BY ARJUN KAUSHIK, EUIHYUN BAE, AND MARKUS SPECHT
Arjun Kaushik, Euihyun Bae, and Markus Specht, three recently-graduated SAIS IDEV provided consultancy services to Athena Infonomics as part of the International Development Practicum. They first compiled a comprehensive online repository of cost reference data points for various technologies across urban sanitation value chains to be used for comparative purposes in the CWIS SAP tool. Following this research, they delivered a policy brief with recommendations that may be taken into consideration while planning sanitation services in low-income urban areas.
Background and Objectives
To reach Target 6.2 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, achieving access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, an estimated USD 49.3. billion will need to be invested globally every year until 2030.[1] With the financial resources of national and municipal governments severely constrained, investments in sanitation infrastructure must be well planned to realize the most cost-effective solutions to achieve inclusive service provision. The CWIS SAP Tool[2] is designed to facilitate evidence-based comparisons of intervention options. The tool allows users to model the effects of prospective investments or regulatory changes on sanitation service coverage and affordability for households, safe management of waste in the city, and the financial viability of the service provider, providing a mechanism for more informed planning processes.
A challenge consistently raised by both Athena Infonomics’ partners in pilot countries for CWIS SAP and literature on investments in the WASH sector is the lack of data on the costs of sanitation services. Although non-sewered services and non-conventional sewer systems are perceived to be more cost-effective and scalable than traditional sewer networks, the absence of reliable cost data for these solutions puts them at a disadvantage during the investment planning process. Other innovative and emerging technologies also face a lack of investment and interest due to the same data-scarcity reason.
To support policymakers interested in using the CWIS planning tool, we developed a set of cost range estimates, providing benchmark values for operational and capital costs of components in a variety of possible sanitation value chains. Having collected the cost data from a variety of sources, we analyzed patterns in the costs of different sanitation services and identified contextual factors influencing variations in costs, which we validated through insights from semi-structured interviews with industry experts. This primary and secondary research formed the basis of our recommendations for the investment decision-making process concerning inclusive urban sanitation services in low-income countries.
Support innovation through gradual change.
With the clear lack of sound cost data on many alternatives, non-sewered solutions require municipalities to be agile and attempt to reform their sanitation service delivery gradually. Introducing changes with intermediate or innovative technologies gradually is not only a way to deal with the dearth of data, but also a method to control for incapacity issues in sanitation interventions due to rapid population growth and unplanned urban settlements. A concrete example of this approach in action is “Gradual Sewering”. While sewerage may not be financially feasible in many low-income communities over the medium term, some settlements can provide opportunities for gradual extensions of sewer services. This has been successfully implemented with non-conventional systems in both Brazil and Kenya.[3]
The gradual change approach could also be applied to on-site sanitation, as evidenced by the suggestion of some experts to focus first on the construction of communal and shared toilets. Moreover, gradual sewering and a gradual approach to on-site sanitation even work in tandem, if planned together and implemented incrementally. Allowing sludge tipping to sewers via communal toilets or pumping stations and thus using WWTP facilities in a co-treatment model would allow for gradual change at the treatment level as well.[4][5]
Ensure standardized cost reporting of expenditures incurred by all stakeholders.
A common thread throughout our cost data and literature research, validated by the interviewed industry experts, is the difficulty of obtaining sound, quality data that can serve as reference values. Although data sharing is a difficult topic to breach, with many private providers concerned about competitive advantage and public entities fearful of political pressures, making more data available will be key to progress. However, while some of our interviewees stressed that any data is better than no reference values, service providers—public and private—would immensely aid their colleagues if reporting of CAPEX and OPEX, as well as important accompanying data regarding scale and other specifications, is standardized. Currently, budgets are often not broken down into specific categories, making a detailed analysis of costs and comparison to other cases nearly impossible.[6] Furthermore, indirect costs, such as financing costs, are often not explicitly stated but may provide crucial additional information on potential savings. Improving reporting of budgets would not just aid others who are looking for reference values but would also enable service providers themselves to better trace their costs and facilitate the input of available data into the CWIS SAP tool.
Encourage knowledge transmission and learning through South-South cooperation.
Data sharing, as mentioned above, does not have to be limited to simply making expenditures and associated values available, but can also concern technical know-how or non-financial data relating to the investment, regulation, and planning process for urban sanitation solutions. While data homogenization and standardized reporting are crucial, so is open exchange and communication, most importantly concerning knowledge and know-how on emerging technologies or solutions for which usable cost data is especially rare, such as non-conventional sewers.
For instance, to attain buy-in on a decentralized sewerage system in Kibera, Kenya, a project team from the Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company went on an exchange visit to Brazil to learn how alternative low-cost technology can be used to improve sewerage service in informal settlements (Maina 2020). Upon their return, they were able to successfully negotiate and revise the utility’s sewer design specification to allow for the use of low-cost sewerage. The new design also approved tertiary networks to be connected to the utility’s trunk infrastructure, effectively increasing its impact. Furthermore, the utility’s management approved a sewer network extension to Kibera, an informal settlement, and committed sewer pipes materials for its construction.
We believe these exchanges, whether through visits or data sharing, are especially important to realize between partners in the Global South because many of our interview partners raised the concern that engineers experienced in sewer construction for cities in high-income countries may be biased in favor of traditional sewers, and are more likely to share this knowledge instead of newer, low-cost interventions.
PHOTO CREDIT: Sustainable sanitation, licensed under CC BY 2.0
References
[1] Hutton, Guy and Mili Varughese. 2016. The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Targets on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) Technical Paper 103171.
[2] Citywide Inclusive Sanitation Assessment and Planning (CWIS SAP) Tool, collaboratively developed by sanitation authorities, regulators, and a technical assistance team made up of Athena Infonomics, the Eastern and Southern Africa Water and Sanitation Regulators Association, and Aguaconsult
[3] Maina, Gerald, Kariuki Mugo, and Guy Norman. 2014. Sewerage or FSM? Sometimes both: ‘gradual sewering’ in Nairobi. WSUP Practice Note 15 (March 2014). London, UK: Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor.
[4] Ibid
[5] Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS). 2021. “Trichy CWIS Experience.” Available at https://pas.org.in/Portal/document/UrbanSanitation/uploads/Trichy_CWIS_Experience.pdf (last accessed April 24, 2021).
[6] McConville, Jennifer R., Elisabeth Kvarnström, James M. Maiteki and Charles B. Niwagaba. 2019. "Infrastructure investments and operating costs for fecal sludge and sewage treatment systems in Kampala, Uganda." Urban Water Journal 16(8): 584-593.