Tag Archives: sanitation service levels

Sanitation financing models for the urban poor – new IRC thematic overview paper

Sijbesma, C., 2011. Sanitation financing models for the urban poor. (Thematic overview paper ; 25).  The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
120 p. : 44 boxes, 1 fig., 4 tab.
Includes references, glossary and lists of resources.
Available at: <http://www.irc.nl/top25>

The provision of sanitation services in low-income urban areas is one of the greatest challenges in development. Population growth in developing countries currently outpaces sanitation growth, especially in urban areas. Consequently, in urban areas where poor people reside, and where “formal” sanitation services are not available to them, they experience the compounded effect of serious economic disadvantages such as high risk to public health; a dirty and contaminated environment; no basic human dignity and safety for a large part of the world’s population, especially for adolescent girls and women.

Continue reading

Assessing sanitation service levels – 2nd edition

Potter, A.; Klutse, A.; Snehalatha, M.; Batchelor, C.; Uandela, A.; Naafs, A.; Fonseca, C.; Moriarty, P. (2011). Assessing sanitation service levels. (WASHCost working paper; no. 3). 2nd ed. The Hague, The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 27 p. : 16 fig. 12 ref.
Download full paper

Conventional sanitation ladders rank sanitation in increasing complexity of technological options. However, sanitation improvement is not as straightforward as the concept of “a ladder” with incremental improvements, might suggest. For example, from the user perspective, a VIP toilet may in some circumstances be a better option than a septic tank system. There is a wide gap between technologies and service provision, especially when O&M considerations are taken into account. This working paper from IRC’s WASHCost project sets out a common framework to analyse and compare sanitation cost data being collected across different country contexts (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique, India) with different service delivery norms and standards. It represents a fundamental shift away from the focus on capital investment costs, to the costs of sustainable sanitation services.

Continue reading

Sanitation Matters in Southern Africa

Published in July 2011, this second issue of Sanitation Matters focussing on southern Africa has well written contributions from David Schaub-Jones on urban sanitation challenges & opportunities, from Richard Holden on sustainable sanitation systems and from Alana Potter on assessing sanitation service levels. These are complemented by local case studies from Malawi, Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Read the full issue published by the Water Information Network – South Africa (WIN-SA) in collaboration with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Water Research Commission (WRC).

Assessing sanitation service levels – new WASHCost project working paper

Conventional sanitation ladders rank sanitation in increasing complexity of technological options. However, sanitation improvement is not as straightforward as the concept of “a ladder” with incremental improvements from op full flush, might suggest.

For example, from the user perspective, a VIP toilet may in some circumstances be a better option than a septic tank system. There is a wide gap between technologies and service provision, especially when O&M considerations are taken into account. A new working paper [1] from IRC’s WASHCost project sets out a common framework to analyse and compare sanitation cost data being collected across different country contexts (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique, India) with different service delivery norms and standards. It represents a fundamental shift away from the focus on capital investment costs, to the costs of sustainable sanitation services.

[1] Potter, A. and Klutse, A. (2010). Assessing sanitation service levels. (WASHCost working paper ; no. 3). The Hague, The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 27 p. : 15 fig., 11 ref.
Download full paper