authors Christoph Luethi(Eawag-Sandec) and Dirk Walther(GIZ-India)

Jonathan Parkinson PhD.
Programme Manager – Urban Sanitation Initiative

email : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.