East Asia Ministerial Conference on Sanitation and Hygiene

- Sustainable Urban Sanitation PlanningJapan, November 30, 2007

Dr. Darren SaywellDevelopment Director, International Water Association

2

The good news…

• Direct [and indirect] benefits from sanitation increasingly recognized…

• Example: For every US$1 invested in providing improved sanitation, resulting societal economic benefits of between US$5 and US$23 will be realised, depending on the country [WHO, 2003].

• Other non-health benefits…

3

…the bad news…

• Unprecedented situation• 2.6 billion people lack access to basic

sanitation.• Assuming business as usual, the world will

miss the MDG target for sanitation by 1 billion.

• An increasingly urbanized world population- By 2035, 60% world will be ‘urban’- Of this proportion, 60% will be in ‘informal’ urban

settlements

WHO - UNICEF (2004)

Faecal attraction…

5

Map showing the relative size of the MDG sanitation target for each country based on the number of installations required through to 2015

6

The problem with [urban] sanitation…• Key contrasts with water provision…

• Sanitation is infrastructure ‘heavy’ at the household level

• Sanitation services are not holistic - split between provision of facility, removal, treatment of waste

• Represents a different cost burden

• Sanitation sector is characterised by…• Lack of political will• Lack of sustainable and hygienic facilities and

behaviour• A high rate of abandonment of existing infrastructure• Institutional fragmentation, legislative vacuum and

weak capacity • …

7

Inappropriate responses…

• [Urban] sanitation provision has historically been characterised by ‘supply-driven’ approaches, often resulted in governments and donors investing in large infrastructure projects, with a tendency for low demand by communities.

• Beset by internal debates and ‘beauty contests’ about which technology, system or approach is best…

8

Sanitation 21

• Lack of coherent thinking on subject of urban sanitation [planning], particularly technologies, systems & approaches

• Sanitation 21:• Convene thinkers and practitioners• Establish analytical framework• Commission work; peer review; publish; disseminate

• Some of this thinking reviewed here…

9

Why another framework?

• Conventional approaches to planning seem to fail because:• objectives are distorted by special

interests (lack of balance across the ‘domains’ of the city)

• plans lack flexibility • plans are based on unrealistic

assessments of management capacities

‘…a mismatch between technical proposals and institutional realities…’

10

Domains

Sanitation failure? Mismatch in objectives

StatusCleanlinessConvenienc

eHealth

Environment

Econ. Dev.Utility cash

flowW/F

securityEquity

HOMEHOME

CITYCITY

G

A

P

decisions

HOMEHOME

CITCITYY

12

We wanted this….

13

…but what we got was this…

Future: Objectives & decision making matched?

HOMEHOME

CITYCITY

StatusCleanlinessConvenienc

eHealth

Environment

Econ. Dev.Utility cash

flowW/F

securityEquity

decisions

HOMHOMEE

CITCITYY

15

How might we get there…?• Sanitation 21 - nothing new – it’s not rocket-

science, but it does suggest a change of mindset• A simple conception of what is a complex process:

• Understanding the context (institutional and other realities across all ‘domains’ of the city)

• Understanding how a sanitation system relates to the context across all domains of the city

• Checking whether the system meets objectives and can work across all domains of the city.

16

Part One: the context

Key elements of the context• Decision making ‘domains’• Objectives• External factors• Capacity

Understanding the context allows technical proposals to be assessed against institutional realities

17

Context (2): Objectives, external interests, capacities• Objectives: what do stakeholders in

each domain want from their sanitation system?

• External influencing factors: ‘outside’ factors which influence decision making

• Capacities: Actors, mandates, manpower, budgets

18

Context (3): Objectives, external factors, capacities

19

Context (4): Objectives, external factors, capacities

20

Part Two: technical options• Components mapped across domains:

• A toilet• Collection mechanism• Transportation mechanism• Treatment process• Disposal/ re-use mechanism/ process

• Management Requirements• The system as a whole• Management requirements across all

domains

21

Part 3: Fit for Purpose?

• Ask the following crucial questions across all domains of the city• Does it meet the objectives?• Do the management requirements

match in every domain?• Does it/ will it work?

22

23

24

25

In summary

• The framework is a simplified representation of a complex planning process [deliberately so]

• It is meant to guide planners/ designers and help to build bridges between institutional analysis and technical planning

• It is not new – but new mindsets are needed !

26

Key messages

• Planners need to draw on well-established principles of good planning and design practice to:• analyze the objectives of a sanitation system across

all domains of the city, including the household• analyze the external drivers and contexts which

impact on behaviours in each domain• analyze technical options in terms which relate

elements of the system to these domains• assess the management requirements in each

domain; and then• assess whether the proposed sanitation system will

work and will result in services to people.