Sustaining Sanitation Services

1. Sustaining Sanitation Services Engaging urban utilities to reach MDG 7-target 10 AfricaSan 2008 Dick van Ginhoven, DGIS

2. Content • Introduction • Lessons from the past • Obstacles • Governance • Institutional • Financial • Role of utilities and small scale service possibilities • DGIS policy

3. What do we mean by sanitation? “Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and faeces. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal”1 1http://www.who.int, 2008

4. Santitation: Most important medical intervention since 1840 According to a recent Survey by the “British Medical Journal” amongst 11.341 medical practitioners from all over the world

5. MDG target MDG 7 Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (baseline year 1990)

6. Current situation in Afrika • The percentage of the population of Sub-Saharan African with access to adequate basic sanitary facilities raised from 32% to 37 % between 1990 and 2004; 99.4 million people were served • We have to reach a coverage of 66% by 2015 to reach the MDG target; 345 million people still need to be served Conclusion: We need to five-fold our efforts the coming 10 years to reach the MDG

7. Sanitation MDG linkage MDG 4: Reduce child mortality 1.9 million worldwide diarrhoea related U-5 deaths each year, 88% due lack of hygiene + sanitation

8. Lessons from the past • Supply driven approaches and policies largely failed; • Demand driven approaches are time consuming, require changes in behaviour and policies; • Community based approaches seems effective in rural settings, not in slums; • Sanitation is not a priority at the national level, nor at the local level. Sanitation is rarely mentioned in PRSP’s; • No political ownership; • Weak decentralisation; • Slum areas require different approaches.

9. Obstacles in addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Governance • Political will; relatively low priority • Mindset local government – Utilities seen as service providers, not as facilitators/regulators of SSSP • Peri-Urban Areas (Slums) not on the political agenda • Local governments mandated, but lack capacity and political will to serve the poor • Policies, standards and regulations outdated, and stick to the ‘sewerage paradigm’

10. Obstacles in addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Governance • Legal framework – land tenure, etc. • Private sector service providers construct and empty facilities, not bothered by regulations nor supported by authorities • NGO’s sometimes filling vacuum, often without mandate or sustainable relation to 'beneficiaries • Open defecation and 'flying toilets

11. Obstacles in addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Institutional • Lack of local capacity – Utilities, even in the cases that they have sufficient capacity, are not ‘capacitated’ for their new role • Sanitation has no ‘Institutional Home’, who isresponsible?? • Water supply stretched to the limit even without extended sewerage, and even with well-managed utilities • Poorly managed and maintained public toilets • Water and sewerage utilities without clear sanitation mandate

12. Obstacles in addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Financial • Donor funding (WB, AfDB) often limited to central sewer networks (city centres) • Insufficient budget allocations for sanitation from local tax revenues • Insufficient / no budget allocations for sanitation from local or national tax revenues • Household financing of latrine facilities, no government subsidies • Little interest of local investors in sanitation sector.

13. Obstacles in addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Technical • Poorly functioning sewage networks in city centres, without appropriate sewage treatment • Pit latrines and septic tanks, no groundwater protection and regular emptying service

14. Summary The deteriorating sanitary situation of fast growing urban populations is not high enough on the political agenda, and the ‘sewerage myth’ (the political notion that water borne sewerage is a realistic option for all) stands in the way of an appropriate sustainable solution (sanitation ladder)

15. Addressing the urban sanitation crisis: Technology and responsibilities Technology Responsibilities Formal Utility: Provides Services Sewerage, (Treatment?) Formal Utility: Regulate, Enabling Environment SSSP: Operational activities Septic Tank, Pit Latrine, VIP Latrine, Pit latrine with slab, Composting toilet Open pit latrine, Hanging toilet, Open defecation, Public Latrines (?) MDG’s

16. Paradigm shift in policy is needed: Governance • Demonstrate advantage of stakeholder approach (beyond lip service) • Crucial role for the private sector and utilities based on commercial service provision • Sanitation System(s) approach instead of just 'toilet construction‘ • Total Sanitation for cities in order to ensure health impact • Redefine who is responsible and can provide sanitation service for slums • Review and adjust policy and regulatory framework

17. Paradigm shift in policy is needed: Technical • Select appropriate on-site sanitation options for all customers • Use the sanitation ladder to guide technical investments • Integrated solutions for both water and sanitation

18. Why utilities as key-players? • The only organization which comes close to having the required management and implementation capacity • Experience with decentralized service provision, consumer billing and service fee collection • Steered by (local) government

19. Paradigm shift in policy is needed: Institutional • Children and school sanitation focus • Special attention be given to sanitary facilities at public places, stations, markets etc. by involving private sector • Sanitation needs a home: engage utilities to regulate private sector involvement in non sewered sanitation service provision (SSPs)

20. Paradigm shift in policy is needed: Financial • Increase confidence of local investors in the 'bottom of the pyramid‘ • Mobilise private sector resources • Strengthen focus on (financial) sustainability • Develop financing opportunities for different households • Perspective on cost recovery (local demand, polluter pays)

21. DGIS policy towards the sanitation crisis Policy is based on three sources: • Principles of Dutch Development Cooperation • Sector specific goals • Goals of Reform of Service Providers

22. Principles of Dutch development cooperation Poverty alleviation and MDG focus Expansion of service coverage targeting the poor. Sector approach The engagement fits the water supply and sanitation sector of the recipient country (SWAP). Harmonization, coordination and alignment The engagement is in line with activities by other donors and activities by the central and local government. Gender The engagement stimulates a greater role of women in decision-making with respect to service provision. IWRM The engagement takes the impact on water resources into account and includes arrangements for dealing with increased sanitation services as a result of the engagement.

23. Sector-specific goals Output-oriented approach The engagement includes (development of) clearly identified and measurable outputs. Demand-driven, supporting and participatory approach The engagement is included as a priority in relevant sector or development plans. The engagement is (financially) supported by the central and local government and (inter)national NGOs. These entities, specifically the recipient utility, provide inputs in the design and implementation of the engagement. Involvement of the private sector The private sector is involved or opportunities exist for private sector involvement in the course of the engagement. Knowledge and capacity building The engagement leads to knowledge transfer to and capacity building of the recipient utility. Sustainability The engagement incorporates a component to guarantee the sustainability (after the period of engagement has ended). The engagement includes a viable exit-strategy. Monitoring The engagement incorporates a clear framework for monitoring the progress and providing feedback.

24. Process of utility reform Engagement especially focused on internal service provider reform stage

25. Goals of utility reform according to DGIS • Business-like functioning of the utility • Managerial autonomy • Financial autonomy • Accountability for results • Incentives for performance improvements • Sustainability of reforms • Long-term planning • Capacity • Political commitment

26. When will DGIS engage with utilities? • The engagement must be demand-driven. • The engagement must have the explicit support of the central and local government and inter(national) NGOs. • The engagement is partly financed from local sources. • The utility must have been able to restructure their debts. • Management of the utility must have decision-making competencies and be free from constraints on the use of these competencies. • The engagement must be in line with activities by other donors and international lending agencies. • (External) financiers commit to a predictable funding schedule. • The engagement includes clearly identifiable targets.

27. A possible example of DGIS engagement • Sanitation in peri-urban areas in Africa • Local utilities engage the small-scale private sanitation sector for toilet construction and service delivery. • 5 Cities in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali and Zambia • Dutch Consortium: Plan Nederland, WASTE, SNS REAAL Water Fund • Expected benefits: 12.500 households per urban district (2012), potentially 20.000 households per urban district (2018).

28. A possible example of DGIS engagement Plan Nederland SNS Reaal WASTE DGIS Municipality Local Bank Utility SSSP SSSP SSSP Arrows Represent Financial Flows Population