Brief private developers, and some by the

Brief Literature Review on the Development of Sustainable CitywideInclusive Urban Sanitation Framework through Effective Partnership amongst theActors in the Sanitation Service ChainThe provision of citywide inclusive sanitationservice is by no means an easy feat. There are lots of challenges associated indelivering the service sustainably due to the plural nature of our cities andthe inhabitants. This review examines how issues such as technical options, poorinclusion, enabling legal framework (policy), political, socio-cultural, institutionalconditions would be addressed in making service delivery workable andsustainable. WSP report hinted that sound framework alone cannot achieveinclusive sanitation but rather coordinated partnership throughout the servicechain which includes households, landlords, civil society, the private sector,local authorities, utility companies, regulatory agencies, state and nationalgovernments, donor agencies, and academic institutions amongst others (WSP2013).Poor-InclusiveServices:Globally, there is disparity in access tosanitation facilities in urban areas between the rich and the poor especiallyin the developing world (WSP 2013; AMCOW 2011).

AMCOW 2011 also reports thatmore than 80% disparity on access to sanitation between the rich and the poorand JMP 2012 reports that the poor has 42 % access and the rich has 91% accessin Sub-Saharan Africa. These disparities highlight the need for a comprehensiveapproach in addressing urban sanitation challenge to effectively cater for theneed of the poor communities. A World Bank study shows that due to highpopulation density, poor sanitation is prevalent in the urban areas than therural areas irrespective of the income (Spears 2013).  Many Urban areas in developingcountries have a mixture of on- and off-site sanitation facilities andservices, some provided by householders, some by private developers, and someby the municipality or utility (Evans et al. 2006). However, low income areasin urban centres have onsite facilities predominantly with a high population tofacilities ratio and poor maintenance practices, the facilities get dilapidatedquickly resulting in poor sanitation. Also, high population in a small space becomes difficult to provideadequate onsite sanitation infrastructure (WSP 2013). The resulting self-helpmeasures usually adopted by the residents result in poorly constructedfacilities with toilets discharging into poorly functioning opendrains blocked with uncollected solid waste, malfunctioning and abandonedcommunal toilet facilities inadequate services for managing the faecal sludgefrom on-site facilities and the woes compounded by inadequate water supply (Konéet al.

Don't waste your time
on finding examples

We can write the essay sample you need

2007; Schmoll et al. 2006; JMP 2012; GOI 2012).These bring to fore the need to develop aneffective and sustainable sanitation chain that is poor inclusive and citywideto properly cater for the sanitation needs of the urban poor communities. Although it may take a while to achieve, developing a system which is supportedby consumer awareness, sustainable financing, and effective decision-making andservice delivery systems is a step in the right direction.

InstitutionalAnalysis:Institutionalarrangement for sanitation is location specific as it relates to local laws,policies, etc (Fobil et al. 2008). Itevaluates the rules that have been developed to guide organizationalinteractions in economical, social and political environment. There is anunderstanding that these rules could impact positively or negatively on policyreforms (World Bank 2007).

However,vesting the responsibility in a particular institution has proved to be asuccess factor as well as clearly spelt out role of the stakeholders in theservice change (Verspyck and Guene 2012, Colin 2011, WSP 2011). WSP2013 report opined that improving coordination amongst stakeholders and ormulti-stakeholder partnerships in the service chain proved to be moresuccessful especially in the slum regions. Examples of such programmes are theslum networking program “Parivartan” in Ahmedabad, and amunicipality/nongovernmental organization (NGO)/community-based organization(CBO) partnership in the Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program (WSP 2013). Thecoordination of the different stakeholders’ role is necessary to ensure successof the scheme as such establishing a coordination institution becomes anecessity to forester leadership (WSP 2009). In India for example, NGOs areefficient in facilitating coordination especially in low income areas which isdominated by informal private participation (WSP 2009).

However, establishingan independent sector regulator could be another good way of coordinating theservice chain in a citywide scale. An analysis of waste collection performance in Ghana under two differentinstitutional arrangement of purely public and public-private partnership showedthat the overall performance of the services delivery increased rapidly withincreased private-sector controls under the public-private partnershipsystem  (Fobil et al. 2008). Also, the long termsustainability depends on maintaining an enabling environment (Fobil et al. 2008).

Social concerns relating torelationships and interaction amongst different organizational levels asdescribed in (World Bank 2007) will be analyzed with a view of identifying themost appropriate approach for such interactions.LegalFramework (Policy):Establishment of an enabling environmentthrough the provision of policy framework is widely held consensus as one ofthe basis for successful sanitation intervention. Such frameworks likeSanitation 21, CLUES, are globally available and emphasises on the users needand the functionality of the service delivery at city level (WSP 2013). Thereare however some examples of programs at national level aimed at establishenabling environment for urban sanitation such as the Indonesia SanitationSector Development Program (ISSDP) (Colin 2011, GOI 2012), the National UrbanSanitation Policy (NUSP) and the National Urban Faecal Sludge and SeptageManagement (FSSM) of India (FSM4 2017) as well as the National Urban WaterReform Projects (NUWRP) in Nigeria (NUWRP 2013).Effectivelyimplementing these frameworks depends on the political drivers forpolicymaking, resource allocation, and operational decision making (WSP 2013). Implementing these frameworks atlocal and city level in the global south is often challenging due to absent andor near absent of local laws, policies and regulations that ratify thisglobally acclaimed frameworks. Thus here is need to incorporate decision makersat the national, state and municipality, and community levels as strategicpartners in the sanitation service change to facilitate the creating of thenecessary laws and policies to create and enabling environment also to ensurethe successful implementation of the framework.

Incidentally decision makers atlocal level tend to focus attention in the technical aspects leaving theenabling environment aspects lacking. Currently, there is a shift fromuniversal policy reforms to context specific approach (World Bank 2007).  This research would evaluate mainly contextspecific reform in relation to pro poor environments and the efficiency of suchpolicies.TechnicalAspects:Generally to successfully implement a citywideurban sanitation, both decentralised and centralised systems are adopteddepending on the area. Decentralised, most often self-built on-site systems with poor faecal sludge managementare often found in the low income areas and less planned out area whilesewerage or centralised system managed by local government or a utility areoften deployed in the planned out areas with middle to high income earners (WSP2013).

There have been a lot of technological developments in sanitation overyears especially on the user interface, collection and treatment systems.However, there is little development on the sewer system and pit toiletconstriction over the years (WSP 2013, Jha et al. 2012).

With experience, Sanitation challenges canmainly be attributed to governance and institutional factors not necessarilytechnical (WSP 2014), as such this research will not focus much on technicalanalysis a lots has been done on this regards which could be adopted to diversescenarios to achieve result. However, different technical options that could beadopted would be evaluated with interest n decentralized systems.PoliticalEconomy:Political economy enables the analysis ofpolitical readiness of a given state. This analysis is generally grouped intodifferent levels depending on coverage as; global analysis, country analysis,sector level analysis and issue specific analysis (Harris and Booth, 2013). Forthis research, the different levels would be assessed on select global southcountries with respect to urban sanitation asoutline in Political Economy of Sanitation (WSP, 2011). Political stability and support hasbeen identified as one of the main factors that work in favour of policyimplementation (Grindle and Thomas, 1989)Thereis ongoing concern that governments, at many levels, are not devoting enoughattention and resources to sanita­tion services, particularly when compared tospending on water supply and other infrastructure services.

Additionally,existing sanitation investments and service provision are not always pro-poor.Many reports suggest that governments’ limited sanitation expenditures aredetermined largely by political, rather than technical or economic constraintsin the context of compe­ting demands for resources (World Bank 2007, Satterthwaiteand McGranahan 2006). It is against this background that the Sanitation GlobalPrac­tice Team of the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and the World Bankcommissioned a global study on the political economy of sanitation with casestudies from Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Senegal (WSP 2011).Thisaspect of the research would focus on current approaches to political economy,and establish how the social, political, and economic processes and actorsdetermine the extent and nature of sanitation investment and service provision.Effects of political stability would also be analysed. Conclusion:Delivery of effective sanitation to all urbandwellers requires the whole chain of services, supported by a combination ofdomestic, decentralized, or fully networked infrastructure.

This, in turn, requires an appropriate enablingenvironment that can engage the many stakeholders involved, from communities tonational governments, to drive change and secure sustainable financing forservices provided through both the market and the public sector, reinforced byclearly defined accountability mechanisms.To achieve a citywide urban sanitation, theapproach must be holistic with high level of private participation and enablingenvironment created by putting in place appropriate policies and enforcement byrelevant institutions to ensure compliance by the service chain actors andoverall sustainability of the system. Thus, sustainability entails the view ofsanitation as a service provision rather than infrastructure provision.ReferenceAfricanMinisters Council on Water (AMCOW) 2011. AMCOW Country StatusOverviews—Regional Synthesis Report. Pathways to Progress:Transitioning to Country-Led Service Delivery Pathways to Meet Africa’s WaterSupply and Sanitation Targets. Washington, DC: The WorldBank/Water and Sanitation Program. Available at: http://www.

pdf. Accessed on 12/01/2018Colin,J. 2011. Lessons in Urban Sanitation Development, IndonesiaSanitation Sector Development Program2006–2010, WSPField Note.

Washington, DC: Water and Sanitation Program. Available at:

org/files/publications/WSP-lessons-urbansanitation-indonesia.pdf. Accessed on 20/12/2017Evans, B.

E. and D. Saywell, D. 2006. Sanitation21: Simple Approaches to Complex Sanitation—A Draft Framework for Analysis, London: International WaterAssociation.

Fobil, J. N., Armah, N. A.,Hogarh, J. N.

and Carboo, D. 2008. The influence of institutions andorganizations on urban waste collection systems: an analysis of wastecollection system in Accra, Ghana (1985–2000). Journal of environmentalmanagement, 86(1), pp.262-271.

FSM4 2017.4th International Faecal Sludge Management Conference, Chennai 19-23 February, 2017. Available at: http://www.fsm4. Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development(GOI). 2012. Improving Water Supply and Sanitation ServicesAdvisory Note.

Available at: Accessed on 20/01/2018Grindle, M.

S. and Thomas, J.W. 1989. Policy makers, policy choices, and policy outcomes: The politicaleconomy of reform in developing countries. Policy Sciences, 22(3-4),pp.213-248.

Harris, D. and Booth, D.,2013.

Applied political economy analysis: five practical issues. London:ODI. JointMonitoring Programme (JMP). 2012. Progress on Drinking Water andSanitation: 2012 Update. Washington, DC: World HealthOrganization/UNICEF. Available at: https://www.

Accessed on 23/01/2018Koné,D., Strauss, M. and Saywell. D. 2007. Towards an Improved Faecal SludgeManagement (FSM), Proceedings of the FirstInternational Symposium on Faecal Sludge Management Policy, Dakar, 9 – 12 May,2006. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Eawag Publishing. Availableat: https://www. Accessed on 29/12/2017NUWRP 2013.National Urban Water Sector Reform Project. Available at: Accessed on 20/01/20118.

Schmoll,O., Howard, J., Chilton, J. and Chorus, I., eds. 2006.

ProtectingGroundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking-Water Sources, World Health Organization Water Series. London: IWA Publishing.Available at: Accessed on 22/01/2018Spears,D. 2013.

How Much International Variation in Child Height CanSanitation Explain. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6351.Washington, DC: The World Bank. Verspyck,R. and Guene, O., 2012.

Urban Sanitation Experiences ofSenegal and Burkina Faso: Broadening Urban Sanitation Activities. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at: Accessed on 12/01/2018World Bank 2007.

 Toolsfor institutional, political, and social analysis of policy reform: asourcebook for development practitioners. World Bank Publications. Washington,DC: World Bank. Aacailable at: https://openknowledge.  Accessed on 15/01/2018World Bank 2011. The political economy ofsanitation: how can we increase investment and improve service for the poor. Water and Sanitation Program(WSP) Technical paper.

Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://www.wsp.

org/sites/ Accessed on 18/11/2017WSP 2008 Technology options for urbansanitation in India: A Guide to Decision-making.

Water and Sanitation Program /Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, India. Available at:

pdf. Accessed on 21/01/2018WSP2009. Global Experiences on Expanding Water and SanitationServices to the Urban Poor, accompanying volume to Guidance Notes on Services to the Urban Poor.Washington. Available at:

org/files/publications/Main_Global_Guidance_Note.pdf. Accessed on 20/11/2017 WSP 2011. The Politicaleconomy of Sanitation: How can we increase investment and improve service forthe poor.

 Washington DC: Water and Sanitation Programme. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.

org/curated/en/901631468176676382/Main-report. Accessed on 15/12/2017.WSP 2013. Poor-Inclusive UrbanSanitation: An Overview: Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services inSmall Towns. World Bank Publications. Washington, DC: Water and SanitationProgramme.

Available at: Accessed on20/12/2017.

WSP 2014. The Missing Link in SanitationService Delivery: A Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities. Water and Sanitation Progam,World Bank Washington, DC.

Available at: Accessed on 15/12/2017


I'm Owen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out