Transcript Sanitation as a Business in Peri

Sanitation as a Business in Peri-Urban Areas:
Innovations and Opportunities
Jeremy Colin (Water and Sanitation Specialist)
IGP Innovator Forum, Lusaka
October 8th, 2014
Sanitation challenges in peri-urban areas
Facilities
• Mostly on-site facilities (pits, tanks) - little access to sewer
networks and treatment
• Variable quality of facilities
• Rarely emptied
Pit emptying, removal and treatment / disposal
• Access problems
• Sludge compacted, often mixed with solid waste
• Final treatment / disposal points absent or distant
• Much indiscriminate local dumping
Who are the players in peri-urban sanitation?
Stakeholder
Key Points
Service users
(customers)
• DIY toilet construction, pit emptying (health hazard)
Public service
providers
• Minimal presence
• Possibly a few trucks for sludge removal
• Rarely: sludge treatment
Formal private
sector
• Little involvement
• Very few entrepreneurs involved in sanitation
Informal small
operators
•
•
•
•
External support
agencies
• Innovations but not always commercially viable
• NGOs tend to link with CBOs; less with private sector
• But growing attention to sanitation as a business
Main players but limited skills, equipment and capital
Not professionalised
Unregulated
Not co-ordinated with municipal operations
What business opportunities?
Containment
Emptying
Household
Sanitation
Affordable
Toilet
Designs
Sludge
Removal
Communal
Facilities
Manage
Public
Toilets/
Baths
Transport
Treatment
Reuse/
Disposal
Transport
.
Produce
Fuel, Soil
Enricher
Sale of
Recycled
Products
FSM in Maputo
• Extensive use of on-site sanitation but little government
involvement in faecal sludge management
• HH toilets often poor quality, many built by SSPs.
• Most emptying is by SSPs and manual, charge $7-$13
• Some NGO-supported micro-enterprises (WaterAid, WSUP)
with small tankers / handpumps; charge $15/m3, but
unaffordable to poorest
• Many pit latrines abandoned when full
• No dedicated treatment plant for faecal sludge; small % is
treated at STP which is not operating effectively
Type
Services

Individual
emptier (IE) 


CBOs




Microenterprise
(MSP)



Technology
Price
Challenges
Emptying latrines 
and septic tanks 
(dry season)

Labour for latrine,
drain construction
Buckets
Yard burial
Petrol / creosote
Depends on type, size, 
ability to pay: Latrines 
US$ 7-13
Sep. Tanks US$ 30-70
+ creosote, alcohol!
Empty pits / tanks 
Construct toilets /
components

Hygiene / San.
Promotion

Primary solid
waste collection
Mini vacuum
US$ 7-13 per 0.5m3
tankers
depending on
Storage (transfer distance
tank)
Transport to STP
by vacuum tanker
Empty pits / tanks 
Primary,
secondary solid
waste collection 
Transport (taxi)
Car wash
Micro-finance
Buckets, hand
Varies:

pump,
US$ 20-60 per latrine
mechanized pump

Transport to STP
(plastic tanks on
small truck)



Unsafe latrines
No safety
equipment
Equipment repair
and replacement
No commercially
viable business
model
Low demand in
dry season
Ability/willingness
of low-income HH
to pay
Marketing
strategy
FSM in Maputo
• Variety of SSPs: micro-enterprises, CBOs. Valuable but
incomplete service, with challenges to sustainability
– Some CBO services struggled when NGO support ended
• In 2011, micro-enterprise UGSM (SWM contractor) began pit
emptying service with WSUP support, using commercial
model (starting to repay capital)
– flexible (manual and mechanical services)
– challenges with storage and transport (no transfer tanks)
• No strategy to incorporate SSPs into a ‘joined up’ FSM service
addressing all steps in the service delivery chain
Maputo: New Initiative
• Partnership between service providers’ association, Maputo
Municipal Council, World Bank/WSP and WSUP in
Nlhamankulo Municipal District
• Eight operators participating
Objective
• Develop and implement sustainable business models for lowcost FSM services in peri-urban areas
• Integrate SSPs into municipal operating framework
• Provide technical and financial support (esp. access to capital)
Critical aspects
– Safe, hygienic and environmentally friendly (all steps in FSM process)
– Without prejudice to public health (operators, households,
neighbours)
– Close monitoring of technical and financial progress, lessons to inform
future expansion
Maputo: Project Components
Promotion and
Monitoring by
Local Leaders
FSM Services
by Private
Operators
Construction of
Infrastructure
Pit emptying in eThekwini, RSA
• Reliance on on-site facilities in informal settlements: around 35,000
VIP and 80,000 UD toilets, provided by the municipality
• Largest pit emptying service in Africa
– VIPs emptied free once every 5 years
– Householders responsible for emptying UDD toilets (easier)
– Municipality encouraging greater private sector role (mixed results)
• Extensive use of private contractors by municipality
– Manual emptying most effective option (solid waste in pits)
– Workers provided with protective clothing, long-handled shovels etc.
• Treating sludge in conventional STPs is problematic, other solutions
sought:
– Convert sludge into fertiliser pellets (LaDePa process)
– Deep trench burial
Kumasi: ‘Clean Team’
• Low-income areas with few household toilets; reliance on
unhygienic public toilets
• Response to research on what low-income households want:
affordable, durable, hygienic flush latrines
• Innovative business model, very different to typical approach
of latrine promotion, mason training, seed materials etc.
• Began with consultation, development and testing of
prototypes and business models among low-income
households, leading to development of the ‘Uniloo’
– Moulded plastic UD chemical toilet with removable cartridge
• Commercial operation but with external technical support
(WSUP, Unilever, IDEO)
Clean Team: Uniloo
Clean Team: Uniloo
Clean Team: Uniloo Servicing
Clean Team: Operational Model
Clean Team: Branding
Clean Team Approach: Key Facts
• Initial price $10/month/family (emptied twice-weekly).
– Compared with $30/month for use of public toilet by family of 5
• 100 users in 2012, currently over 4,000
• Unilever directly involved, franchised operators must maintain
high standards of the Clean Team brand
– Complete brand strategy (IDEO): uniforms, radio spots, posters etc.
• Not targeting the poorest at first, instead creating an
aspirational product
– Costs/charges will come down if goes to scale
• Treatment?
– Neighbourhood holding tanks
tankers existing STP
– Potential for re-use /recycling and sale of waste in future
Innovations in Public Toilet Provision
India: Delhi Public Toilets
• Businesses bid for licences to build and operate facilities and
use external walls as advertising space; municipality provides
land and receives monthly licence fee
• Initially very profitable for operator, provided facility was in
good location for advertising
– Operator preference for high volume commercial centres, not
low-income residential areas (occasional not daily use)
• Quality of management highly dependent on contract
supervision and monitoring by municipality
Delhi: Public toilet in shopping centre
Innovations in Public Toilet Provision
Kenya: Sanergy
• Network of ‘Fresh Life’ branded public
toilets in Nairobi slums, franchised to
local micro-entrepreneurs.
• UD toilets with removable cartridges
(similar to Uniloo)
• Sanergy employees collect waste daily,
deliver to central processing facility
for conversion into fertiliser
• Vertically integrated service (facility,
storage, transport, treatment)
• Since 2011: now over 170 franchised
toilets in three slum areas, over 8,000
users per day
Important Lessons
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The sector is learning, commercial models still evolving
Not all innovations are commercially viable
Not all small service providers are entrepreneurs!
Match tasks to the skills and resources of service
providers
Adopt a commercial model from the start (avoid reliance
on external subsidy)
Key decision: stand-alone service or partnership with
municipal / utility operations?
Government has a vital co-ordinating role
Support agencies can provide valuable technical support
and access to finance
Thankyou!
Sanitation challenges in peri-urban areas
Service Providers
• Few government or formal private sector operators
• Informal operators (pit emptiers) available but have limited skills,
equipment and access to finance
–
–
–
–
not professionalised
unregulated
not co-ordinated with municipal operations
few real entrepreneurs
• Donor-funded innovations not always scalable or commercially viable
–
–
–
–
Example: pit emptying technologies
NGOs tend to link with CBOs; less with private sector
But growing attention to sanitation as a business
Some promising pilots
Current Sanitation Situation in Maputo
Containment
Transport
Emptying
Reuse/
Disposal
Treatment
Leakge
WC to
sewer
Not treated
Treated
Safely
emptied
On-site
facility
3%
Legally
dumped
Not treated
Illegally
dumped
46%
Not safely
emptied
Covered
over when
full
POpen
defecation
43%
1%
54%
38%
Residential
environment
5%
Drainage
system
7%
2%
1%
Receving
waters