Dear Lucas,

Thanks for your posting! In reply:

1. The term "the developing world" is to me too vague. Isn't the whole world "developing" in one way or another? It reminds be somehow of "a globalising world". What speaks against "developing countries and countries in transition"? (I am aware that "developing countries" could have a negative connotation, but overall I think nobody has come up with a better term yet which really sticks).

2. What you describe as "environmental sanitation" is for me just sanitation. Because the word sanitation does already include these 4 aspects (even if the focus is often on the first one):
Sanitation =

• excreta management
• greywater management
• solid waste management
• drainage

I just find it odd that in the factsheet, the term "environmental sanitation" is only used in the CLUES example and not anywhere else. I don't think it is necessary to introduce a new term here. But if you must, then you should probably explain it briefly with a footnote. But somehow, I have never seen this term widely used outside of Eawag-Sandec publications so I am not too sure if it is really all that helfpul to add an adjective in front of sanitation here.

Regarding urban CLTS, I am not an expert on CLTS but I think the CLTS experts would disagree with you. I just did a quick Google search on urban CLTS and there is this blog by IDS in the UK which is very good and comprehensive: www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/blogs
When you type in "urban CLTS" into the Search Field of that blog you get quite a few stories and reports.
But OK, I guess it is safer to exclude it from the factsheet for now.
I might try to move this question to the CLTS category on this forum and see if people with experience would share some key findings with us.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear Elisabeth

Thanks for your review.
Let me just quickly reply to 3 of your questions:

1. The factsheet uses the term "the developing world" where I would rather use "developing countries", or "developing countries and countries in transition". Is there an explanation of why the term "the developing world" might be better? I don't like it - on first sight.

Why don't you like the term "developing world"? In my opinion there's nothing wrong with it, and no advantage of using "developing country" instead, which itself is a controversial term.
I would define "developing world" as the totality of developing countries, whereby this goes beyond country borders and generally accounts for the peculiarities which are typical for areas with less advanced economies, low life expectancy, education etc. For our use in the urban context I think the term "developing" may be used, as it expresses the dynamism (e.g. of rapid growth, expected changes, demand-supply gaps whatsoever) which has to be accounted for in order to approach planning in a sustainble way.

2. The Example 2 of CLUES speaks about "environmental sanitation" several times without ever explaining why it should be called "environmental sanitation" rather than "sanitation". To me it seems to be a Eawag-Sandec word to speak of "environmental sanitation"? Why is it necessary?

Environmental sanitation stands for interventions to reduce people’s exposure to disease by providing a clean environment in which to live, with measures to break the cycle of disease. It involves both behaviours and facilities which work together to form a hygienic environment (Adapted from Simpson-Hébert, M. and Wood, S. (1998): Sanitation Promotion). ES does not only include sanitation (seen as the means of collecting and disposing of excreta and liquid wastes in a hygienic way so as not to endanger the health of individuals or the community as a whole (WHO 1987)), but also stormwater drainage, solid waste management and to some extent water supply, mainly in so far as it affects the other services (e.g. wastewater quantities generated). By using the term ES we account for the interference and interdependence between these services and the need to approach problems in a holistic and synergistic way. For example, addressing sanitation alone by building latrines does not make sense in a situation where solid waste clogs stormwater drains, which leads to flooding and overflowing toilets. In CLUES planning the aim is not only to address excreta management, but to consider also other services which might be a community's priority.

4. I would suggest that the term "urban CLTS" should at least be mentioned in 5f ("new innovative tools like...") even if we don't explain it further, but just to make sure the term is mentioned.

I beg to differ. CLTS is an approach which is neither recommended for nor validated in urban areas. In cases where it had a certain impact in urban areas, it cannot really be called CLTS any more.
In the following just a few reasons why CLTS is not considered suitable for urban areas (should be discussed in a different place in this forum):
- Heterogeneous and transient communities
- System perspective and integral approach needed. Building latrines alone is not enough, full service chain considerations are needed.
- Infrastructure costs, the users can't be expected to pay for everything without external support
- External support is also needed knowledge-wise
- Appropriate involvement of all stakeholders is needed and often a complex task
- Creating disgust might worsen social exclusion of emptying workers etc.
UCLTS is therefore not a suitable approach for urban sanitation planning. Just mentioning it in the factsheet without explanation would pretend the opposite, spread a wrong message and cause confusion.

Best,
Lukas

Dear all,

We are now in the very last round of making small changes in the factsheet of WG 6 (see above for current version) before proceeding with printing the factsheet compilation in April.

I have 4 small questions to the authors, mainly to Lukas and Rahul, one also for Jonathan:

1. The factsheet uses the term "the developing world" where I would rather use "developing countries", or "developing countries and countries in transition". Is there an explanation of why the term "the developing world" might be better? I don't like it - on first sight.
2. The Example 2 of CLUES speaks about "environmental sanitation" several times without ever explaining why it should be called "environmental sanitation" rather than "sanitation". To me it seems to be a Eawag-Sandec word to speak of "environmental sanitation"? Why is it necessary?
3. On page 6 it says: "Sanitation 21 has not yet been tested on the ground". Given that it came into being 7 years ago (in 2005), this seems a bit odd. Can there be one more sentence to explain why not? Maybe it was never meant to be tested? Jonathan (Parkinson)?
4. I would suggest that the term "urban CLTS" should at least be mentioned in 5f ("new innovative tools like...") even if we don't explain it further, but just to make sure the term is mentioned.

Thanks and regards,
Elisabeth

Dear Sjoerd,

Thanks for your observations. Your remark regarding

In city planning everything is related to the financing issues, who pays for what and for how long and what are the operational costs and maintenance costs. These aspects need to be clearly included in the SSA or CLUES, or 21, or other approches.

is very valid and maybe we could include include a line on it the factsheet.

With regards to Sanitation 21 it has been included because of its “level approach” which allows an assessment of the proposed or existing system across all urban levels.

Attached is the finalised version of the factsheet for everybody's reference.

WG06 cities

Page 3. In the SSA approach it is correct that poor people have only interest in their most basic needs (water-electricity). Planning authorities must educate the users of sanitation systems that there is a strong linkage between additional water supply (cost) and the resulting sewerage (extra cost related to theamount of ater supplied). Who pays for what cost? The poor want to pay for the water but not for the sewerage which is the result of the additional water. However, one comes with the other.

In each approach the economic factors are the driving forces in the decision making process. The donor driven approach depends on how much the engineers and consctruction companies earn in the realisation, or how many civil servants get job. In the demand driven cost analysis apparently the long-term (sewerage-environmental) costs are not included, or it is assumed that government/municipality takes care of these costs. This is seldom the case as government/municipality costs are redistributed over its citizens.

Why include sanitation 21 when this is not been field tested or practised?. In this case it should be more clear that this is still a proposal phase.

In the table 1. the short and the long term economic sustainability is not included. Also the advantages and disadvantages (promised earlier in the text) are not included in the table or whether these are advantages or disadvantages.

In city planning everything is related to the financing issues, who pays for what and for how long and what are the operational costs and maintenance costs. These aspects need to be clearly included in the SSA or CLUES, or 21, or other approches.

Dear all,

Here is a quick snapshot of the advantages and challenges of UCLTS (Urban Community led total sanitation) in the IRC publication on "Top sanitation financing models for urban poor". ref chapter 5.2 Campaigns for Urban Community-Led Total Sanitation (UCLTS).

www.irc.nl/home/information_services/pub...s_for_the_urban_poor

regards

Rahul

This posting is made on behalf of Paul Okan-Adjetey

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Rahul,

Thanks for your response, unfortunately I have been very sick this past few days and couldn't reply you on time.
For project logical framework what I was trying to refer to is the entire initial set-up of objectives/activities/goals to be implemented in the course of the project.You can see www.izmirab.gov.tr/WEB/documents/kutupha...work-information.pdf for more information, if you are interested.

With formative evaluation, it is a term I learnt about the major evaluation types, formative evaluation is usually done in the course of a running project or program, the other is summative evaluation which is usually done at the end.

Overall, I was trying to say that there should be some form of plan/provision for monitoring and evaluation during the course of project planning and I thought it will be good to mention this (Evaluation) in the fact sheet "Planning for sustainable sanitation", because very little has been done on evaluation especially in ecosan projects. Maybe you can simply put it as "tools to evaluate if the objectives arrived from the participation results are appropriate" (If you feel it will make the readers understand better).

I also agree with... "Also it should be ensured that the consensus reached through the participation programmes should effectively be incorporated as project objectives". (I also think it could fit in the section "build partnerships and reach consensus" )

Maybe I confused you even more, I don't know if its clear to you now, if you still have any doubts please don't hesitate to write back.

Regards,

Paul

Dear Rahul

Here is my proofread version with last minor changes and a few corrections.
Lukas

Dear WG06 members,

Please find attached the revised version of the fact sheet on cities and planning. I have updated it based on comments and a few additions.



@Lukas, thanks for your email. I have revised the text a bit but it still does not specifically say that these are the only 3 approaches based on demand driven. Are you aware of any other demand driven approaches?

I will now proceed with formatting the factsheet. Minor changes are still possible by the end of the week.

Best regards

Rahul

Dear Rahul and all

Thanks for continuing the revision. I expected that the CLUES part had to be shortened and mostly agree with what you deleted.
The document now looks like a bloody battlefield with all the tracked changes!
I therefore just accepted all changes before adding a few more minor things so you can see what's new in the attached version. The comments are still the old ones.
Regarding your question on discussing CLTS for urban areas: I think a forum discussion is a good idea, but I wouldn't include it in this edition of the factsheet - opinions on advantages and limitations are still too diverging and it would probably take quite some more debate to reach agreement!

I will be available for proofreading the final version.
Lukas

Dear Lukas and all,

Please find attached my revised version. Lukas Thanks for the contribution on CLUES. But I had to cut it short as it was a bit too detailed as compared to the other two planning approaches.



Also the do you think we should discuss CLTS for urban areas here...its advantages and limitations?

As we would like to finalise the factsheet early next week provide your comments latest by monday 12th december...

Best regards

Rahul

best regards

Rahul

Dear Elisabeth

I agree with most of your comments. Please find attached my revisions, particularly the update of HCES to CLUES. Let me know if further clarifications or edits are needed.

Best,
Lukas