Dear all,

I am happy to post the summary of the discussions on Swacch Bharat Mission - Urban. Thanks for your inputs and support.

Regards
Nitya

Please read my article on how Prakasam pond of Sri Venkateswara University got degraded first as a dry pond and next as a sewage pond due to some mistakes committed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) at

www.academia.edu/29417889/How_Prakasam_P..._Human_Interventions

This situation has been prevailing for the past several years. How to go about to set right the situation.

Thanks

R. Jagadiswara Rao
Professor of Geology Retired
Sri Venkateswara University
Tirupati, AP 517502

1. Does sanitation need an expanded definition in the urban context - home toilets for all networked to city systems or decentralized comparable options? Covered drains with last mile connections? Door-to-door waste collection by municipalities?
Expanded definition on what sanitation really means solves the problem of access to sanitation. However the wide area of sanitation which include safe collection, storage, treatment and disposal/re-use/recycling of human excreta (faeces and urine), management/re-use/recycling of solid wastes (trash or rubbish), drainage and disposal/re-use/recycling of household wastewater (often referred to as sullage or grey water), drainage of storm water, treatment and disposal/re-use/recycling of sewage effluents may be the biggest challenge. For a complete solution in congested urban community, some form of off-site sanitation may be the only viable technical choice with improved management of solid wastes and storm water drainage[1].
Covered drains with last mile connections is the best solution in more densely packed areas to transport wastes off-site where they can be treated and disposed. The conventional centralized sewerage systems require an elaborate infrastructure and large amounts of water to carry the wastes away. This may work well in some locations but is impractical for other locations. In specific circumstances, cost-effective alternatives to conventional sewerage systems have been developed including small diameter gravity sewers, vacuum and pressure sewers. Simplified sewer systems have been successfully used in Brazil, Ghana and other countries[1].
For door to door waste collection the municipal corporation should deploy manpower as necessary in both registered and unregistered slums and form WASH committees to ensure door to door collection and other required operation which include segregation of waste by authorised personnel. The assigned authorized personnel should ensure to transport solid waste to secondary storage point and then to compactor without touching the ground any time. SHGs can be formed to manage the waste collection, segregation and disposal as part of IGP program in the concerned slum.

2. What added data is needed in order to plan home-based sanitation? How can we interpret the data for making accurate predictions of sanitation solutions?
For home-based sanitation households need to know the whole chain of services, enabling environment that can engage stakeholders, sustainable financing services provided through both the market and the public sector and also clearly defining accountability mechanisms. Data on socioeconomic and external variable are key to plan effective home based sanitation. Data collected can help in making accurate predictions on sanitation solutions by facilitating participatory decision making in the planning process and also improve further designs to meet user needs and to face the operation and maintenance challenges of day to day service delivery[2].
3. What are some innovate technologies that have been tried and tested in cities that should be cross-fertilized? How can this exchange happen?
Bio-toilets can be shared by households in unauthorized slums which provide an effective form of sanitation in low-income, high-density settlements. This serve the need 2 to 3 families selected in the community and permitting 30 users per unit on a daily basis. Households can then be trained on proper usage and maintenance of the facility. It provides a portable model of toilets that is feasible for slums and can be shifted from one place to another as and when required as the module can be assembled and disassembled easily. This exchange can happen through demo stations and sensitization events[3].
Solid and liquid waste management best practices need to be made part of the solution.

4. How must cities engage with communities? What are some non-negotiable processes of community engagement for cities?
In urban settings communities should come up with needs-based siting, community led design, masons training and community led management by establishment of WASH committees. Inclusion and participation of women in the planning, design and setting up facilities to ensure ease of their access and use, promoting women’s leadership in the management, operation and maintenance of these services and sensitizing men especially decision makers. This will generate demand and leadership for improved sanitation and behaviour change within community, produce sustainable facilities and services through engagement and promote adaptation and replication at scale through local capacity building[4]. Furthermore bringing user fee makes each citizen accountable for ensuring sanitation at household level. User fees have an important role in meeting social, economic and environmental policy objectives. User fees provide signals to users about the cost of the service, the scarcity of resources used to provide the service, and the priorities placed on provision of services to particular groups. At a minimum, user fees for cost recovery provide the basis for financial sustainability[5]. If urban sanitation deliver its full potential it benefits public health, economy, society, and environment.

Reference:

[1] WHO in cooperation with UNICEF and WSSCC., “10 Things You Need to Know About Sanitation.”
[2] P. Hawkins, I. Blackett, C. Heymans, E. Perez, S. G. Moulik, M. Gambrill, M. Van Ginnekin, P. Kolsky, B. Gomez, and J. Ravikumar, “Poor-Inclusive Urban Sanitation: An Overview Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns,” 2013.
[3] “Global Water Forum | Bio-toilets: Sustainable solution to India’s sanitation challenge.” [Online]. Available: www.globalwaterforum.org/2015/02/23/bio-...anitation-challenge/.
[4] Field Notes: UNICEF Policy and Programming in Practice, “Community Approaches to Total Sanitation.”
[5] African Development Bank, “Guidelines for User Fees and Cost Recovery for Urban, Networked Water and Sanitation Delivery,” 2011.

Posted on behalf of Ajit Seshadri

At the outset I appreciate efforts afforded by Dr. Ms. Renu Khosla, Director .Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (CURE). And that they seek to unthink and reimagine and innovate urban slum development. CURE believes that there must be equality and that all, especially the poor, must get access to taps and toilets easily affordable and near their homes.

Towards ensuring home toilets CURE has built decentralized and engineered models for sanitation for local govtts to experience and replicate. Towards CURE's efforts, we have also co ordinated with them and given a few solutions in their sites.

I wish to join in adding some points as below :
1. Three interconnected slices - toilets, drains and solid waste, each have an intrinsic value chain. Refuse from all these are to be recycled. Human sludge+ gobar + bio wastes = compost for agri farms. Drains have re use water duly remedied and used in the path for greens. Solid waste and bio matter to be transferred to agri farms near urban centres. Waste mounds on the peripheries to be dismantled and rail rake loads used for transhipment to barren lands for reclaiming fertile land in years to come. If Metros can get in train loads of fresh vegetables, we can also plan remove these waste mounds in all Metros.

2. 260,000 defecate in the open and 200,000 use community facilities.
Adapt planned open defecation in a controlled mode. An area is earmarked and used for 3 to 4 weeks, then another area is used, the sludge generated is co-composted to produce manure.
Community facilities are encouraged, self-employment generated all for the good of the communities. Women and children, aged and sick people are provided sanitation on a monthly cards system at nominal charges. Volunteers clean the facilities.

3. Toilets in slums are unconnected to sewerage networks because sewer lines do not extend into the slums and these are considered controlled open defecation models. All these are considered for remediation.

Can SBM be considered an opportunity for the above?
Six key points are to be elaborated and key issues dealt with as given below
1. Definitions 2. Data 3. Engineering 4. Land 5. Communities and 6. City planners

1. Does sanitation need an expanded definition in the urban context – home toilets for all networked to city systems or decentralized comparable options? Covered drains with last mile connections? Door-to-door waste collection by municipalities?
Ward-wise surveys need to be conducted for successful efforts. Successes should be listed, assessed and scaled up with detailed costs worked out. Models where early pay-backs are possible should be preferred.
2 What added data is needed in order to plan home-based sanitation? How can we interpret the data for making accurate predictions of sanitation solutions?
As given above.
3 What are some innovate technologies that have been tried and tested in cities that should be cross-fertilized? How can this exchange happen?
Following ward level surveys, drains can be used as remediation sites for waste water that can be used for green areas. In peri-urban areas, this water can be used to grow vegetables. All bio wastes can co-composted with cow dung and used as manure.
4 How must cities engage with communities? What are some non-negotiable processes of community engagement for cities?
ULBs can select the more pro-active wards and provide rewards, grants for scaling up successful models and other incentives.
With well wishes.
Ajit Seshadri.

Posted on behalf of Shrikant Limaye

The Swachh Bharat Mission - SBM (Urban) has increased our problem in Vijayanagar Colony area in Pune.

Ours is a colony of Bungalows and we have lots of trees especially mango & coconut trees. As soon as the SBM started they removed the main, big dustbins provided by Municipal Corporation for recyclable and non-recyclable waste. So people have started dumping the waste on the foot path. The whole foot path becomes a dust bin. In our bungalow we try to make fertilizer from garden waste but those drums breed mosquitos after rains.

The slums may have benefitted from SBM but the Bungalow and Apartment owners are very unhappy about the SBM. Ideally the Corporation should provide a free service to dig 4 feet diameter and 4 feet deep pits in the garden areas for garden waste. Still, 12 feet to 15 long feet coconut leaves are a problem. It would be good if the Municipal Corporation starts a mobile pulverizing unit for garden waste which would convert all the leaves and twigs into powder. This Unit should make a weekly trip in all the areas having gardens.

SBM has to expand to cover the Mosquito menace. The regular fumigation and spray is a must. The Corporation has to arrange it. Chikungunya and Dengue are on the rise in Pune and many other cities.

Kind regards

Shrikant LIMAYE

Posted on behalf of Rashid Kidwai, India Sanitation Coalition

In urban areas, who is responsible for providing the sanitation requirements, which would include toilets, their maintenance, and the disposal and treatment of waste?

I believe the primary responsibility is that of municipalities. I see a reasonable effort by different ministries and departments of government, but really hear nothing from any municipality in terms of their sanitation effort.

Is it time to try and make them more accountable through advocacy and media?

Can community toilets be economically viable? If so, can we develop economic models for entrepreneurs to take up? Here, something that could help initially is for government/municipalities to outsource defunct toilets (which they can no longer sustain as policy does not permit further expenditure on toilets already constructed) on say a 25 year lease with a strict understanding that these can only be used for toilets and also possibly allow advertising with no tax. This given the challenge of land in urban areas both on price and availability.

Can waste be an opportunity for entrepreneurs to make money? If so, are there any models internationally or can we develop economic models for entrepreneurs to take up?

Regards
Rashid

1. • Does sanitation need an expanded definition in the urban context – home toilets for all networked to city systems or decentralized comparable options? Covered drains with last mile connections? Door-to-door waste collection by municipalities?

- I do not see any problem in both networked centralized and decentralized options including hybrid solutions. We need all with right proportions keeping in mind ease of financial management , benefit costs using life cycle approaches , economies of scale when we move towards universal sanitation targets set by SBM –Urban using city wide planning and approaches . About the management of grey water , covered and Piped drain ( or Combined sewer systems for both Grey water and Black Water ) can be used if they fit the bill for feasibility checks on users behavioral practices, solid waste disposal systems and financing O&M mechanisms available in the locality. Most of the experience in low income settlements in India has been in favor of open drains sometimes covered with a lid which can be removed as per the needs of O&M. Door to Door Waste Collection by municipalities or informal/ formal sector is a desirable goal in reforms under SWM in India
What added data is needed in order to plan home-based sanitation? How can we interpret the data for making accurate predictions of sanitation solutions?

- Spatial plans , land availability for centralized solutions, willingness to pay by community, Technology Option Choice by community . Using GPS and GIS based platforms for data management .
• What are some innovate technologies that have been tried and tested in cities that should be cross-fertilized? How can this exchange happen?
Septic Tanks, Bio Tanks, ABR, TPPF, DEWATS, SBT, Activated Sludge Digestion, Sewage Treatment Plants using various processes and so on and so fore….. Refer to Technological Options in Sewerage Manual of CPHEEO and MDWS publications from time to time
• What are some innovate technologies that have been tried and tested in cities that should be cross-fertilized? How can this exchange happen?
Septic Tanks, Bio Tanks, ABR, TPPF, DEWATS, SBT, Activated Sludge Digestion, Sewage Treatment Plants using various processes and so on and so fore….. Refer to Technological Options in Sewerage Manual of CPHEEO and MDWS publications from time to time. Seeing is believing. Pilot hybridization, learn from it and upscale .
• How must cities engage with communities? What are some non-negotiable processes of community engagement for cities?
Strengthen process and empowerment of Mohalla Sabhas or Ward Sabhas to help cities engage with Communities . Involve people in planning, agree to do, technology choice, co-financing of projects by communities, 100% O&M by communities may be non-negotiable.

To answer Renu's first question, on whether urban sanitation needs an expanded definition, the answer is yes. In cities sanitation means closing the nutrient loops separately for water and solids, and the process for each is different. Each is necessary because of the high densities involved, lack of space and costs that they carry both for treatment and the environmental risks of not treating, or partly treating, waste water and solids.

To close the loops it is not necessary to separate liquids and solids from sewage. Rather, proper collection and appropriate treatment is needed to make available both water and solids for reuse. Therefore, if sewage is collected from all households, transported safely to treatment facilities and treated to existing standards, it reduces the health and environment costs of pollution. As an incentive treatment facilities can earn revenue from the sale of treated water to industry or farmers, and treated solids as manure or soil conditioners. Energy is another byproduct not adequately appreciated.

An urban definition would have to expand from source to reuse, not just the collection and separation of faeces from human contact as is used in the rural definition. If this is an acceptable start, we can work towards a definition that is both politically and technically feasible. Administrative and financial aspects can follow, though they are not less important.

Several studies on how to improve urban waste water management have done the rounds. Here is one such by D Chandrsekharam for the Telangana government. It deals with the Hussain Sagar lake in Hyderabad, critical for the city's water supply and environment.

It is good that the the issue of Urban Sanitation is being discussed.
Urban sanitation is not much different from rural as per my experience. DFID in Odisha implemented Urban sanitation on an experimental basis in Puri town (20 Slums). The result was very encouraging. Behavior change communication or CLTS was tried to change the mind set of urban communities to achieve ODF slums. This was achieved in a span of 4-5 months. The major challenge as you mentioned was the space for individual toilets but could overcome after triggering exercise.If the people are convinced they can create space for individual toilets within the limited space. The last alternative option was the community toilets. It was planned to construct Individual Toilet complex where ever space was available with lock and key and name of the beneficiary written on each toilet but could not implement due to some reasons which would have been one of the best options.Another constraint was the pit construction where again space was a constraint but could overcome by adjusting just one pit within the space available. In some case it was connected to Nala.
Finally I can say that Urban sanitation is not a difficult task and can be achieved.

Thanks

Hirudia Raj

Agree that urban and rural sanitation discourse need separate attention.
welcome the SBA - Urban debate.

Many forums have happened in the past year as a run up to Habitat III / Urban thinkers Campus that have discussed Sanitation and Safe Cities. We should bring the recommendations and suggestions together and propose them formerly. We all agree at many levels and this should help us come together and work to influence city wide action. working with the thinkers as well as the implementers is important. we need to incorporate the urban sanitation perspective in all city planning agendas vis a vis different stakeholders women, children, disabled, etc.

technical dos and donts is a welcome intellectual material.

and citizen participation is critical to success in urban areas.

Hi All

I am Renu Khosla, Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (CURE), a development organization that seeks to unthink and reimagine urban slum development. We believe in communities and their wisdom. We also believe that there must be equality and that all, especially the poor, must get access to taps and toilets at home. Towards ensuring home toielts, we have built decentralized and de-engineered models for sanitation for local governments to see and replicate. Our work is helping strengthen local government capacity for participative planning and using community’s own data in implementing localized solutions. Our work is aimed at deepening the policy discourse. I am posting some of my thoughts on urban sanitation in the context of Swachh Bharat Mission, in the hope of starting a conversation that would generate ideas and thoughts, that will make the SBM dream a reality for all.

Makers and Shakers of Urban Sanitation: Unthinking the Debate

Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) has repositioned the urban sanitation debate – bringing it away from the edges of development into its very core. There is uncritical celebration among city community and sanitation practitioners of this move for two important reasons; one, it offers the poor a better, dignified, healthier and safer future – a window out of poverty and a chance to be equal with the rich; and two, investments in sanitation bring back huge economic returns, urban poor’s contribution to India’s GDP can leap by an estimated 7.5% if sanitation is good (World Bank, 2013).

Sanitation is a big idea. Its three interconnected slices are toilets, drains and solid waste, each with an intrinsic value chain. Urban toilet deficit according to the Ministry of Urban Development is an estimated 6.64 million units. This simple arithmetic is based on the following Census 2011/NSSO 2016 data: about 9% households have neither private nor community toilet access, the bulk of this deficit is among the 1.38 million slum households (16% of urban population) of which 260,000 defecate in the open and 200,000 use community facilities. The coverage for drainage and liquid waste management for urban India as a whole is lower, at 64.2% and 36.8%, respectively (NSSO, Swachata Status Report 2016).

Such narrative simplicity gives the idea that sanitation is both uncomplicated and easy to deliver by conventional urban engineering; but the on-ground story, especially in urban poor settings, is both different and dismaying. For example, toilets in slums are unconnected to sewerage networks because sewer lines do not extend into the slums even though bulk of the slums may be on the infrastructure corridors. Treatment systems miss the poop on the ground (from open defecation), capturing only a percentage of what is collectable and treating a fraction of this. Bad technology choices damage ground water, soil and other natural resources. Unwise and uneven investments by cities are a waste of good money – when offer is of community as opposed to private toilets, burdening the health system and setting back the transformative potential of sanitation.

SBM is an opportunity. It is urgent to get its narrative right. Provisioning of sanitation can only be fixed by disruptive innovation. If cities are to clean up they need to deal with many issues. Six key ones are discussed below - definitions, data, engineering, land, communities and city capacity.

First and foremost, everyone is not on the same page. Definitions are unclear and ambiguous. Spatial boundaries such as settlements, wards, neighbourhoods, open defecation areas, etc., are misrepresented. Value chain maps of each slice and their intersectional linkages, such as of solid waste and poop in drains or waste dumped in water bodies remain blurry. Some qualitative goals under SBM have been determined such as open defecation free areas or 100% door-to-door waste collection or waste to energy/composting capacity. Other transformative ones are un-penned such as toilets in every home or zero-waste or resilient communities.

Second is about data. So far it is mining just the missing toilets, waste bins (dhallaos) or drains, ignorant of their geographies, infrastructure quality, design, access or affordability. Interpreting the data is important too. That will help pick the investment priorities–reach the elusive vision.

Third, is about getting the engineering right. Historic legacies and conventional responses to sanitation are like repeating the same mistakes, because results will not change. To respond to a community’s need and context, solutions must be de-engineered and reimagined – shift from large to small decentralized options, common and shared to household services, uncoordinated and un-continuous systems to plug ins, and from one solution for all to many contextual options.

Of all claims on slum sanitation, land is perhaps the most challenging but least discussed. Sanitation is largely about infrastructure, some of which may be over-ground. Sanitation is also about clean spaces and water bodies, all or most could be contested. Non-land based options need to be imagined - descaling designs is one option; effective use of degraded lands such as cesspools and dumpsites is another.

Communities of slum dwellers and poor people are critical for achieving the sanitation goals. Unlike villagers, city people do understand the need for toilets or disposal of waste or clean drains but lack the tools to change their practices. However, contrary to rural societies, urban communities are a heterogeneous mix of the excluded and included, the powerful and the powerless with a compelling dynamic. Overcoming these barriers to make people partners in the processes of planning, implementation and management of sanitation solutions - key to sustainability, is hard, and needs time to nurture.

In the end, the hardest challenge will be to build the capacity of the city managers and their foot soldiers to engage with people and their organizations, understand their choices and create the pathways by which their voices are integrated into design and implementation flexibilities.

To uncomplicated the process, urban SBM needs a much sharper and nuanced narrative, in particular on the following:

• Does sanitation need an expanded definition in the urban context – home toilets for all networked to city systems or decentralized comparable options? Covered drains with last mile connections? Door-to-door waste collection by municipalities?
• What added data is needed in order to plan home-based sanitation? How can we interpret the data for making accurate predictions of sanitation solutions?
• What are some innovate technologies that have been tried and tested in cities that should be cross-fertilized? How can this exchange happen?
• How must cities engage with communities? What are some non-negotiable processes of community engagement for cities?