...

POTTER et al 2011 Assessing Sanitation Service Levels

by user

on
Category: Documents
1

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

POTTER et al 2011 Assessing Sanitation Service Levels
Working Paper 3
Assessing sanitation service levels
Alana Potter with Amah Klutse, Mekala Snehalatha, Charles Batchelor,
André Uandela, Arjen Naafs, Catarina Fonseca and Patrick Moriarty
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Second Edition, July 2011
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to Christine Sijbesma for substantial conceptual input on which the WASHCost team has built.
Thanks to all members of the WASHCost team for guidance, debate and hard facts, and to Amélie Dubé and Deirdre
Casella for tracking down missing information. Peter McIntyre and Gabrielle Daniels-Gombert edited the document
and saw it through to publication.
The revisions set out in this second edition are thanks to the authors, who reflected on findings from field testing the
assessment methodology.
Author contact details
Alana Potter, [email protected]
Contact details WASHCost
[email protected]
Photo
Peter DiCampo
Copyright © 2011 IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
WASHCost is a five-year action research project investigating the costs of providing water, sanitation and hygiene services to rural and peri-urban communities in Ghana, Burkina-Faso, Mozambique and India (Andhra
Pradesh). The objectives of collecting and disaggregating cost data over the full life-cycle of WASH services are
to be able to analyse costs per infrastructure and by service level, and to better understand the cost drivers and
through this understanding to enable more cost effective and equitable service delivery. WASHCost is focused
on exploring and sharing an understanding of the true costs of sustainable services (see www.washcost.info).
2
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CBO
Community-based organisation
CWSA Community Water & Sanitation Agency (Ghana)
DWST
District Water and Sanitation Team (Ghana)
HHHousehold
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IHHL
Individual household latrine
JMP
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme
KVIP Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit (latrine)
MDG
Millennium Development Goal
NGP
Nirmal Gram Puraskar (awards in India for achieving ODF status)
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
ODF
Open defecation-free
O&M
Operation and minor maintenance
ONEA
L’Office national de l’eau et de l’assainissement
National Water and Sanitation Agency (in Burkina Faso)
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
PRI Panchayati Raj Institutions (local level government in India)
RSM Rural Sanitary Mart
RWST
Regional Water and Sanitation Team (Ghana)
SSHE
School Sanitation and Hygiene Education
SuSanA Sustainable Sanitation Alliance
TSC
Total Sanitation Campaign
VIP Ventilated Improved Pit (latrine)
WASH
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WSDB
Water and Sanitation Development Board (Ghana)
3
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Table of contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms used in this Working Paper
1.Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this working paper
1.2 Structure of this working paper
2. Sanitation ladders in current use
2.1 Tools for participatory decision making
2.2 Global MDG monitoring
2.3 The functional approach
2.4 Towards a sustainable sanitation services ladder
3. National norms and standards in WASHCost focus countries
3.1 Burkina Faso
3.2 Ghana
3.3 India
3.4 Mozambique
3.5 Areas of commonality in country norms and standards
4. The proposed WASHCost sanitation service levels
4.1 Service parameters and indicators for sanitation
4.2 The sanitation ladder: indicators and levels
5. Summary and next steps
6. Hygiene services
3
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
12
12
13
15
16
16
17
17
17
22
24
References
Appendices
25
26
List of figures
Figure 1: The Lao Sanitation Ladder
Figure 2: The JMP sanitation ladder criteria (2010)
Figure 3: Suggested function-based sanitation ladder
Figure 4: Criteria for the measurement of sustainable sanitation
Figure 5: Criteria for latrine provision in households and at public places
Figure 6a:Standards for latrines and septic tanks in Burkina Faso
Figure 6b:Standards for network sewerage systems in Burkina Faso
Figure 7: Standards for household and institutional latrines in small towns in Ghana
Figure 8: Sanitation ladder standards proposed by WASHCost India for use in India
Figure 9: Proposed sanitation ladder standards by WASHCost Mozambique for use in Mozambique
Figure 10:Proposed service parameters and indicators
Figure 11:WASHCost Sanitation Service Functional Areas – the Delivery Chain
Figure 12:WASHCost Sanitation Service Levels with detailed indicators per service parameter
for deciding overall service levels
Figure 13:WASHCost Sanitation Service Levels with summarised composite indicators for deciding
overall service levels
Figure 14:WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder
Figure 15:Proposed WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder for Solid Waste
Figure 16:Functional areas: WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder for Greywater
4
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
26
26
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
1.Introduction
1.1
Purpose of this working paper
The purpose of this working paper is to set out sanitation service levels to be applied as an analytical tool for WASHCost research on the disaggregated unit costs of water, sanitation and hygiene services. It should be read together
with Working Paper 2: Ladders for assessing and costing water service delivery1 (Moriarty et al., 2010) which introduces
the concept of service levels, service level indicators and the use of ladders as a metaphor and a means to differentiate
between broad levels of service. Both are working documents of the WASHCost team, aimed at providing a framework for data analysis to be used and tested by WASHCost. To help in the evolution of the WASHCost thinking and
approach, feedback and comments are sought from interested readers.
The purpose of the water and sanitation ladders is to provide a common framework to analyse and compare water
and sanitation cost data being collected across different country contexts with different service delivery norms and
standards. It is hoped that the water and sanitation service ladders developed for WASHCost research purposes can
be used as part of the process of setting norms and targets with respect to ongoing service delivery and will also serve
an advocacy function.
In September 2010, the first version of this working paper was published. Subsequent field testing in the four WASHCost countries resulted in efforts to revise and update parts of the sanitation service level assessment framework and
the methodology.
In the second edition of the working paper Assessing sanitation service levels, indicators found to be more useful than
others have been added, data that required too much time and financial resources for collection were eliminated,
as well as data that found to have resulted in unreliable information. Although critical to both water and sanitation
services, hygiene-related indicators such as hand washing are now assessed separately, and as part of hygiene costeffectiveness studies. Overall, efforts to revise this working paper were based on a pragmatic reflection on the usefulness of initially-conceived indicators and the need to develop a tool that is useful and easily replicable.
The emphasis in WASHCost is on collecting and understanding full life-cycle service costs, including operational, capital
maintenance and direct and indirect support costs. This represents a fundamental shift away from a focus on capital
investment costs for water or sanitation facilities2 or technologies, to the costs of sustainable water and sanitation services.
The contribution of this paper is therefore to propose a set of globally comparable sanitation service levels comprising
of key service indicators, rather than sanitation technology options as set out in sanitation ladders most commonly
used today. Sanitation services are defined as the (i) containment, (ii) collection, (iii) treatment, (iv) disposal and (v) reuse of excreta and solid and liquid waste. Conceptually, the management of excreta, urine, greywater3 and solid waste
are all part of sanitation services. However, in practice, solid waste services are organised and delivered separately,
and greywater disposal or management requires a different hardware system from urine and excreta disposal and
management. It is proposed that these services be assessed against separate service ladders as described in Appendices A and B of this paper. The main part of this paper and the sanitation levels focus on the management of excreta
and urine for the protection of human health and the environment.
1 Accessible at http://www.washcost.info/page/196.
2 The terms “latrine”, “toilet” and “facility” are used interchangeably in this paper.
3Greywater is wastewater generated from domestic activities such as laundry, dishwashing, and bathing which can be recycled for uses such
as irrigation. Liquid from toilets is designated ‘sewage’ or ‘blackwater’ to indicate it contains human waste (Adapted from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater).
5
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
The aim is to aggregate and benchmark sanitation based on service levels rather than technology or facility-related
indicators. This represents a shift away from the focus of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on facilities for the
containment of excreta to a service delivery approach that takes the entire delivery chain into account.
National sanitation policies and strategies tend to focus on improvements in infrastructure that contribute towards
the achievement of the MDG target for sanitation. However, service providers struggle to deliver sanitation services
with respect to the needs of the population and settlement characteristics within national norms and criteria. In some
countries there are no national norms against which to assess sanitation services, and even where national norms or
criteria do exist there are contextual, technical, social and financial constraints to compliance.
1.2
Structure of this working paper
This first section of this paper has outlined the scope and purpose of this Working Paper. Section two reviews sanitation levels in current use and proposes indicators of a sustainable sanitation service as a basis for the WASHCost
sanitation levels. Section three presents sanitation service level norms and criteria in WASHCost countries. Section
four sets out the proposed WASHCost sanitation service levels. Section five summarises the steps towards the general sanitation levels and outlines the next steps for testing and refining country based sanitation ladders. Section
six discusses the importance of hygiene services and makes suggestions for the development of a hygiene service
assessment ladder. Appendices A & B contain tentative outline ladders for solid waste and for greywater.
6
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
2. Sanitation ladders in current use
2.1 Tools for participatory decision making
The concept of a sanitation ladder originated through Participatory Rural Appraisal, Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) and other participatory methodologies that developed and used water and sanitation
ladders in the 1980s as visual tools to facilitate community-based decision making on technology options. These tools
provide visual reference points to enable community members to discuss and agree on appropriate technical options
given a range of considerations including cost, convenience, privacy, their impact on health, availability of local materials and so on. These sanitation ladders, with technology options adapted to local circumstances, are still in widescale
use. The use of a sanitation technology ladder as a participatory decision making and planning tool with reference to
contextual realities is therefore well established.
For example, rural sanitation technology options were identified using a sanitation ladder in Lao PDR depicted in
Figure 1, based on the following selection criteria:
sustainability and lasting long-term benefits (impact)
immediate benefits (quality, convenience, reliability)
capacity requirement to provide supply-side support
operation and maintenance
upgradeability, working life, eventual replacement possibilities
cost-effectiveness (capital and recurrent costs and type of materials required for construction)
accessibility
Figure 1: The Lao Sanitation Ladder
Option 6:
Option 5:
Option 4:
Septic Tank
System
Pour Flush
Latrine
Ventilated
Improved Pit
Latrine
Option 3:
Option 2:
Option 1:
Lid/Cover
Latrine
Conventional
Dry Latrine
Improved
Traditional
Practice
Source: Lahiri and Chanthaphone, 2000.
7
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Sanitation improvement is not as straightforward as the concept of “a ladder” with incremental improvements from
open defecation to full flush might suggest. In practice, from the users’ perspective, a VIP toilet may be a better and
more sustainable option than a septic tank system, given the potential shortfalls in operation and maintenance. With
anything other than full flush sewerage, post implementation service and support is usually non-existent and left to
households. There is, therefore, a wide gap between our understanding of technologies and of service provision; the
implication being that the ordering of options on a ladder may look very different to the user than it does to a technical planning team.
The ranking of appropriate technical options is highly context and settlement specific and dependent on the availability of water, soil and groundwater conditions, supply chain realities, settlement densities, types of housing and/or
size of plot, and so on. The Lao ladder example in Figure 1 clearly sets out user preferences against decision making
and planning criteria for that particular context, but these may not apply in other contexts.
Global MDG monitoring
8
Improved
Improved sanitation facilities
Ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from
human contact.
They are used in the following facilities:
• Flush/pour flush to
- piped sewer system
- septic tank
- pit latrine
• Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine
• Pit latrine with slab
• Composting toilet
Shared
Figure 2: The JMP sanitation ladder criteria (2010)
Shared sanitation facilities
Sanitation facilities of an otherwise acceptable
type shared between two or more households.
Only facilities that are not shared or not public are
considered improved.
Unimproved
Facilities
The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme (JMP, 2008) adopted the
concept of a ladder in developing a
global monitoring framework for the
achievement of the water and sanitation MDGs by distinguishing between
‘improved’ and ‘unimproved’ sanitation facilities (Ibid p6). The focus has
recently shifted from the facilities
themselves to the ‘use of facilities’, but
in the JMP 2010 report (JMP, 2010) the
emphasis remains on types of latrines
or technology options and therefore
on the ‘containment’ part of the sanitation service delivery chain, rather
than on disposal, treatment and reuse, or on solid and liquid waste management.
Unimproved sanitation facilities
Do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta
from human contact. Unimproved facilities include
pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging
latrines and bucket latrines.
Open
Defecation
2.2 Open defecation
When human faeces are disposed of in fields,
forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or
other open spaces or disposed of with solid waste.
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
2.3 The functional approach
As noted by Kvarnström et al. (2008), the JMP approach has been criticised within the sector because it does not deal
with service indicators such as quality, reliability and sustainability of water and sanitation. Kvarnström also notes
that by definition, a technology-based approach restricts options to the technologies listed and is not open to other
options developed through sector innovation. So, although composting toilets were included within the ambit of
‘improved sanitation’ from 2006, the reality remains that those sanitation systems that are not on a pre-defined list
of technologies do not count towards meeting the MDGs. In response to some of this criticism, the JMP refined the
indicators in the 2008 MDG assessment report and used a variation of the sanitation ladder approach. The JMP has
also indicated that the ladder may be refined after 2015 to enable progress in the sector to be monitored based on a
set of indicator rungs.
Kvarnström and others suggest that the ladder could be further improved by expanding the use of a function
approach rather than a technology approach, as depicted in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Suggested function-based sanitation ladder*
User Functions
Function
Description of rung
7
Integrated Resource
Management
The sanitation system is connected to and works productively with the
related systems for water, nutrients, and energy provision, through integrated
management of storm water, wastewater, faecal sludge, greywater and solid
waste collection.
6
Nutrient Containment
Protection of the environment by controlling releases of nutrients to water
bodies and the environment; requires some treatment and/or storage methods;
includes nutrients from both greywater and excreta flows.
5
Nutrient Reuse
Closing the loop on nutrients through reuse of treated human waste, e.g. in
agricultural production or soil rehabilitation.
4
Pathogen Elimination
Secondary treatment that will destroy pathogens in the excreta and greywater.
3
Greywater Management
Means no stagnant water in the user environment, also eliminating exposure to
pathogens, insects, and filth.
2
Access
The users have safe, reliable access to the sanitation facilities 24-hours a day,
including privacy, personal safety, and shelter.
1
Excreta Containment
Contains the human excreta and sets barriers to pathogen transport; therefore
includes no flies; no faecal matter lingering; hand-washing facilities are present.
The facility should be clean and odour-free to preserve a clean/pleasant
experience for the user and encourage use.
< -------- Management Needs < ------
Environmental Functions
* Note that moving up the ladder means that the functions below have also been fulfilled.
Source: Kvarnström et al., 2008.
2.4
Towards a sustainable sanitation services ladder
Von Münch (2008) argues that sanitation should be regarded as a system from collection to treatment and re-use. She
points out that sanitation includes excreta management or containment, greywater management, solid waste management and drainage, but that the MDG target focuses solely on facilities for excreta containment. The assessment
of basic sanitation should not be based on the type of facility, but on sustainability, health and environmental criteria.
Von Münch suggests criteria for the measurement of sustainable sanitation as noted in Figure 4.
9
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Figure 4: Criteria for the measurement of sustainable sanitation
Improved sustainable access to sanitation
Sustainability
Robust construction
Easy to use
Maintenance
Health
No contact with excreta
Easy to clean
Controlled downstream effect
Environment
Controlled sludge disposal
Provision against flooding
Low risk of groundwater pollution
In a similar vein, the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance has developed sustainability criteria related to the following considerations when improving an existing and/or designing a new sanitation system (SuSanA, 2007, P2):
Health and hygiene: includes the risk of exposure to pathogens and hazardous substances that could affect public
health at all points of the sanitation system from the toilet via the collection and treatment system to the point of
reuse or disposal.
Environment and natural resources: involves energy, water and other natural resources for construction, operation
and maintenance of the system, as well as emissions. It includes the impact of recycling and reuse of the products.
Technology and operation: incorporates the functionality and the ease with which the system can be constructed,
operated and monitored using available human resources.
Financial and economic issues: relate to the capacity of households and communities to pay for sanitation, including the construction, maintenance and depreciation costs of the system. It takes into account the economic benefits from ‘productive’ sanitation systems, including the recyclables (soil conditioner, fertiliser, energy sources and
reclaimed water), employment creation, increased productivity through improved health and the reduction of environmental and public health costs.
Socio-cultural and institutional aspects: criteria in this category evaluate the socio-cultural acceptance and appropriateness of the system, convenience, system perceptions, gender issues and impact on human dignity, the contribution to subsistence economies and food security, and legal and institutional aspects.
Arno Rosemarin of the Stockholm Environment Institute’s EcoSanRes Programme agrees (Rosemarin, 2009) that sustainable sanitation needs to be more than simply”improved” and be based on systems that:
protect and promote human health by providing a clean environment and breaking the cycle of disease
are economically viable, socially acceptable, and technically and institutionally appropriate
protect the environment and natural resources
can involve a wide selection of technologies
Because the WASHCost sanitation ladder is designed as an analytical tool to allow for cross country comparison, it is
suggested that the indicators of service delivery not only take into account the international sustainable sanitation
service criteria set out above, but that they should also relate specifically to various country contexts (an aggregation
of national norms and standards), effectively constructing country specific ladders.
10
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
For example, the definitions set out in the South African Strategic Framework for Water Services (RSA, 2003) are potentially useful in the identification of indicators for the quality of sanitation service provision because they separate the
‘facility’ from the ‘service’ as follows:
Sanitation facility: “The infrastructure necessary to provide a sanitation service which is safe, reliable, private,
protected from the weather, ventilated, keeps smells to the minimum, is easy to keep clean, minimises the risk of
the spread of sanitation-related diseases by facilitating the appropriate control of disease carrying flies and pests,
and enables safe and appropriate treatment and/or removal of human waste and wastewater in an environmentally sound manner.”
Sanitation service: “The provision of a basic sanitation facility which is easily accessible to a household, the sustainable operation of the facility, including the safe removal of human waste and wastewater from the premises
where this is appropriate and necessary, and the communication of good sanitation, hygiene and related practices.”
It is important to note that the concept of a sanitation service does not imply an external provider. In fact, in most
cases, households are responsible for ensuring the operation and maintenance of latrines with minimal or no external support. While some technologies require more external support than others, the effort required to access this
support is a key indicator of service level. The sanitation facility definition includes ventilation in keeping with the
South African national norm for a basic sanitation facility, which is a VIP latrine. As the review of latrine standards in
WASHCost countries in the next section will show, this is not the case in many other countries, and so not all of these
indicators are relevant.
11
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
3. National norms and standards in WASHCost
focus countries
3.1
Burkina Faso
In Burkina Faso, sanitation norms centre on the number of people per type of latrine. For on-site sanitation in private
dwellings, schools and public places, the following norms have been set.
Figure 5: Criteria for latrine provision in households and at public places
Latrines
Private
School institutions
Public places
10 persons/ latrine
Sets of latrines at the rate of one
toilet seat per classroom
6 to 8 toilet seats per set of latrines
Responsibility for evaluating who has access to sanitation is broadly shared and can be done at village, commune,
region or national level. Figure 6a shows that for monitoring domestic individual sanitation, it is “standard compliant
latrines” that are important and that there should be no more than ten people to each latrine. However, the definition
of what constitutes a standard compliant latrine is not given, beyond saying that they should comply with “minimal
hygiene, security and privacy conditions”. The same is true for standard compliant septic tanks which should comply
with “minimum hygiene and security conditions”. Access to satisfactory sanitation is dependent on having access to a
standard compliant individual latrine and a standard compliant septic tank.
Figure 6a: Standards for latrines and septic tanks in Burkina Faso
Item
Concept
Number of latrines
Number of existing latrines in a given geographical area
Number of standard compliant latrines
Number of latrines complying with minimum hygiene, security and
privacy conditions
Theoretical rate of access to latrines
Percentage of population having access to a standard compliant latrine
Calculation (%)
Total = 10 X number of standard compliant latrines/total population
Rate of standard compliant latrines
Ratio of standard-compliant latrines to total number of latrines
Number of septic tanks
Number of existing septic tanks
Number of standard compliant septic tanks
Number of septic tank complying with minimum hygiene and security
conditions
Theoretical rate of access to septic tanks
Percentage of population having access to standard-compliant septic
tanks
Calculation (%)
Total = 10 X number of standard-compliant septic tanks/total population
Rate of standard-compliant septic tanks
Ratio of number of standard-compliant septic tanks to total number of
septic tanks.
Theoretical rate of access to individual sanitation
Total rate of access to latrine and rate of access to sceptic tanks
Source: Adapted from Normes, Critères et indicateurs d’accès à l’eau potable et à l’assainissement, Direction Générale des Ressources
en Eau, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Hydraulique et des Ressources Halieutiques du Burkina Faso, July 2006.
12
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
For collective and semi-collective sanitation (connected to a sewerage system) monitoring and follow up should take
place at commune, regional or national level according to the standards set out in Figure 6b. Monitoring focuses on
the percentage of dwellings and commercial premises that are actually connected amongst those that could be connected to a system. The question being posed here is how far does the waste water treatment plant function to its
capacity.
Figure 6b: Standards for network sewerage systems in Burkina Faso
Item
Concept
Number of domestic connections
Number of dwellings connected
Number of industrial and commercial
connections
Number of industrial and commercial premises connected
Total number of connections
Total of domestic, industrial and commercial connections
Theoretical rate of domestic connections
Percentage of population connected to the network compared with the
overall population covered by the network
Nominal capacity of Waste Water Treatment
Plant
Pollution load that can be treated by the Plant, expressed in terms of the
number of inhabitants.
Use rate of the Waste Water Treatment Plant
Ratio of the global pollution load expressed in habitants compared with
the nominal capacity of Waste Water Treatment Plant
Currently (2005 figures), only 10% of the rural population in Burkina Faso has access to what the JMP considers to be
improved sanitation (DGRE, 2006, p.14). When traditional latrines are included coverage rises to 10%. In urban areas
access to (JMP approved) sanitation is 14%. The Burkina Faso government has set targets for 2015 to ensure access
in rural areas for an additional 5.7 million people, to raise the access rate from 10% to 54% (Ibid). In urban areas the
target is to ensure coverage for an extra 2.1 million people by 2015, increasing coverage from 14% to 57% within the
area covered by L’Office national de l’eau et de l’assainissement (ONEA), the state agency responsible for water and
sanitation in urban areas.
The main method for reaching these targets will be sensitisation campaigns, sanitation promotion and sanitation and
hygiene education.
3.2
Ghana
In Ghana, sanitation includes not only faeces and urine but all kinds of solid waste and even the disposal of bodies.
The minimum criteria for sanitation facilities/use are those that ensure a community becomes open defecation-free
(ODF). This might in fact still include defecating outside so long as it is “deep and buried”. A waste pit is the minimum
criteria for liquid waste, and an uncontrolled pit for solid waste. There is no minimum level for hygiene, since without
washing and food protection there is no hygiene – it is an ‘all or nothing’ concept.
Toilets may be private, semi-private (defined as shared but not communal), or communal. However, they must provide
access for and be used by everyone, or sanitation does not meet the standard. In rural areas a soakage pit might be
acceptable, but in towns a connection to a sewerage system is essential.
The Community Water & Sanitation Agency (CWSA, 2008) has articulated standards for latrine options for small towns.
In the CWSA Framework, latrines are divided into two types with the following stipulations:
13
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Figure 7: Standards for household and institutional latrines in small towns in Ghana
Household Latrines:
individual households
or cluster of houses
Latrine Type
Nº people
Additional Design
Parameters:
Siting of latrine
• 1-2 seater KVIP
latrines
10 persons per drop
hole
Sludge accumulation
rate:
0.03 m3/person/year
Minimum distance
from water sources:
15m and always down
slope from point
source
• Pour flush latrines
Minimum pit depth:
3.5m
• Eco san
• VIP
Institutional:
Latrines schools
and clinics
• 6 - 10 seater
KVIP latrines
50 persons per drop
hole
Adapted from: CWSA (2008, pp. 3-4).
KVIP latrine = Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit latrine
These standards can be flexible. A low-cost improved traditional latrine could be considered with approval from the
CWSA. Due to space constraints a common latrine (neighbourhood latrine) can be constructed and shared by 3-5
neighbours living in the same area. This type of latrine will allocate a compartment for each household to ensure
proper maintenance
The framework says that, in special cases, flush toilets with septic tanks or small bore sewers may be used for modern
houses, but it should be understood that these are above the basic service level and will only receive technical assistance.
Latrine construction should achieve the following standards:
1. Relatively free from flies and odour.
2. Dispose safely human excreta
3. Be structurally stable so that it does not collapse in use
Ghana attempts to monitor user satisfaction. The framework stipulates that there should be follow up by the District
Water and Sanitation Team (DWST) for one year after the end of project on latrine users to see that they are satisfied
with the latrines and are using them properly.
Hygiene
It is also stipulated in the framework that all latrines will have hand washing facilities and that messages promoting
handwashing with soap should be included in the user education.
Handwashing with soap should be an integral part of hygiene promotion in both communities and schools.
Regional Water and Sanitation Teams (RWSTs) should integrate handwashing with soap activities in their workplans.
Water and Sanitation Development Board (WSDBs) should have action plans for promotion of handwashing with
soap which should be emphasised in their training.
The reviewed Information Education Communication (IEC) materials and hygiene syllabus for School Hygiene
Education Programme should be adopted.
Latrine and hygiene promotion is delivered through a mixture of advocacy, IEC and subsidy. For hygiene there is an
emphasis on teaching children in schools and on training teachers to provide hygiene education.
14
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
3.3
India
Unlike the situation for drinking water, there are no specified norms for sanitation in India. The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) is the flagship programme initiated in 1999 to ensure sanitation facilities in rural areas and with the
broader goal of eradicating the practice of open defecation. TSC places a strong emphasis on IEC, capacity building
and hygiene education for effective behaviour change with the involvement of panchayats (PRIs – local level government), CBOs, and NGOs, etc.
The key intervention areas are Individual household latrines (IHHL), School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE),
Community Sanitary Complexes (where there is no room for IHHLs), Anganwadi (child care centre) toilets, Rural Sanitary Marts (RSMs) and production centres. Under the Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) Awards, introduced in 2005, the
central government gives cash awards of between US$ 1,000 and US$ 10,000 (depending on population size) to
habitations that have achieved open defecation-free status and proper management of solid and liquid waste. Some
state governments have also initiated their own incentive programmes. Andhra Pradesh makes Shubhram Awards,
although these are not given out regularly. Some rural habitations have higher levels of sanitation such as underground drainage as observed in e.g. Ankushapur (a WASHCost test-bed habitation).
The Government of India has approved the National Urban Sanitation Policy which aims to make sanitation facilities
universally available in urban areas. The policy specially focuses on hygienic and affordable sanitation facilities for the
urban poor and women, and seeks to ensure improved cleanliness in cities and towns. The goals include awareness
generation and behavioural change, elimination of open defecation, integrated city-wide sanitation, safe disposal
and proper operation and maintenance of all sanitary installations. Nirmal Sahar Puraskar awards were initiated during 2008 for urban areas with similar criteria to those for rural areas. So far, only two states (Maharastra and West
Bengal) have taken a lead in this regard. Apart from this, there are no specific norms for urban or peri-urban areas.
Figure 8 shows possible sanitation ladders standards proposed by WASHCost India, compatible with governmental
norms and goals.
Figure 8: Sanitation ladder standards proposed by WASHCost India for use in India
LEVEL 6
Community managed sanitation of underground drainage, collection and
disposal of solid and liquid waste disposal with treatment and hygiene practices
both at household and community levels including the school sanitation
LEVEL 5
IHHLs with septic tanks/VIP latrines, covered drainage facilities with safe disposal
practice including the school sanitation with separate complexes for boys and girls
LEVEL 4 (Nirmal Gram Puraskar /
Nirmal Sahar Puraskar Norms
of the Govt.)
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1
IHHLs with septic tanks/VIP latrines, safe and hygienic solid and liquid waste disposal,
including school sanitation
IHHL with septic tank with limited drainage and solid waste disposal facilities and
shared/community sanitary complexes.
Ranging from dry latrine to pour flush latrine, no drainage facility and no proper solid
waste management
Open defecation. No drainage system. No solid waste management
15
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
3.4
Mozambique
Under Mozambique government normative levels, an improved latrine is acceptable but a traditional latrine is not.
However, it would seem necessary to make a distinction between those using a traditional latrine and those who are
not served at all.
Sanitation is promoted as one per household. A shared latrine is considered below the norm and is not very common
in Mozambique. For solid waste, any bury or burn or collect and dump method meets the national norm in rural areas.
In peri-urban areas however, a collection and disposal system should be in place.
Figure 9: Proposed sanitation ladder standards by WASHCost Mozambique for use in Mozambique
System
Nº people
Drainage
Solid waste
management
Norm
Improved traditional
latrine
One per household
Closed drainage
Bury or Burn
System of collection and
dumping
Minimal
Traditional latrine
Shared
Open drainage
Partial collection
Not served
Open defecation
Shared
Open drainage
On ground
3.5
Areas of commonality in country norms and standards
In reflecting on areas of commonality within these national norms and standards, and on the implications of preliminary findings on sanitation service levels in the focus countries, the following principles were agreed in 2010 by the
WASHCost research team:
An unimproved or traditional pit toilet should not be categorised as ‘no service’ as it is an improvement on open
defecation.
Service level assessments need to accommodate toilets that are provided within a compound for several families
(‘semi-collective’), in addition to household latrines.
The basic service level should meet basic JMP criteria for global comparability.
Safe burial of faeces (the ‘cat method’) is an improvement on open defecation and in dry, low population density
conditions is relatively safe. A sub-standard level should be included in the service ladder which could include
such practices where they apply, but this cannot be defined as a service.
Keeping broad alignment with JMP criteria for global comparability, service level assessments and costing of containment, disposal, treatment and re-use (where applicable) of (i) excreta and urine, (ii) greywater, and (iii) solid
waste, will be kept as separate assessments. Solid waste management is not included within national norms for
sanitation but remains a significant challenge. A proposed solid waste service ladder is attached at Appendix A to
this paper. Suggested service levels for greywater management are included in Appendix B.
While re-use is not reflected in national norms and is not widely practised in any of the focus countries, it remains
an important advocacy issue with respect to higher levels of sanitation service, and is therefore included in the
‘improved’ service level of the service level ladder.
16
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
4. The proposed WASHCost sanitation service
levels
4.1 Service parameters and indicators for sanitation
Proposed service parameters and indicators are outlined in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Proposed service parameters and indicators
Service
Parameter
Key Indicators
Accessibility
Number of toilets per household
Distance of toilets from households
Use
Use by all members of the household
Reliability
Household maintenance
O&M support service available
Environmental
protection
Toilets constructed at least 15 m from water sources
Safe re-use
Safe disposal
Scale and affordability are also crucial important service parameters. Scale refers to the number or proportion of
people who are covered by a service in the area of study. In WASHCost this will be addressed, not through monitoring
specific indicators but though data aggregation and analysis. Affordability can be analysed as a correlation between
costs at different service levels and household income levels.
The service parameters in Figure 10 above are elaborated into broad service indicators, but can be further elaborated into more detailed indicators in the sanitation ladder set out in Figure 12. The parameters have been compiled
from the sustainable sanitation system indicators set out in section 2, and are broadly in synergy with the indicators
applied in the WASHCost water supply service ladder.
These proposed parameters and indicators have been developed from the perspectives of the user, the provider and
the environment, and are based on the principle of better and lasting sanitation services for everyone.
4.2 The sanitation ladder: indicators and levels
This section of the paper sets out:
Sanitation functional areas across the sanitation service delivery chain (Figure 11)
The WASHCost sanitation service ladder (Figure 12)
Indicators per service parameter for deciding overall service levels (Figure 13)
17
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
4.2.1
Service functional areas across the sanitation delivery chain
Given that sanitation services are fragmented across a chain of service delivery activities or functions, each with their
own associated costs and institutions or actors, a full sanitation service implies both that these functions are fulfilled,
and that the linkages in the chain are well articulated.
Working definition: A full spectrum of sanitation services refers to the (i) containment (safe separation from the
user, e.g. toilet, slab or drain), (ii) collection/ transport, (iii) treatment, (iv) disposal and (v) re-use, of excreta and
solid and liquid waste. In this document we refer to each of these areas of service as functional areas.
This represents a substantial shift away from an MDG-driven focus on latrines or facilities for the containment of
excreta, to a service delivery approach that takes the entire delivery chain into account.
This approach allows for context specific variations and operation and maintenance disparities in the ranking of sanitation facilities or technology options. For example, a well operated and maintained VIP is arguably a higher level of
service than a badly maintained septic tank system or a full flush system with inadequate water supply. In fact, ‘higher’
or more sophisticated technology options that are not well operated or maintained represent a substantially graver
public health and environmental risk than options lower down the traditional sanitation technology ladder.
The service delivery approach also accommodates the reality that appropriate technology options are highly contextual and dependent on a range of factors including settlement densities, soil conditions, geo-hydrological conditions,
the availability of water and socioeconomic conditions.
Based on the four service parameters above and taking into account the reality of sanitation services in the focus
countries and considering all the functional areas of the sanitation service delivery chain, we propose a service ladder
of four broad categories or levels (Figure 11): improved service, basic service, limited service, and no/unacceptable
service. ‘Limited’ service is included in recognition of the fact that there are some practices (such as deep burial of faeces) which do not meet the standards for a basic service, but which nevertheless have to be regarded as better than
open defecation. A contradiction that emerges from these definitions is that while a ‘limited service’ may be better
than nothing, it does not really qualify as a ‘service’ at all; it is a least-bad, self-help solution.
The different service levels are illustrated diagrammatically below, against the five functional areas of the sanitation
chain. Figure 11 outlines which functional areas need to be covered for each ‘rung’ of the ladder, while Figure 12
details the indicators for each of the service parameters.
Figure 11: WASHCost Sanitation Service Functional Areas – the Delivery Chain
Containment
Collection
Treatment
Disposal
Re-use
Improved
service
X
X
X
X
X
Basic service
X
X
Limited
X
No or
unacceptable
service
18
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
4.2.2
The sanitation service levels
Figure 12: WASHCost Sanitation Service Levels with detailed indicators per service parameter for deciding overall service levels
Accessibility
Use
Reliability
Environmental
protection
Improved
service
Each family dwelling
has one or more toilets
in the compound
Easy access for all family
dwellings
Facilities used by all
household members
Regular or routine
O&M (including pit
emptying) service
requiring minimal effort
Evidence of care and
cleaning of toilet
Non problematic
environmental impact/
Safe disposal and re-use
of safe by-products
Basic service
Cement or
impermeable slab at
national norm distance
from households (per
household or shared)
Facilities used by some
household members
Unreliable O&M
(including pit
emptying) requiring
high level of user effort
Evidence of care and
cleaning of toilet
Non problematic
environmental impact/
Safe disposal
Limited ‘service’
Platform without
impermeable slab
separating faeces from
users
No service
No separation between
user and faeces, e.g.
open defecation
No or insufficient use
No O&M (e.g. Pit
emptying) taking place
and no evidence of
cleaning or care for
the toilet
Significant
environmental
pollution, increasing
with increased
population density
Notes:
This service ladder is designed for consideration of domestic sanitation at household level only. Equivalent service
levels also need to be achieved at workplaces and in schools/colleges for people to be able to access these service
levels in their daily lives, rather than only in their homes.
The service ladder refers to the containment, disposal, treatment and re-use (where applicable) of excreta and
urine. Suggested service levels for solid waste and greywater are attached as Appendices A and B respectively.
Adequate water supply commensurate with the sanitation technology is assumed. Where the water supply is
inadequate for a full flush facility for example, the collection of excreta would not be possible.
No/unacceptable4 service is where facilities do not effectively separate faeces or urine from the user or the environment, e.g. open defecation, and/or groundwater contamination.
With respect to use, the previous sanitation service ladder differentiated service levels based on the ‘Use’ indicators, ‘all household family members use toilets’ and ‘disposal of infant faeces’. Through field testing, employing
both observational method and reported data, it was not found to be possible to collect specific and reliable data
on infant faecal disposal or to accurately differentiate which household members did or did not use the latrine.
As such, the Use indicator ‘disposal of infant faeces’ had been eliminated. In order to allow a distinction between
‘improved’ or ‘basic services’, use is now differentiated as use of household latrine/s by ‘all’ or only ‘some household
members’ respectively.
4In some remote and sparsely populated areas people practise the ‘cat method’ of burial of faeces, combined with use of soil or leaves to
cleanse hands. Although clearly sub-optimal, such methods may, where they do not threaten water sources, be considered as a ‘limited
service’ rather than ‘no service’.
19
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Separating out greywater and solid waste: In reality, while conceptually part of sanitation services, the management of excreta and urine, of greywater, and of solid waste, are separate from both a hardware and service
perspective. It is proposed that systems and services for greywater and solid waste be assessed against separate
service ladders as described in Appendices A and B of this paper.
4.2.3
Deciding on sanitation service levels
As shown above, each service level parameter has a number of indicators and can only be fully met where all these
indicators are satisfied. There is no effective way of combining different indicators to arrive at a ‘combined’ service
level, except where they are all met. In Working Paper 2, “Ladders for assessing and costing water service delivery”, a
principle was established that the overall service level for water at household level is decided by the lowest composite indicator. That principle also applies to sanitation services. For example, having a household toilet of good quality
does not deliver an improved service level if most members of the family do not use it or if the toilet causes significant
environmental pollution. The service level is decided by its weakest point.
This is significant when trying to relate particular toilet options to service levels. At the risk of overstating the case, the
ladders in Figures 12 and 13 refer to service levels rather than technology options. Depending on the availability of
O&M systems and support, environmental protection and proper use, examples of technology options at the various
levels could include, but are not limited to:
Limited service - traditional latrine, unimproved pit latrine, etc.
Basic service - ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, improved pit latrine, septic tank, etc.
Improved service - Arboloo, composting toilet, Blair latrine, septic tank, full flush, etc.
However, a well-made and well-maintained double pit VIP latrine, where the composted material is safely used in a
vegetable garden offers the potential for improved service (where all members of the family use it and wash their
hands); while a flush toilet that discharges effluent in such a way to threaten groundwater and/or human health, does
not.
For aggregation and analysis, single service levels will not be assigned to a service area (village/ town) where different
users have different levels of service. This is for similar reasoning to the point made above about composite indicators:
one family’s service levels cannot be ‘averaged’ with another to provide a meaningful figure. But in this case, we cannot say that a community service level should be decided by the lowest household level, because that would lead to
many (most) communities being registered as having ‘no service’ and there would be no distinction between a community where 80% of households have an improved service, and one where only 5% do so. Instead, and as agreed
in the water services paper, percentages of households at each service level within each service parameter will be
recorded so as to provide a comprehensive picture of service levels in a particular area.
20
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
Figure 13: WASHCost Sanitation Service Levels with summarised composite indicators for deciding overall service levels
Service levels
Accessibility
Use
Reliability
(O&M)
Environmental
protection (pollution
and density)
Improved
service
Each family dwelling
has one or more toilets
in the compound
Facilities used by all
members of the HH
Regular or routine O&M
(inc. pit emptying)
requiring minimal user
effort
Non problematic
environmental impact
disposal and re-use of
safe by-products
Basic service
Latrine with
impermeable slab (HH
or shared) at national
norm distance from HH
Facilities used by some
members of the HH
Unreliable O&M
(inc. pit emptying)
and requiring high
user effort
Non problematic
environmental impact
and safe disposal
Limited ‘service’
Platform without
(impermeable) slab
separated faeces from
users
No service
No separation between
user and faeces, e.g.
open defecation
No or insufficient use
No O&M (pit emptying)
taking place and the
presence of extremely
dirty toilets
Significant
environmental
pollution, heightening
with increased
population density
21
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
5. Summary and next steps
In this working paper, we have used Kvarnström’s concept of functional areas across the sanitation service delivery
chain and proposed parameters and indicators for sustainable sanitation services across each functional area. It is
suggested that this approach is not only useful for the WASHCost research, but could also be considered more broadly
by those involved in planning and monitoring sanitation service delivery.
We propose that service levels be assigned separately for excreta and urine management, for greywater, and for solid
waste, which are all parts of a sanitation service. The sanitation service level ladder outlined here covers excreta and
urine management and comprises four levels, two of which represent different types of acceptable service and two
represent a limited or below standard service, which do not meet basic norms and do not properly merit the description of a service. The two levels of acceptable services can be described in the following terms:
Basic service: At this level all households have reasonable access to at least one safe, relatively robust, private sanitation facility, available handwashing facilities, relatively weak desludging and other long term maintenance provisions,
and non problematic environmental impact or safe disposal of sludge. This is typical of most acceptable rural and
peri-urban sanitation services.
Improved service: At this level, all users have easy access at all times to a convenient, private, safe, robust sanitation
facility which seals against flies and bad odours, has nearby handwashing facilities, where minimal effort is required
for desludging and long term maintenance, and there is re-use, safe by-products with non-problematic environmental impacts.
Figure 14 provides a diagrammatic representation of the WASHCost service ladder.
Figure 14: WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder
Improved
Basic
Limited
No service
22
All households members have easy access to
and use at least one convenient, safe, clean
facility, regular or routine O&M, and there is
non-problematic environmental impact and safe
re-use or disposal of sludge.
All household members have reasonable access
to and use a safe, clean facility, weak maintenance
provisions, and non problematic environmental
impact or safe disposal of sludge.
A platform separates the user from faeces, there
is little or no evidence of cleaning of the latrine,
and there is significant environmental pollution
increasing with population density.
There is no separation between the user and
faeces, e.g. open defecation, and there is
significant environmental pollution increasing
with population density.
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
In order to test and refine the sanitation service level ladders, WASHCost countries need to identify country specific
sub-indicators under each composite indicator, and the means for their calculation based on data that can realistically
be collected through in-country research.
The composite indicators and service parameters set out in this paper are useful for advocacy and international comparison; the sub-indicators are essential for research and in-country monitoring. These levels and composite indicators are being tested against field data on costs. Solid and greywater waste management levels should also be determined and analysed as part of sanitation service level and cost assessments.
With respect to field testing, it is suggested that country teams try to ensure that sampling includes examples of all
different service levels, and that household data collection can be analysed against the service level indicators so that
a measure of the actual service received can be attained.
23
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
6. Hygiene services
Hygiene covers a range of health and environmental issues, including the use of water and sanitation to block the
transmission of related diseases and improve health. Hygiene is a central component in both water and sanitation
services and is cannot simply be an add-on to either the water or sanitation service ladders.
It is widely accepted that effective, sustainable hygiene promotion cannot be achieved through a once-only intervention and requires ongoing activities from multiple sources. Hygiene promotion can be seen as a public or environmental health function and therefore ‘a service’, either undertaken by public or environmental health departments,
or by the sanitation provider or utility. However, water and/or sanitation infrastructure related hygiene promotion
is usually ‘an intervention’ that happens between once and five times in a project cycle, and is unlikely on its own to
result in sustainable improvement in hygiene practices.
Arguably, hygiene promotion will only result in sustainable behaviour change if it is an ongoing, integrated service.
This is an important advocacy issue, and also has important implications for the development of a WASHCost hygiene
ladder.
It seems likely therefore that a hygiene service ladder could be described as:
‘Ideal’: Environmental or public health driven hygiene promotion coordinated with water and sanitation infrastructure development promotion activities
‘Basic’: Effective water and sanitation infrastructure-related hygiene promotion
‘Unimproved’: Ineffective water and sanitation infrastructure-related hygiene promotion
Levels of effectiveness of hygiene promotion will be assessed against the following key indicators of hygienic
­behaviours:
Separation of faeces from users (e.g. the use of latrines)
Handwashing with soap or ash at critical moments
Safe household water management
It would be beyond the realistic scope of WASHCost research to collect cost and service level data for the full range
of hygiene services in any focus country; it will be necessary to concentrate data collection on hygiene promotion
related to water and sanitation infrastructure development. WASHCost will cost selected hygiene interventions that
are believed to be successful and where there is cost data available. Hygiene cost data collection will focus on capital
expenditure on software (hygiene promotion and sanitation demand creation) and direct and indirect support costs
for hygiene interventions linked to water and sanitation infrastructure improvement.
24
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
References
CWSA, 2008. Framework of the Hygiene and Sanitation Approach for Small Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Projects.
Community Water & Sanitation Agency, Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
DGRE, 2006. Programme national d’approvisionnement en eau potable et d’assainissement à l’horizon 2015, Document
de programme, Direction Générale des Ressources en Eau, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Hydraulique et des Ressources Halieutiques du Burkina Faso, November 2006.
Kvarnström, E., McConville, J., Johansson, M., Bracken, P. and Fogde, M., 2009. The Sanitation Ladder – a Need for a
­Revamp? IWA Development Congress, November 15-19, 2009, Mexico City, Mexico.
Kvarnström, E., McConville, J., Johansson, M., Bracken, P., Fogde, M., 2011. The Sanitation Ladder – a need for a Revamp?
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, Vol 1(1): 3-12.
Lahiri, S. & Chanthaphone, S., 2000. Consumers Choice…The Sanitation Ladder: Rural Sanitation Options in Lao PDR.
WSP-EAP / World Bank and UNICEF, 2000.
Moriarty, P. et al., April 2010. Working Paper 2: Ladders for assessing and costing water service delivery. WASHCost.
Republic of South Africa, 2003. Strategic framework for water services. Government Printers, Pretoria.
Rosemarin, A., 2009. Sanitation Definitions. EcoSanRes Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute, PPT presentation at SACOSAN Workshop, SL, April 27, 2009.
SuSanA, (2007) SuSanA Vision Statement. Towards More Sustainable Sanitation Solutions. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. Available at http://esa.un.org/iys/docs/Susana_backgrounder.pdf [Accessed 22 August 2010].
Von Münch, E., 2008. Rethinking sanitation? IWA World Water Congress PPT presentation. Vienna.
World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation (JMP), 2008. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation. UNICEF, New York and
WHO, Geneva. Available at: http://www.wssinfo.org/resources/documents.html [Accessed 22 August 2010].
World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation (JMP). 2010. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-water: 2010 Update. UNICEF, New York and WHO, Geneva
Available at: http://www.wssinfo.org [Accessed 22 August 2010].
25
Working Paper 3 Second Edition
Appendix A:
Suggested Service Levels for Solid Waste
Figure 15: Proposed WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder for Solid Waste
Containment
Collection
Disposal
Treatment
Re-use
Highly improved
service
Source sorting
Separate
container for
paper, glass, etc
Safe container
protected from
flies, domestic
animals
Mechanised
collection
Community based
management with
system which
avoid
dispersion
Safe disposal on
protected
landfills
Leachate
containment
Incineration
Recycling
Composting
Systematic
productive reuse
(compost, energy,
etc)
Improved
service
Safe container
protected from
flies, animals,
Community based
management
Safe disposal on
protected landfill
Recycling
Composting
No or
unsystematic
productive reuse
Basic service
Safe container
protected
Individual
(household
member is
in charge of
collection
Disposal on
specific dumping
site
No treatment
No or problematic
productive reuse
No or
unacceptable
service
No container
No collection
No treatment
No treatment
No reuse
Note: Under the community management system, solid waste management is managed at household level.
Appendix B:
Suggested Service Levels for Greywater Management
Figure 16: Functional areas: WASHCost Sanitation Service Ladder for Greywater
Description
Containment
Collection
Disposal
Treatment
Re-use
Highly improved
service
Covered
drainage for
greywater
X
X
X
X
X
Improved
service
Drainage for
greywater
X
X
X
X
X
Basic service
Soakage pit for
greywater
X
X
No or
unacceptable
service
No
management
of greywater
26
WASHCost – Assessing sanitation service levels – July 2011
27
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, P.O. Box 82327, 2508 EH The Hague, The Netherlands, [email protected], www.washcost.info
Fly UP