**5.1. Towards innovative management arrangements**

The major barriers to progress in sanitation coverage lie within the institutions, policies and realities of low‐ and middle‐income countries [2]. The public sector is often weak in terms of skills, structures, planning capacity and bureaucratic procedures, and mechanisms are not always in place to recover investment, operation or management costs, leading to the degra‐ dation of service provision or even system failure. Depending on the political structure of the city, the division of responsibilities relating to sanitation can be an institutional headache. Responsibilities for sanitation service provision are often fragmented and sometimes overlap‐ ping among different departments and ministries. This fragmentation and overall 'poor' urban governance make coordinated action difficult and can even lead to conflict between stake‐

For example, some reasons why faecal sludge management systems have not been widely implemented are the financial and political complexity involved, as well as the overlap‐ ping and unclear allocation of responsibilities and a lack of incentives for efficient opera‐ tion [10, 11]. This is due to the number of stakeholders who have a financial interest in the system and also to the diversity of interests of each stakeholder. Unlike other types of infrastructure (e.g. electricity) where a single utility is usually responsible for generation, delivery, operation, maintenance and billing, a faecal sludge system is more commonly a collection of stakeholders, each of whom is responsible for a different part of the treat‐ ment chain. Dysfunctional institutional frameworks result in both a lack of accountability and disagreements between stakeholders, which can even sometimes lead to sector block‐

The situation is similar with small‐scale and on‐site systems: such systems often show a mis‐ match with many institutional conditions (regulations, professional codes or user expecta‐ tions) [12]. Many factors have been put forward to explain that conventional sewerage remains the predominant paradigm for urban sanitation delivery. There is, however, little hard evidence to say whether this is mostly due to bureaucratic or technical inertia, risk aversion, corruption (and, hence, the preference for high‐cost schemes with limited local ac‐ countability), political expediency (the need to be seen to be doing something), the percep‐ tion that only these systems are 'modern', or simply a lack of knowledge [13]. What is clear is that whatever incentives currently exist tend to encourage local and central authorities and their advisors to stick to conventional top‐down planning and conventional centralised

Moving beyond conventional approaches towards sustainable urbanisation needs to be both top‐down and bottom‐up. Top‐down, because it is often the only way to reform institutions, laws and regulations and bottom‐up, because little can be done without dynamic individuals, communities and private sector stakeholders who have the energy, vision and creativity to innovate and validate new approaches. Flexibility is needed from governments to integrate non‐governmental initiatives in their planning and to allow them to be replicated and scaled up. Above all, developing the right incentives to let initiatives grow and prevent them from

being stopped by the established bureaucracy is essential.

holders for resources and areas of influence.

age.

120 Sustainable Urbanization

sewerage schemes.

Proper management is above all a matter of setting the right incentives and ensuring financial sustainability. In the current situation, many governmental schemes do not provide the incentives or the financial resources for sanitation systems to be run properly, and a fortiori to be extended to low‐income areas. One way of responding to this mismatch in incentives is to unbundle urban sanitation vertically and horizontally [13]. The horizontal unbundling characterises the implementation of different systems for different urban areas, as described earlier. This is a departure from one‐size‐fits‐all solutions and allows for the use of least‐cost solutions because it enables the deployment of both on‐site and off‐site systems in areas, depending on housing density, ground conditions, tenure and a range of other factors. Vertical unbundling recognises that communities or private sector stakeholders may be willing and able to take responsibility for part of the sanitation supply chain. Both vertical and horizontal unbundlings tend to promote decentralisation.

The result of conceptually dividing a city into management units depending on both incentives and technical feasibility is that many elements of the system can then be developed independ‐ ently [13]. Community initiatives can become less dependent on city‐wide actions, and financing for small elements of the system may be easier to mobilise. These reconfigurations, therefore, allow for incremental development. Notwithstanding, whatever level of delegated or decentralised management is chosen, overall government supervision is needed with proper management interfaces.

#### *5.1.1. Management interfaces*

While vertical and horizontal unbundling offer increased flexibility, they also require skilled coordination [13]. Communities or informal private stakeholders can rarely manage the whole sanitation supply chain. For example, communities may be willing to invest in a sewer network, but rarely in a treatment plant; they also often do not have the skills or the willingness to commit sufficient financial resources to build a state‐of‐the‐art sewer network. This may result in dysfunctional networks, which in the end cannot be connected to a small‐scale treatment plant, or to the city sewer system.

The creation of well‐designed management interfaces is, therefore, key for sustainable urbanisation. The scaling up of small‐scale wastewater treatment systems necessitates good coordination at the state/city level. Indonesia integrated community‐based decentralised wastewater systems into its sanitation policy, which resulted in the implementation of thousands of systems. However, it turned out that communities alone cannot manage the treatment plants in the long run. There is a necessity for a higher structure, a 'centralised management of decentralised schemes' to carry out the minimum operation and maintenance required, to monitor the effluent quality and to take care of major troubleshooting. Scaling up entails more than replicating a large number of discrete projects [14].

Coordination is also necessary for faecal sludge management. In most cities in low‐ and middle‐countries, there is a thriving private sector around faecal sludge/septage emptying. Unfortunately, without coordination at the city level and faecal sludge treatment infrastruc‐ ture, most of the sludge ends up being discharged directly into the environment.

In Dakar, Senegal, the utility (ONAS) built faecal sludge treatment plants and integrated the faecal sludge emptying sector (privately owned vacuum trucks) into its scheme. It turned out to be a win‐win situation, as the private service providers desperately needed locations to safely discharge sludge within the city. ONAS further improved the quality of the service with the creation of a call centre. This optimised the distances that the private service providers have to drive and, as a consequence, decreased the emptying fee, thus making it more affordable—a sort of 'Uber' for sludge collection.

Small‐scale sanitation systems, unfortunately, still lack good examples of centralised manage‐ ment in low‐ and middle‐income countries. A clear competitive advantage of most small‐scale sanitation systems is that they do not require permanent staff on‐site, except, perhaps, for a community member to run the pumps. Therefore, a centralised management unit at the city level, embedded within the utility, would consist of a few skilled staff, specially trained to operate small‐scale systems. Such a unit would be in charge of monthly monitoring and troubleshooting, whereas the sewer network and routine maintenance (such as cleaning) would be delegated to community or neighbourhood members. Both could be connected via a call centre in case of problems. Recent technological advances in fields, such as mobile communication, chemical sensors and remote control, open up a broad and promising range of new system configurations [15].

#### *5.1.2. Delegated management*

The result of conceptually dividing a city into management units depending on both incentives and technical feasibility is that many elements of the system can then be developed independ‐ ently [13]. Community initiatives can become less dependent on city‐wide actions, and financing for small elements of the system may be easier to mobilise. These reconfigurations, therefore, allow for incremental development. Notwithstanding, whatever level of delegated or decentralised management is chosen, overall government supervision is needed with

While vertical and horizontal unbundling offer increased flexibility, they also require skilled coordination [13]. Communities or informal private stakeholders can rarely manage the whole sanitation supply chain. For example, communities may be willing to invest in a sewer network, but rarely in a treatment plant; they also often do not have the skills or the willingness to commit sufficient financial resources to build a state‐of‐the‐art sewer network. This may result in dysfunctional networks, which in the end cannot be connected to a small‐scale

The creation of well‐designed management interfaces is, therefore, key for sustainable urbanisation. The scaling up of small‐scale wastewater treatment systems necessitates good coordination at the state/city level. Indonesia integrated community‐based decentralised wastewater systems into its sanitation policy, which resulted in the implementation of thousands of systems. However, it turned out that communities alone cannot manage the treatment plants in the long run. There is a necessity for a higher structure, a 'centralised management of decentralised schemes' to carry out the minimum operation and maintenance required, to monitor the effluent quality and to take care of major troubleshooting. Scaling up

Coordination is also necessary for faecal sludge management. In most cities in low‐ and middle‐countries, there is a thriving private sector around faecal sludge/septage emptying. Unfortunately, without coordination at the city level and faecal sludge treatment infrastruc‐

In Dakar, Senegal, the utility (ONAS) built faecal sludge treatment plants and integrated the faecal sludge emptying sector (privately owned vacuum trucks) into its scheme. It turned out to be a win‐win situation, as the private service providers desperately needed locations to safely discharge sludge within the city. ONAS further improved the quality of the service with the creation of a call centre. This optimised the distances that the private service providers have to drive and, as a consequence, decreased the emptying fee, thus making it more

Small‐scale sanitation systems, unfortunately, still lack good examples of centralised manage‐ ment in low‐ and middle‐income countries. A clear competitive advantage of most small‐scale sanitation systems is that they do not require permanent staff on‐site, except, perhaps, for a community member to run the pumps. Therefore, a centralised management unit at the city level, embedded within the utility, would consist of a few skilled staff, specially trained to

ture, most of the sludge ends up being discharged directly into the environment.

entails more than replicating a large number of discrete projects [14].

proper management interfaces.

treatment plant, or to the city sewer system.

affordable—a sort of 'Uber' for sludge collection.

*5.1.1. Management interfaces*

122 Sustainable Urbanization

Servicing low income and informal settlements remains a big challenge. Delegating service provision to local operators, including private companies, NGOs, CBOs, User Associations or Water Trusts is one solution for the utility to help service these areas [11, 16]. It is an effective approach, but a number of barriers must be overcome, especially technical and financial capacities and access to credit. Above all, delegated management models need to be based on clearly defined contracts which ensure benefits to all parties (consumer, local operator, utility) [16]. The utility takes on the role of a controller, setting standards and monitoring the service delivery.

#### **Case study: Delegated management in Lusaka, Zambia**

In Lusaka, Zambia, the commercial utility, the Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company (LSWC), has the mandate for water supply and sewerage delivery for the whole city. Since LWSC, however, was not serving informal peri‐urban areas, two community‐based Water Trusts were established by the NGO CARE to fill the gap in service delivery in Kanyama and Chazanga, two of the biggest peri‐urban areas of the city. LWSC decided to integrate this initiative in its water supply service delivery scheme and formally delegated the management of the water supply in these neighbour‐ hoods to the Water Trusts through the provision of a license. LWSC later also recognised that the conventional sewer system approach they followed in the city centre would not work in the peri‐urban areas where the Trusts are working and decided to also delegate sanitation service provision to the latter. A latrine emptying service was established for the two neighbourhoods by formalising the status of informal manual emptiers already working there. These workers collect faecal sludge from pit latrines and bring it to a treatment plant. The long‐term goal was for them to work as proper private entrepreneurs [17].

The Water Trusts are successfully delivering water and sanitation services due to several reasons: (i) services are adapted to the local conditions; (ii) they are well positioned and known within the community, have local staff and offices, and are therefore easily accessible; and (iii) they can support the latrine emptiers with their management ca‐ pacities [18].

In the meanwhile, LWSC further recognised that the different conditions in low‐income peri‐urban neighbourhoods require different management schemes within their organisation and, therefore, established a department for peri‐ur‐ ban affairs, consisting mostly of social workers. This department is taking the lead in the coordination of these innova‐ tive delegated management schemes.

Following the example of several European countries such as Germany or France, which established decentralised management schemes in rural communities, collaborative arrange‐ ments should be sought for. A management interface also means the creation of operator networks, joint capacity building and cooperation between communities and neighbourhoods. This results in an increase in capacities and efficiency, as well as a higher level of profession‐ alism.

## *5.1.3. Inclusive stakeholder involvement*

Innovative management arrangements imply the involvement of stakeholders beyond the utility in the planning, implementation and operation of sanitation systems. In faecal sludge management for example, the involvement of the private—and sometimes informal—service providers is crucial; for small‐scale sanitation systems at neighbourhood level, the involvement of the community is not less important. Engagement with different stakeholder groups is a critical activity that is essential for the successful development of sustainable sanitation services and behaviour change [5, 9, 19]. Enabling the civil sector and the local private sector to take a more proactive role in the definition, selection, planning and eventually management of appropriate and locally contextualised services is seen as the way forward for sustainable urban sanitation.

Stakeholder involvement in the water and sanitation sector is justified by four main arguments: ownership, efficiency, better design and empowerment. Stakeholder involvement is the art of including stakeholders in the urban planning process in order to take into account their needs, priorities and interests, to achieve consensus and to remove opposition; in other words, to make them participate. It is largely about defining the participation level of people in the process, from simple information to consultation, collaboration or delegation, and how to best answer their needs, for example through awareness raising or training and capacity building.

The benefits of alternative sanitation systems may not be clear to everybody from the beginning and some people may be reluctant to change their daily routine. For these reasons, information and transparency are fundamental. Involvement is also about showing the benefits of change to the different stakeholders and giving incentives. For example, with proper FSM, authorities gain recognition by improving the population's welfare. Informal service providers may get a voice, a status and get out of the margins of society, while the service they provide gets widely recognised. Private collection and transport entrepreneurs gain formal disposal sites and the price of services may be reduced for the households [20].

The capacity to provide services effectively and efficiently is the backbone of sustainable service provision. This includes well‐trained engineers and planners at all levels (municipal, provincial and central government), but also private sector and NGO stakeholders who have their role to play. That is why capacity building and on‐the‐job training are crucial to improve service delivery and expand coverage in rapidly urbanising areas. The necessary capacity will need to be developed at both, the individual and collective level; individual capacity refers to particular skills that individual people have and collective capacity refers to a community or a group's capacity to organise, mobilise and support collective actions [21]. Important com‐ ponents of water and sanitation sector capacity building involve (i) strengthening and improving management in terms of building technical, financial and managerial capabilities; (ii) upgrading institutional and technical capacities of the key actors to help identify, under‐ stand and evaluate complex urban environmental problems; (iii) establishing co‐operative partnerships with government, elected and official, civil society organisations, and the private sector to deal with cross‐cutting challenges; (iv) utilising participatory tools in planning, decision‐making, and political processes which facilitate the development of a common vision, articulation of needs and joint action [22].
