Subject Areas for Making Improvements in Eco-sanitation (eco-san)

Prepared by Kimberly (Kim) King |  Container-based Eco-sanitiation (CBeS) Expert | Project Engineer | Renewable Energy Engineer

Aside: It was affirming to see in the CBSA 2-page August 2020 Policy Brief Summary document that a great deal of what I outlined below is in their recommendations.

There was also this affirming 2015 review, Is it possible to reach low-income urban dwellers with good-quality sanitation? It contains copy I have been chortling out for years that there is a need the need to develop the financial and institutional means to support this at scale. To highlight,"...solutions must be locally devised with the full engagement of those who are inadequately served, this means a complete rethink of external funding systems for sanitation."

All in all, a city-wide Container-Based ecological Sanitation (CBeS) system can bring enormous advantages to low-income groups.

In general improvements in eco-sanitation need to be made in ten subject areas, although there is room for more—I bolded what I think are the most challenging:  

1. Policy development

2. Low-cost solutions 

3. User choice

4. Decentralization

5. Mapping poverty areas6. Funding of demand creation

7. Motivating users

8. Local production and supply

9. Phasing out ineffective subsidies

10. Going beyond numbers to healthy practices 

Ten other subject areas are still overlooked or under-developed:  

1. Diversification between and within households

2. Cost-effective promotion

3. Targeting remaining subsidies with equity

4. Upgrading toilets over time

5. Environmental safety

6. Scope for dry toilets

7. Sanitation in urban slums

8. Short-term versus long-term programs

9. Sustainability of facilities and programs

10. Organizational and human capacities - especially at the crucial intermediate level 

Barriers to progress in eco-sanitation (eco-san): 

1. Lack of political will 

2. Low prestige and recognition 

3. Poor policy at all levels 

4. Poor institutional framework 

5.Inadequate and poorly used resources 

6. Inappropriate approaches 

7. Failure to admit disadvantages of conventional sewerage 

8. Neglect of consumer preferences 

9. Ineffective promotion and low public awareness 

10. Women and children’s needs are considered last 

11. Little effective demand 

12. Cultural taboos and beliefs