1. monitoring context - who...2016/10/21 · coverage of safely managed services [ can be attained,...

GEMI – Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation Related SDG Targets Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.2.1 – DRAFT 21 October 2016

Template, version 2015-02-12 1

STEP-BY-STEP MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR

INDICATOR 6.2.1 - DRAFT

1. MONITORING CONTEXT

1.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE INDICATOR

Target 6.2 is “By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open

defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations”.

The proposed indicator 6.2.1 is “the percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services including a

handwashing facility with soap and water”. This is defined as the population using an improved sanitation facility1

which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site.

This indicator is a dual-purpose indicator, and will contribute directly to monitoring of indicator 6.3.1 “percentage

of wastewater safely treated.”

This indicator builds on the MDG indicator of the population using an improved sanitation facility, and adds new

elements addressing aspects of hygiene, faecal waste and wastewater management which were not included in

MDG monitoring. Lower levels of service, including “basic sanitation services” and elimination of open defecation

will also be monitored as a necessary step towards reaching “safely managed sanitation services”.

1.2 TARGET LEVELS FOR THE INDICATOR

The global target for the indicator is universal coverage, including for all disadvantaged groups but individual

countries may wish to set nationally appropriate targets that differ from the global one. Aligning national

indicators with the global indicators enables national monitoring to respond to both needs and allows for

comparison between countries.

The indicator will be disaggregated by place of residence (urban/rural) and socioeconomic status (wealth etc.) for

all countries. Disaggregation by other stratifiers of inequality (subnational, gender, disadvantaged groups, etc.) will

be made where data permit. Sanitation services will be disaggregated by service level, including no service (open

defecation), limited, basic and safely managed services. Services will also be disaggregated by location, including

coverage in the home, schools, and health care facilities.

In some countries, universal coverage of all the elements of ‘safely managed sanitation services’ by 2030 will not

be a realistic target. Countries will need to reach universal coverage with a basic level of service before universal

coverage of ‘safely managed services’ can be attained, and progress towards universal basic coverage should be

seen as an important and necessary step towards reaching the SDG targets.

1 Improved sanitation facilities include: flush or pour flush toilets to sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines;

ventilated improved pit latrines; pit latrines with a slab; and composting toilets



2. PROPOSED MONITORING METHODOLOGY

2.1 MONITORING CONCEPT AND DEFINITIONS

2.1.1 DEFINING SDG INDICATOR 6.2.1 AND THE NEW SANITATION LADDER

The MDG indicator ‘use of an improved sanitation facility’ focused on hygienic separation of excreta from human

contact. The indicator comprised four categories: improved, shared, unimproved and open defecation as shown in

Figure 1a.

International consultations by the JMP since 2011 and the UN-Water Wastewater Taskforce since 2013 have

established consensus on the need to go beyond access to a sanitation facility and address safe management of

excreta along the sanitation chain. Therefore, the proposed SDG indicator 6.2.1 of ‘percentage of population using

safely managed sanitation services including a handwashing facility with soap and water’ extends the existing MDG

indicator and comprises:

An improved sanitation facility

Which is not shared with other households, and

Where excreta are either safely disposed in situ or

Where excreta are treated off-site

The SDG indicator also requires:

The presence of a handwashing facility with soap and water at home.

a: Existing MDG Sanitation Ladder b: Proposed SDG Sanitation Ladder

Source: WHO/UNICEF/JMP 2015a Source: WHO/UNICEF/JMP 2015b

Figure 1: Existing MDG Sanitation Ladder and Proposed SDG Sanitation Ladder for Monitoring Target 6.2.



The proposed SDG sanitation ladder Figure 1b extends the existing MDG indicator and includes this new SDG

indicator and definition. The ladder will be used to track progress across countries at different stages of

development; the key terms are further explained below:

Improved sanitation facilities: These include flush or pour flush toilets connected to a piped sewer system,

septic tank, or pit latrine; ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines; pit latrines with slab; and composting

toilets.

Not shared with other households: The possible negative impacts of shared sanitation facilities have long

been debated. The main concerns centre on human rights, safety and dignity, with health as an important

but secondary issue. It is acknowledged that this is very much a contextual issue, and for the purposes of

global monitoring WHO/UNICEF JMP will exclude shared facilities from basic and safely managed services.

Safely disposed in situ: When pit latrines and septic tanks are not emptied, the excreta may still remain

isolated from human contact and can be considered safely managed. For example, with the new SDG

indicator, households that use twin pit latrines or safely abandon full pit latrines and dig new facilities, a

common practice in rural areas, would be counted as using safely managed sanitation services.

Treated offsite: Not all excreta from toilet facilities conveyed in sewers (as wastewater) or emptied from

pit latrines and septic tanks (as faecal sludge) reaches a treatment plant. For instance, a portion may leak

from the sewer itself or, due to broken pumping installations, be discharged directly to the environment.

Similarly, a portion of the faecal sludge emptied from containers may be discharged into open drains, to

open ground or water bodies, rather than being transported to a treatment plant. And finally, even once

the excreta reaches a treatment plant a portion may remain untreated, due to dysfunctional treatment

equipment or inadequate treatment capacity, and be discharged to the environment. For the purposes of

SDG monitoring, adequacy of treatment will be assessed through consideration of both the overall

treatment effectiveness and end-use/disposal arrangements.

A handwashing facility with soap and water: a handwashing facility is a device to contain, transport or

regulate the flow of water to facilitate handwashing. This indicator is a proxy of actual handwashing

practice, which has been found to be more accurate than other proxies such as self-reports of

handwashing practices.

The percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services is defined as:

The fraction of households using an improved sanitation facility from which excreta:

o Are carried through a piped sewer network to a designated location (e.g. treatment facility) and

are treated at a treatment plant to an agreed level; or

o Are emptied from septic tanks or latrine pits by an approved method that limits human contact

and transported to a designated location (e.g. treatment facility) and treated to an agreed level;

or

o Are not emptied but stored on site (e.g. in a twin pit latrine) until they are safe to handle and re-

use (e.g. as an agricultural input).

Data on safely managed sanitation will be reported alongside data on availability of a handwashing station with

soap and water.



The ‘safely managed sanitation’ indicator will be dual-purpose, covering SDG Target 6.2 as well as the household

wastewater treatment component (i.e. wastewater and faecal sludge) of SDG Target 6.3.

2.1.2 PROPOSED EXCRETA FLOW FRAMEWORK AND SDG SANITATION LADDER

In addition to tracking access to different types of sanitation facility and sharing of sanitation facilities, monitoring

the SDG sanitation indicator 6.2.1 will require tracking how excreta are managed along the sanitation chain.

Sanitation practitioners represent this process as a mass-balance framework as shown in Figure 2. Flows from each

system type are classified at each step along the sanitation chain as either ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’. The green arrows

represent safely managed flows, while the red arrows indicate unsafe discharges to the environment. This

approach is being proposed for use in selected Proof of Concept countries to evaluate its appropriateness for

monitoring of the safe management of sanitation services at national and global levels.

Source: author, adapted from SuSanA, 2015

Figure 2: Mass-balance framework of excreta flows

The value of the flows represented by each of the green and red arrows can be calculated using a proposed

framework shown in Figure 3.

Treatment End-use/disposal Emptying Containment

Treated

Contained

Not contained

Delivered to treatment

Not delivered to treatment

Not treated

Emptied for transport

Transport

Not safely disposed

insitu

Safeend-use/disposalofexcreta

Not contained

Basicsanita

on

Unimprovedsanita on

Opendefeca on

Sharedsanita on

Not contained

Not contained

Offsitesanita on

Onsitesanita on

Sep ctanks,

Pitlatrines,

VIPs,andOthersystems

Delivered to treatment

Not delivered to

treatment

Treated

Not treated

Contained

Not contained

Safely disposed insitu

Unsafedischargestotheenvironment



Figure 3: Framework for monitoring SDG indicator 6.2.1

The key components of this framework are further explained below:

Type of system

The left hand column is organised in accordance with the proposed SDG sanitation ladder in Figure 1b. Basic

sanitation is divided into the system types that are considered to safely separate humans from excreta:

Piped sewers

Septic tanks

Other improved onsite facilities (e.g. simple pit latrines with slabs, ventilated improved latrines and

composting toilets)

Below this are the sanitation systems that are considered not to meet the requirements of basic sanitation split

into:

Limited sanitation – this includes all improved facilities shared with other households - facilities of this

type may not be considered to provide a basic sanitation service. Therefore, estimations will be done in

the same manner as was done for the MDGs with shared sanitation discounted from basic sanitation

services.

Unimproved sanitation – this includes pit latrines without a slab, hanging latrines, bucket latrines and

other facilities that flush to locations other than improved pits, septic tanks or sewer lines

Open defecation

Besides the Type of System column, across the top are seven main column headings. Each of the blue shaded

headings refers to a stage of the sanitation chain and to a variable, the value of which could be different in every

location. In-depth investigation of each of these stages in the sanitation chain is being put forward for testing in

Type of system% of popn.

(P)

Of which

Contained(_C)

Of whichsafely

disposedinsitu (_S)

Of which

Emptied for transport

(_E)

Of which

Transported & delivered to treatment

plants(_D)

Treated at treatment

plants(_T)

Of which

Safely

managed

PSP PS_C

Imp

rove

d

Piped sewers (PS) PS_D PS_T PSSM

STP ST_C

Imp

rove

d

Septic tanks (ST)ST_E ST_D ST_T

STSM

Imp

rove

d

Septic tanks (ST)ST_S

STSM

PLP PL_C

Imp

rove

d

Other improved onsite facilities

(e.g. simple pit latrines with slabs and

ventilated improved pit latrines) (PL)

PL_E PL_D PL_TPLSM

Imp

rove

d

Other improved onsite facilities

(e.g. simple pit latrines with slabs and

ventilated improved pit latrines) (PL) PL_SPLSM

Date: 11October2016 Filename: MacintoshHD:Users:andypeal:Dropbox:aaWHOSDGmonitoring:fStep-by-stepmonmethod:6.2.1:Figuresandtables:[Fig3-tab320161011.xlsm]5-ABBREVIATIONS

Improved facilities shared with other households (SH) SHP

Unimproved facilities which do not separate excreta

from human contact (UN)UNP

Imp

rove

d

Total improved TBP

Open defecation (OD) ODP

Total non-basic sanitation NBP

Total improved + total non-basic sanitation (TBP+NBP)

MacintoshHD:Users:andypeal:Dropbox:aaWHOSDGmonitoring:fStep-by-stepmonmethod:6.2.1:Figuresandtables:[Fig3-tab320161011.xlsm]5-ABBREVIATIONS

SDG 6.2 Sanitation Ladder

Safely managed services

Basic service (BSS)

Limited service

Unimproved

No service




Basic service (BSS)

Limited service

Unimproved

No service




Total safely managed

Basic service (BSS)

Limited service

Unimproved

No service



SMS

Total safely managed

(TBP-SMS)

SHP

UNP

ODP

SMS



Proof of Concept countries but may not be appropriate for the purposes of global monitoring. The variables are

further explained below.

% of population (P)

This variable is the proportion of the population using each system type. For any country included in MDG

monitoring these data are available from the JMP country files, and are typically derived from national household

surveys and censuses which allow respondents to report using a range of different sanitation technologies. These

data can be aggregated into each of the six main system types for the vast majority of countries.

Of which contained (_C)

This variable is for the proportion of the population using each system type that is ‘contained’. Household survey

and census data does not differentiate between septic tanks that are working properly and those that are not; for

example, septic tanks that are damaged, cracked or flooded or where the effluent outlet is connected to an open

drain. It is important to make this differentiation as where basic sanitation systems are not working properly it is

necessary to identify that the excreta are not safely managed. The fraction of the population using basic sanitation

systems that are considered to be working properly is subsequently used in the next stages of the framework.

Table 2 in Annex 1 provides complete containment definitions for the basic sanitation system types.

Of which Safely disposed in situ (_S)

This variable represents the proportion of the population using ‘contained’ toilet facilities in which excreta are

safely stored in situ as per the 6.2.1 definition. This only applies to those using the basic onsite sanitation types

namely, septic tanks and other improved onsite facilities. For example, it includes the fraction of the population

whose excreta is ‘safely disposed in situ’ using a twin pit latrine facility or through covering and sealing a full latrine

pit.

Table 3 in Annex 1 summarises scenarios within which excreta is considered ‘safely disposed insitu. Table 4

provides definitions for what is considered ‘safely emptied’ and Table 5 provides definitions for what is considered

‘safely buried’.

Of which Emptied for transport (_E)

Similar to the above, this variable only applies to the proportion of the population using the basic onsite sanitation

system types and represents the fraction using each of these that is ‘contained’, which is ‘emptied for transport.’

This includes those whose excreta are emptied from onsite containers using a system that prevents unsafe contact

between the emptier and the excreta. This fraction is used in the next stage of the framework.

Table 4 in Annex 1 provides definitions for what is considered ‘safely emptied’.

Of which Transported and delivered to treatment plants (_D)

For the proportion of the population using ‘piped sewers’ this variable represents the proportion of the population

whose excreta are ‘contained’, which is conveyed in closed sewer pipes that is delivered to a treatment plant. It

does not include the fraction whose excreta leak from sewers or discharge directly to the environment before

reaching the treatment plant. Similarly, for the basic onsite sanitation system types, it represents the proportion of

the population whose excreta (i.e. faecal sludge) are ‘contained’, ‘emptied for transport’, which are transported



using a method that safely separates the transporter from the excreta and are delivered to a treatment plant. It

does not include the fraction whose excreta are discharged without treatment to the environment (to open drains,

to open ground or to water bodies). This fraction is used in the next stage of the framework.

Table 6 in Annex 1 provides definitions for what is considered ‘safe transport and delivery to treatment plants’.

Of which Treated at treatment plants (_T)

This variable represents the proportion of the population whose excreta are treated at treatment plants. This

includes both the excreta delivered via sewer pipes (i.e. wastewater) and that delivered by vehicles (i.e. faecal

sludge). It does not include the fraction delivered to treatment plants but that remains untreated and is discharged

direct to the environment. This could be where the plant is not working or working sub-optimally.

Table 7 and Figures 6-8 in Annex 1 provide definitions for ‘treated at treatment plants’.

Safely managed (SMS)

The proportion of population using safely managed sanitation is reported in this column against each of the system

types. For each system type it is the sum of the proportion ‘safely disposed in situ’ and the proportion ‘treated at

treatment plants’.

The sum of the proportions ‘safely disposed in situ’ and the proportions ‘treated at treatment plants’ is the

‘proportion of households using safely managed sanitation’ under Target 6.2 (and it is also the ‘percentage of

wastewater safely treated’ from household sources under Target 6.3).

Proposed SDG sanitation ladder

As well as identifying the proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services (SMS, which is

coloured dark green), the framework also calculates the proportion of the population using each of the other four

levels of sanitation service, colour coded in the framework to match the colours used in the proposed SDG

sanitation ladder in Figure 1b, these are:

Basic sanitation service (light green),

Limited service (yellow),

Unimproved (orange) and

No service (red).

2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SP ATIAL AND TEMPORAL COVERAGE

Spatial coverage

There are often distinct differences in the manner that sanitation is managed in rural- and urban-areas. For

example, in rural areas of Africa and South Asia the use of pit latrines and septic tanks – onsite sanitation –

predominates; while in towns and cities, some households use onsite sanitation but others may be connected to

sewerage – offsite sanitation. In each country, it is recommended that monitoring will need to collect data from

different locations and potentially different data sources representative of both urban and rural settings in order

to capture the full range of scenarios.



Temporal coverage

Temporal coverage will depend on the availability of data. The regression methods used to create estimates will

allow estimates to be produced for any year desired, including years for which no data points are available.

However, there will be a limitation in the duration of extrapolation after the most recent data point.

2.3 APPLYING THE MONITORI NG LADDER

Figure 4 Monitoring ladder for sanitation

Progressive realisation of higher levels of service, or climbing the sanitation ladder from open defecation to safely

managed sanitation, may be commensurate with progressive movement with higher capacity to monitor more

complex issues; for example, from the collection of information on the use of a sanitation facility by households, to

sharing or not of such facility with other households, to safe management of excreta insitu, to safe treatment of

excreta at a treatment plant.

Estimates of basic sanitation, unimproved sanitation, and open defecation are currently available for the great

majority of countries globally. These indicators are have been monitored during the MDGs, and 2015 estimates are

available for 197 countries, areas and territories.



3. DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION

3.1 DATA REQUIREMENTS TO COMPUTE THE INDICATOR

Figure 3 shows the proposed monitoring framework with the data required to calculate the value of SDG Indicator

6.2.1 - the proportion of population using safely managed sanitation (SMS). The unit of measurement for all the

data points or variables (shown with abbreviations in the white cells) is the ‘percentage of the population’. So for

example PSP = percentage of population using “piped sewers”; and PS_T = percentage of population using piped

sewers whose excreta reaches a treatment plant, which is “Treated at treatment plants”.

A simple Excel-based spreadsheet is available that is based on the framework in Figure 3 and into which data for

each variable can be entered as a percentage (in the white cells where the short variable abbreviations are given).

For each of the system types the spreadsheet then calculates the proportion of population using safely managed

sanitation services. This is reported in the far right hand column and summed in the cell marked SMS. The Excel

spreadsheet also populates the SDG Sanitation Ladder (shown in the bottom right hand corner of Figure 3 and as

per Figure 1b) by reading data from the appropriate cell.

3.2 SOURCES OF DATA – SHORT AND LONG TERM

Description of potential data sources, including the potential for novel sources; description of typically involved

institutions including potential to involve other stakeholders; challenges and opportunities in the short and long

term

It is recommended that wherever possible assessment of SDG Indicator 6.2.1 be made using available data, and

new data collection is proposed only when no other data sources are available including use of proxy data. The

possible data sources are described below, in terms of the framework shown in Figure 3.

3.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES

Existing national household surveys and censuses, as compiled by the JMP, typically provide information about the

use of a range of sanitation technologies. These data can be aggregated and extrapolated to inform the first

column – ‘percentage of population’ variable - this provides the foundation on which to monitor flows along the

chain for each basic sanitation system.

The same household surveys increasingly contain a question on the presence of a handwashing station, and

request field teams to record the availability of soap and water at the handwashing station during the interview.

Such observations have been found to be more reliable than self-reports of handwashing practice by survey

respondents.

For the ‘of which contained’ variable, aggregated results from ongoing studies and published literature can be

used to establish a credible estimate for a typical percentage for each type of system in a given country. For

example, the percentage of septic tanks that are functional.

Institutional records and reports from relevant service providers and regulators can be used to inform the ‘of

which transported and delivered to treatment plants’ variable and the ‘of which treated at treatment plants’

variable, particularly for offsite sanitation. Useful additional data sources for these variables include the United



Nations Statistical Division (UNSD); International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation (IBNET) and

AQUASTAT online databases.

It is anticipated that in many countries determining the values of the onsite sanitation variables – ‘of which safely

disposed insitu’, ‘of which emptied for transport’ and ‘of which transported to treatment plants’ - will be

comparatively more challenging. This is generally because very little or no reliable institutional data exists for these

steps in the sanitation chain (Malik et al, 2015, Baum et al, 2013, Peal et al, 2014, Williams and Overbo, 2015).

Where this situation occurs, secondary data from published research work in a city, town or district, and that

focuses on these onsite sanitation management issues, could be used in order to derive credible estimates.

Verifying these estimates would be an important focus of any follow-up full assessment where it is considered

necessary.

3.2.2 TYPICALLY INVOLVED ORGANISATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS

It is recommended that the following organisations and institutions be consulted during the assessment:

Organisations responsible for regulating and/or licensing emptying, transport and treatment services for

wastewater and faecal sludge.

Senior line Ministry officials responsible for sanitation service provision and wastewater treatment.

Senior level representatives in organisations responsible for emptying, transport and treatment services.

External agencies engaged in supporting sanitation services within a given country. These could include

UN agencies, academic institutions, NGOs, donors, private investors or consultants; and

Other persons with an interest in and/or knowledge of sanitation services in the location.

3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ON DATA MANAGEMENT

Data will be compiled by the JMP from national sources, and published in country files available online/offline.

Metadata will fully support the publication of all estimates, and raw data will be made available to the extent

possible, given ownership of the data. Before publication of any country estimates, the JMP will share estimates

with national authorities for review and comment. Estimates derived from models using non-country-specific data

will not be published for individual countries, but could be published in aggregate form, such as regional or global

estimates.

4. STEP-BY-STEP DATA COLLECTION AND COMPUTATION OF I NDICATOR

4.1 COUNTRIES MONITORING ON BASIC SANITATION SERVICES

4.1.1 STEP 1

Data sources from household surveys and censuses, like those used by the JMP to identify the proportions of

population using each of the three basic sanitation types and those using non-basic sanitation services – limited,

unimproved and open defecation, should be compiled first.



4.1.2 STEP 2

The household data obtained will give the proportion of the population using each type of sanitation facility.

4.2 COUNTRIES MONITORING ON HIGHER LEVELS OF SERVICES

4.2.1 STEP 1

It is recommended that an initial assessment of SDG Indicator 6.2.1 be made using available secondary data. This

can be the departure point to have further engagement with the countries for ‘full assessment’ of safely managed

sanitation services in Step 2. The initial assessment will draw on household surveys and censuses plus a review of

available secondary data provided by utilities, regulators, line ministries, researchers or others with appropriate

technical expertise, to enable estimates to be made of the proportion of households whose excreta is treated

offsite or safely disposed in situ. The key questions to be addressed in the initial assessment are summarized in

Table 1.

4.2.2 STEP 2

Where the ‘initial’ assessment identifies important knowledge gaps and elements of the sanitation that require

verification, a ‘full’ assessment involves feedback from countries filling these gaps, use of specially designed

monitoring tools, like ad-hoc data collection in strategically selected countries etc.

The ‘full’ assessment tools include both household questionnaires and service provider survey instruments.

Household questionnaires

Building on existing household surveys and national censuses, household surveys could be extended to include

questions on:

Functionality of the household facility;

Emptying of onsite containers, where used; and

Transport and disposal of excreta emptied from onsite containers.

When used with a statistically robust sampling frame, the household questionnaires can be used to derive or verify

the following framework variables: ‘percentage of population using system connected to a particular containment

type or not’, ‘of which contained’, ‘of which safely disposed in situ’ and ‘of which emptied for transport’.

Service provider surveys

Interviews and observation surveys can gather performance data from public and private faecal sludge emptying

and transport service providers (both formal and informal service providers) as well as treatment plant service

providers. Where necessary they can also be used with service providers who operate sewer networks and the

associated treatment plants as well. However, it is anticipated that in the majority of locations the data gathered

during the initial assessment will be sufficiently complete and robust for monitoring of SDG indicator 6.2.1.



The emptying and transport (E&T) service provider survey is therefore designed for use in the same location that

the household questionnaire was implemented, and will be used to inform the ‘of which emptied for transport’

and ‘of which transported to treatment’ variables for onsite sanitation systems. The survey includes questions on:

The number of septic tanks and pit latrines emptied over an agreed time period.

The disposal sites used (e.g. to a treatment plant, to a sanitary landfill or to a water body).

The proportion of all trips made to each disposal site.

A sampling frame may be used to select the number of service provider surveys required to generate statistically

robust estimates for each variable.

The treatment service provider survey is designed for use in the same location that the emptying and service

provider surveys and household questionnaires were implemented. The survey will be used to inform the ‘of which

treated at treatment plants’ variable for the onsite sanitation systems. The survey includes questions on:

Level to which excreta is treated (e.g. secondary), its intended end-use and/or disposal location (e.g.

disposal through long ocean outfall)

Plant performance data against national discharge standards (e.g. volume of faecal sludge delivered to the

treatment plant (m3/year) and volume of treated faecal sludge complying with national discharge

standards (m3/year)).

Similar to the E&T service provider survey, a carefully designed sampling frame may be used to select the number

of treatment service provider surveys required in order to generate statistically robust estimates for the treatment

variable.

4.2.3 STEP 3

The data obtained from the initial and full assessments are entered on the framework in order to obtain the

proportion of population using safely managed sanitation. At the same time, the proportion of population with

access to each of the other service levels is also identified.



Table 1: Key questions to be addressed in the initial assessment

System type Of which contained Of which safely disposed insitu Of which emptied for

transport Of which transported and

delivered to treatment Of which treated at

treatment plants

Piped sewers

Do some sewer pipe connections leak or does the pipe discharge directly to an open drain, water bodies or open ground?

Estimate % contained

____________%

- -

Do sewer pipes regularly leak (e.g. exfiltration and overflow) before reaching treatment?

Estimate % transported and delivered to treatment?

____________%

What is level of installed treatment capacity? Are treatment plants overloaded? What is level of treatment plant performance?

Estimate % treated

___________%

Septic tanks

Are some septic tanks damaged or flooded so that they leak and/or are they connected to open drains, water bodies or open ground rather than to soak pits or sewers?


____________%

Are some septic tanks emptied very rarely? Are some emptied and the excreta buried? If so, is the excreta safely emptied and safely buried?

Estimate % safely disposed insitu

____________%

Are some septic tanks emptied and the excreta transported away? If so, is the emptying done safely?

Estimate % emptied for transport

____________%

Does all of the proportion ‘emptied for transport’ reach treatment or is some discharged to open drains, water bodies or to open ground?


____________%

What is level of installed treatment capacity? Are treatment plants overloaded? What do monitoring records indicate about treatment performance?

Estimate % treated

___________%

Other

improved

onsite

facilities (e.g.

simple pit

latrines with

slabs)

Are some improved pit latrines damaged or flooded so that they leak and/or are they connected to open drains, water bodies or open ground?


____________%

Are some improved pit latrines never emptied or emptied very rarely? Are some emptied and the excreta buried? If so, is the excreta safely emptied and safely buried? Are some emptied only once the excreta is safe to handle?

Estimate % safely disposed insitu

____________%

Are some improved pit latrines emptied and the excreta transported away? If so, is the emptying done safely?

Estimate % emptied for transport

____________%

Does all the proportion ‘emptied for transport’ reach treatment or is some discharged to open drains, water bodies or to open ground?


____________%

What is level of installed treatment capacity? Are treatment plants overloaded? What do records indicate about treatment performance?

Estimate % treated

___________%



5. EXAMPLE

Figure 5 shows example output from application of the methodology in a middle-income country from the Latin

American and Caribbean region. The figure shows a comparison of the two different sanitation ladders, as

reported by JMP in 2015 under MDG 7(c) and under SDG 6.2; and an excreta flow diagram that shows

diagrammatically the proportion of the population using each of the five levels of sanitation service. The ladders

and the flow diagram are colour-coded to improve understanding, for example the proportion of population that is

using safely managed sanitation services (30% of total population) is shown in dark green.

Figure 5: Example of draft outputs from use of the proposed methodology for monitoring SDG Indicator 6.2.1

Treatment End-use/disposal Emptying Containment Transport

Improved

Unimproved

Noservice

Limitedservice

Pipedsewers

Onsitesanita on

3%

30%

26%

11% 9% 44%6%



6. REFERENCES

Baum, R., Luh, J., Bartram, J., (2013). Sanitation: a global estimate of sewerage connections without treatment and

the resulting impact on MDG progress. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1994–2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es304284f

Malik O., Hsu A., Johnson L., and de Sherbinin, A. (2015). A global indicator of wastewater treatment to inform the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Journal of Environmental Science and Policy 48, 172 to 185.

Peal, A., Evans B., Blackett, I. Hawkins, P. and Heymans, C. (2014). Fecal Sludge Management: analytical tools for

assessing FSM in cities. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 4 (3), 371–383.

SuSanA (2015). Website of the The SFD Promotion Initiative. Managed by GIZ under the umbrella of the

Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA). Available at: http://sfd.susana.org

WHO/UNICEF/JMP (2015a). The drinking water and sanitation ladders. Available at:

http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/watsan-ladder/

WHO/UNICEF/JMP (2015b). WASH Post-2015: Proposed indicators for drinking water, sanitation and hygiene.

Briefing note. Geneva, Switzerland.

Williams, A., and Overbo, A. (2015). Unsafe return of human excreta to the environment: A literature review. The

Water Institute at UNC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es304284f

http://sfd.susana.org/

http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/watsan-ladder/



ANNEX 1: PROPOSED NORMATIVE DEFINITIONS FOR EACH OF THE FRAMEWORK VARIABLES

Table 2: Definitions for ‘contained’ and ‘not contained’ by system type and scenario

Basic system type

Scenario description and definition of:

Contained (_C) Not contained (_NC)

Piped sewers Toilet directly connected to a piped sewer, which is sealed and discharging to a piped sewer system.

Toilet directly connected to a piped sewer, which is not sealed and leaking to the local environment; or

Toilet directly connected to a sealed piped sewer, which is discharging to an open drain (or storm sewer) or to a water body, or to open ground.

Septic tanks Toilet directly connected to a septic tank, which is functioning correctly and is:

Sealed and impermeable; and

The effluent outlet is discharging to a piped sewer or soak pit.

Toilet directly connected to a septic tank, which is damaged or cracked or flooded and leaking to the local environment; or

Toilet directly connected to a septic tank with an effluent outlet, which is discharging to an open drain (or storm sewer), or to a water body or to open ground.

Pit latrines with slabs and ventilated improved pit latrines (VIPs)

Toilet directly connected to a pit latrine or VIP, which is functioning correctly through percolation to soil sub-structures.

Toilet directly connected to a pit latrine or VIP, which is damaged or flooded and leaking to the local environment; or

Toilet directly connected to a pit latrine or VIP with an effluent outlet, which is discharging to an open drain (or storm sewer), or to a water body or to open ground.

Other systems including composting toilets

Toilet directly connected to an other system including composting toilets, which is functioning correctly and is either:

Impermeable (sealed), with no effluent outlet; or

Impermeable, with an effluent outlet, where the effluent (untreated or partially treated) is discharging either to sewers or to soak pits; or

Permeable and with an effluent outlet, where the effluent (untreated or partially treated) is both percolating to sub-soil structures and discharging to either sewers or to soak pits; or

Permeable and with no effluent outlet, with the effluent percolating to sub-soil structures only

Toilet directly connected to an other system including composting toilets, which is damaged or cracked or flooded and leaking to local environment; or

Toilet directly connected to an other system including composting toilets with an effluent outlet, which is discharging to an open drain (or storm sewer), or to a water body or to open ground.



Table 3: Definitions for ‘safely disposed insitu’ and ‘not safely disposed insitu’ by system type and scenario

Basic system type (onsite sanitation only)


Safely disposed insitu (_S) Not safely disposed insitu (_NS)

Septic tanks Septic tank is safely emptied and the excreta safely buried (e.g. in a sealed hole).

Septic tank is NOT safely emptied and/or the excreta is NOT safely buried (e.g. in an unsealed hole or to open ground etc.).

Pit latrines with slabs and ventilated improved pit latrines (VIPs)

Pit latrine is not emptied and the excreta safely buried in the pit latrine, which is sealed; or

Pit latrine is safely emptied and the excreta safely buried (e.g. in a sealed hole).

Pit latrine is emptied and the excreta is handled, BUT only after 2 years once the excreta is safe to handle (e.g. twin pit latrine).

Pit latrine is not emptied BUT the excreta is NOT safely buried (i.e. in an unsealed pit latrine); or

Pit latrine is NOT safely emptied and/or the excreta is NOT safely buried (e.g. in an unsealed hole or to open ground etc.).

Other systems including composting toilets

System is safely emptied and the excreta safely buried (e.g. in a sealed hole); or

System is emptied and the excreta handled, BUT only after 2 years once the excreta is safe to handle (e.g. composting toilet).

System is NOT safely emptied and/or the excreta is NOT safely buried (e.g. in an unsealed hole or to open ground etc.).



Table 4: Definitions for ‘safely emptied’ and ‘not safely emptied’



Safely emptied (_E) Not safely emptied (_NE)

All onsite sanitation systems

Excreta is emptied from system using mechanical or motorised equipment with all operatives wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. This method safely separates the operatives, sanitation system users and the general public from excreta; or

Excreta is emptied from system manually (using only hand-held shovels and buckets etc.) with all operatives wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. This method safely separates the operatives, sanitation system users and the general public from excreta.

Excreta is emptied from system using mechanical or motorised equipment that fails to safely separate the operatives, sanitation system users and general public from excreta; or

Excreta is emptied from system using mechanical or motorised equipment or manually (using only hand-held shovels and buckets etc.) but not all operatives wear appropriate personal protective equipment. This method fails to safely separate the operatives, sanitation system users and general public from excreta.

Table 5: Definitions for ‘safely buried’ and ‘not safely buried’



Safely buried Not safely buried


Excreta remains in an abandoned onsite container, which is then sealed in such a way that it safely separates humans from excreta; or

Excreta remains in a hole dug to receive excreta safely emptied from an onsite container, which is then sealed in such a way that it safely separates humans from excreta.

Excreta remains in an abandoned onsite container, which is either not covered or covered but not sealed in such a way that it does not safely separate humans from excreta; or

Excreta remains in a hole dug to receive excreta safely emptied from an onsite container, which is either not covered or covered but not sealed in such a way that it does not safely separate humans from excreta; or

Excreta remains in an open drain, water body or on open ground in such a way that that it does not safely separate humans from excreta.



Table 6: Definitions for ‘safe transport and delivery to treatment plants’ and ‘not safe transport and delivery to treatment plants’

Basic system type Scenario description and definition of:

Safe transport and delivery to treatment plants (_D)

Not safe transport and delivery to treatment plants (_ND)

Piped sewers Excreta (i.e. wastewater) is transported and delivered to a treatment plant using a ‘piped sewer’.

Notes

1. This is a percentage of the proportion of households using ‘piped sewers’.

2. The following types of treatment plant are considered acceptable here: primary, secondary, tertiary and advanced (see Figure 3 for definitions).

Excreta (i.e. wastewater) is transported using a ‘piped sewer’, which is connected to a treatment plant BUT the excreta is NOT delivered to the treatment plant (e.g. due to exfiltration, pump failure, breaks and blockages in system); or

Excreta (i.e. wastewater) is transported using a ‘piped sewer’, which is NOT connected to a treatment plant but discharges directly to open drains, water bodies or open ground.

Note: this is a percentage of the proportion of households using ‘piped sewers’.


Excreta is transported and delivered to a treatment plant using motorised, mechanical or manual equipment (using only hand-drawn carts or similar) with all operatives wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. This method safely separates the operatives, sanitation system users and the general public from excreta.

Notes

1. The following types of treatment plant are considered acceptable here: Solid-liquid fraction separation; dewatering and/or stabilization of solid fraction and treatment of liquid fraction; treatment of solid and liquid fraction (see Figure 3 for definitions).

Excreta is transported using motorised, mechanical or manual equipment but is NOT delivered to a treatment plant, instead it is discharged to open drains, water bodies or open ground; or

Excreta is transported and delivered to a treatment plant using motorised, mechanical or manual equipment (using only hand-drawn carts or similar) that fails to safely separate the operatives, sanitation system users and general public from excreta (due to exfiltration (leaks) from the transport (i.e. carts, trucks, tankers etc.) to the local environment); or

Excreta is transported and delivered to a treatment plant using motorised, mechanical or manual equipment (using only hand-drawn carts or similar) but not all operatives wear appropriate personal protective equipment. This method fails to safely separate the operatives, sanitation system users and general public from excreta.



Table 7: Definitions for ‘treated at treatment plants’ (treatment effectiveness)

Available data Proportion treated at treatment plants (treatment effectiveness)

Performance data on pathogens in treated effluent or product.

Proportion of treated effluent or product (annual average) complying with national standards on pathogen load.

_T = x %, where x = % treated effluent or product complying with national standards on pathogen load.

Treatment level, exposure data and performance data on the organic load and/or nutrients in effluent or product.

Where treatment level and exposure level data indicate effluent is safely treated

1.

Proportion of treated effluent or product (annual average) complying with national standards on organic load and/or nutrients in effluent or product.

_T = y %, where y = % treated effluent or product complying with national standards on organic load and/or nutrients (but not pathogens) in effluent or product.

Treatment level and exposure data but no performance data on effluent or product.

Where treatment level and exposure level data indicate effluent is safely treated

1.

Dependent on exposure level.

Exposure level = low, _T = 100%

Exposure level = medium, _T = 50%

Exposure level = high, _T = 0%

Treatment level and exposure data.

Where treatment level and exposure level data indicate effluent is NOT safely treated

1

_T = 0%

No data available Treatment effectiveness equals zero percent.

_T = 0%

Notes:1. For wastewater see Figure 6 for faecal sludge see Figure 7.



* For definition of treatment level see Figure 8.

Figure 6: Treatment level/exposure matrix for wastewater (and liquid fraction of faecal sludge)

* For definition of treatment level see Figure 8.

Figure 7: Treatment level/exposure matrix for faecal sludge (and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment)



Figure 8: Definition of treatment level

1. monitoring context - who...2016/10/21 · coverage of safely managed services [ can be attained,...

Documents