Folie 1 - India Water Portal

DEMO-VERSION: LINKS TO EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS DO NOT WORK! M4: Management: Planning, Implementation and Operation M 4-4: Economic Aspects J. Heeb (all) Dr. Johannes Heeb, International Ecological Engineering Society & seecon international Prof. Dr. Petter Jenssen, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Dr. Ken Gnanakan, ACTS Bangalore, India Katharina Conradin, seecon international 2006 seecon International gmbh ACTS Agriculture -Crafts Trades - Studies Credits Materials included in this CD-ROM comprise materials from various organisations. The materials complied on this CD are freely available at the internet, following the open-source concept for capacity building and non-profit use, provided proper acknowledgement of the source is made. The publication of these materials on this CDROM does not alter any existing copyrights. Material published on this CD for the first time follows the same open-source concept for capacity building and non-profit use, with all rights remaining with the original authors / producing organisations. Therefore the user should please always give credit in citations to the original

author, source and copyright holder. We thank all individuals and institutions that have provided information for this CD, especially the German Agency for Technical Cooperation GTZ, Ecosanres, Ecosan Norway, the International Water and Sanitation Centre IRC, the Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, the World Health Organisation WHO, the Hesperian Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIDA, the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries SANDEC of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Sanitation by Communities SANIMAS, the Stockholm International Water Institute SIWI, the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council WSSCC, the World Water Assessment Programme of the UNESCO, the Tear Fund, Wateraid, and all others that have contributed in some way to this curriculum. We apologize in advance if references are missing or incorrect, and welcome feedback if errors are detected. We encourage all feedback on the composition and content of this curriculum. Please direct it either to [email protected] or [email protected] K.Conradin Conradin K. seecon Credits ecosan Curriculum - Credits Concept and ecosan expertise: Gnanakan Compiling of Information: Layout: Photo Credits: otherwise as per credit. Text Credits:

Financial support: Johannes Heeb, Petter D. Jenssen, Ken Katharina Conradin Katharina Conradin Mostly Johannes Heeb & Katharina Conradin, As per source indication. Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) How to obtain the curriculum material Free download of PDF tutorials: www.seecon.ch www.ecosan.no www.gtz.de/ecosan K. Conradin Order full curriculum CD: 50 ( 10 Developing Countries) [email protected] [email protected] Release: 1.0, March 2006, 1000 copies Feedback: Feedback regarding improvements, errors, experience of use etc. is welcome. Please notify the above

email-addresses. Sources Copyright: Copyright of the individual sources lies with the authors or producing organizations. Copying is allowed as long as references are properly acknowledged. seecon Contents 1. Introduction 2. Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems 3. Conventional Waterborne Sanitation Investment Cost for Collection Water Cost 4. Ecological Sanitation Systems Cost Considerations Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling Fertilizer Value Microeconomic Benefits Macroeconomic Benefits 5. Financing mechanisms 6. Cost Recovery Technology Selection Community and Management Options Policies, Support, Willingness to Pay Minimizing Cost Tariffs 7. Conclusion Source: GTZ

Introduction Economic aspects are not well researched Comparison with conventional sewage treatment systems is very difficult to conduct: benefits from ecosan not always only material, e.g. increased safety better quality of life better health Additionally, figures concerning the true cost of conventional sanitation systems are hardly available. Huge investment cost made in the past (piping system) J. Heeb Introduction This lack of verified and numeric data is based on a number of reasons: Complex task to consider all the factors that influence the cost of an ecological sanitation system, direct and indirect costs and benefits, opportunity costs etc The lack of available data (both for ecosan & conventional systems) The results of any possible cost evaluation will always depend on the decision which costs are considered and which not Different costs in industrialized and developing countries (i.e. artificial fertilizer is bound to the world market price: more expensive for a third world farmer than

one in an industrialized country J. Heeb Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems Investment costs: - Material Work (wages or opportunity costs) Financing Costs (interest) Technology / licenses / research Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building Amortisation time (to calculate annual cost) Running Costs: - Work / opportunity cost Operation and maintenance/personnel Materials of consumption water, power Transport Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) Quality control / research / (?) Disposal or use of waste / by product Environmental cost Etc. Support costs: -

Planning and strategy development Institution building, information system HR-Development Monitoring and assessment Follow up for training and support etc. Source: adapted from (1) Toilet facility: - Room Toilet pan and seat Piping, Water Supply Equipment for cleaning etc. Treatment : - pipe system (?) Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. Transport to and from treatment facility sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) etc. Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems

Toilet facility: Investment costs: - Material - Work (wages or opportunity costs) - Financing Costs (interest) - Technology / licenses / research - Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building - Amortisation Running Costs:time (to calculate annual - Work / opportunity cost cost) - - Room Toilet pan and seat Piping, Water Supply Equipment for cleaning etc. Treatment : - pipe system (?) Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc.

Transport to and from treatment facility sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) etc. Operation and maintenance/personnel Materials of consumption water, power Transport Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) Quality control / research / (?) Disposal or use of waste / by product Environmental cost Etc. Support costs: - Planning and strategy development Institution building, information system HR-Development Monitoring and assessment Follow up for training and support etc. Source: adapted from (1) Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems Toilet facility: Investment costs: -

Material Work (wages or opportunity costs) Financing Costs (interest) Technology / licenses / research Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building Amortisation time (to calculate annual cost) Running Costs: - Work / opportunity cost - Operation and maintenance/personnel - Materials of consumption water, power - Transport - Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) - Quality control / research / (?) - Disposal or use of waste / by product - Environmental cost -Support Etc. costs: - - Room Toilet pan and seat Piping, Water Supply Equipment for cleaning etc.

Treatment : - pipe system (?) Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. Transport to and from treatment facility sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) etc. Planning and strategy development Institution building, information system HR-Development Monitoring and assessment Follow up for training and support etc. Source: adapted from (1) Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems Investment costs: - Material Work (wages or opportunity costs) Financing Costs (interest) Technology / licenses / research Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building Amortisation time (to calculate annual cost) Toilet facility:

- Room Toilet pan and seat Piping, Water Supply Equipment for cleaning etc. Running Costs: - Work / opportunity cost Operation and maintenance/personnel Materials of consumption water, power Transport Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) Quality control / research / (?) Disposal or use of waste / by product Environmental cost Etc. Support costs: - Planning and strategy development - Institution building, information system - HR-Development - Monitoring and assessment - Follow up for training and support - etc. Treatment : -

pipe system (?) Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. Transport to and from treatment facility sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) etc. Source: adapted from (1) Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems Investment costs: - Material Work (wages or opportunity costs) Financing Costs (interest) Technology / licenses / research Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building Amortisation time (to calculate annual cost) Running Costs: - Work / opportunity cost Operation and maintenance/personnel Materials of consumption water, power Transport Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) Quality control / research / (?)

Disposal or use of waste / by product Environmental cost Etc. Support costs: - Planning and strategy development Institution building, information system HR-Development Monitoring and assessment Follow up for training and support etc. Toilet facility: - Room - Toilet pan and seat - Piping - Water Supply - Equipment for cleaning - etc. Treatment : - pipe system (?) Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. Transport to and from treatment facility sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction)

etc. Source: adapted from (1) Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems Investment costs: - Material Work (wages or opportunity costs) Financing Costs (interest) Technology / licenses / research Pre-feasibility study, project design, social work, capacity building Amortisation time (to calculate annual cost) Toilet facility: - Room Toilet pan and seat Internal piping Water Supply Equipment for cleaning etc. Running Costs: - Work / opportunity cost Operation and maintenance/personnel Materials of consumption water, power

Transport Maintenance work, attrition (depreciation) Quality control / research / (?) Disposal or use of waste / by product Environmental cost Etc. Support costs: - Planning and strategy development Institution building, information system HR-Development Monitoring and assessment Follow up for training and support etc. Treatment : - pipe system (?) - Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. - Transport to and from treatment facility - sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) - etc. Source: adapted from (1) Costs: Conventional Waterborne Sanitation Childrens Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

Difficulty: Setting of the boundaries of system often leads to many important external costs or even benefits being overlooked. Conventional waterborne sanitation In addition to the investment, reinvestment and operation and maintenance costs of the sewer network and plant: + expected health benefits environmental externalities Possible pollution of the receiving water loss of a recreational area, possible effect on subsequent drinking water treatment loss of natural habitats effects on coastal areas, effect of medical residues impoverishment of soils as a result of nutrient loss, Water costs Source: (17) ++ Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Investment Cost for Collection Investment Cost of centralised sewer systems Sewer lines Initial investment costs for centralised sewage treatment systems make up for the largest part, i.e. 70 to 90% of the total cost of sewage treatment. Collection system

70 - 90 % Treatment 10 - 30 % (Otis 1996, Mork et al.2000) Consider lifespan of pipe network! P. Jenssen Source: adapted from (6) Wastewater treatment plant In the US: 37% of all new developments are serviced by onsite or decentralised systems over 50% of onsite/cluster systems are in cities and their suburbs (USEPA 2000) ++ Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Water Cost Moreover, 20 - 40 % of the water consumption in sewered cities is due to the water toilet. (2) Source: adapted from (6) Childrens Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

Ecological Sanitation Systems: Cost Considerations Ecosan systems external costs may include: the necessary transformation costs to adapt the existing sanitary infrastructure, additional awareness raising activities, need for continued research and development of different parts of the system. In contrast to conventional systems: external benefits: Securing the drinking water supply improvement of soil structure and fertility increased access to fertilising agents reduced energy consumption in the treatment works nutrient and resource conservation potential for energy production Boundaries for evaluating sanitary systems are significantly expanded, and the tools for appraisal need to be expanded accordingly Source: (17) Ecological Sanitation Systems: Cost Considerations WWT = Wastewater Treatment Tertiary WWT ECOLOGICAL SANITATION Sewer Connection & Secondary WWT Connection to

Conventional Sewer Sewer Connection with Local Labour ECOLOGICAL Septic Tank Latrine Pour Flush Latrine VIP Latrine Simple Pit Latrine improved traditional practice & hygiene Source: (4) DRY SANITATION ++ Financing ecosan in Urban Areas ecosan systems costs are bound to lower the total costs of urban sanitation. Conventional sewers, treatment plants and sludge disposal arrangements will cost several times as much particularly important for developing countries However: urban ecosan systems involve costs for Information Training Monitoring/follow-up Further costs for urban ecosan systems: safe handling and transport storage of urine and dehydrated or composted material from many devices. But: Back

K. Conradin value of the fertilizers produced could be significant. Payment for sanitation services Source: (5) Ecological Systems: Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling Immaterial/ Institutional Structures Material/ Technical Structures Users/ Stakeholders Source: (7) Ecological Systems: Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling Waste can only become a resource if this resource is needed and if of that resource is socially acceptable Europe: agriculture: Pasture and grazing animals Animal Dung was a valuable resource human excrement from the cities was not considered a prime resource for agriculture. Japan & China:

relied on the supply of human excrement. limited supply of animal manure (mainly grain producing farmers, no cattle collection and transportation of nutrients from the cities back to the agricultural areas is economically feasible. cities used to be much more hygienic Source: (8) Ecological Systems: Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling The social understanding of waste (what is waste?) depends on the interplay of cultural concepts and material objects. Waste can only become a resource if use of that resource is socially acceptable. Example: Many farmers in Norway about the utilization of human urine and faeces: Positive: nutrient recycling Negative: risk for environment and health. Prices: have to be comparable to competing products (state subsidy) Responsibility: for quality control and liability need to be clearly defined Societal viewpoint: Controls must be imposed are imposed on the recycling process food safety Source: (8)

P. Jenssen Ecological Systems: Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling Any input will cause an emission: focus on both input and the emission side of the economy: marginal costs for emission Inclusion of costs of the whole process from production to recycling back to agriculture. Considerable environmental benefits can be achieved by reducing nutrient emissions to water resources by removing urine from wastewater source separating systems. Benefits of implementing new waste management systems can counterbalance the costs incurred in so doing. Source: (8) P. Jenssen Further reading www.fertilizer.org Ecological Systems: Fertilizer Value Yearly requirement: 135 Mio tons of mineral fertiliser Conventional sanitation dumps 50 Mio tons of fertiliser equivalents - worth 15 Billion US dollar. (9)

Ecological Systems: External Benefits Environment: (a) lesser purification necessity (a) no loss of agricultural profits (a) no cleanup cost for polluted environment (a) higher productivity of environment (b) joy in healthy environment External Benefits: - (a) economically measurable - (b) not economically measurable Improved Health: (a) more working hours / days (fewer illnesses of workers & children who need to be looked after) (a) higher productivity (a) lower costs of medical care (transport, fees) (b) better living conditions Source: adapted from (1) Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity

(a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Human Dignity/Convenience: (b) increased dignity (less psychological stress) (b) more safety (esp. girls & women) (b) better accessibility (b) higher status (b) no smell, flies, etc. (b) better quality of life Ecological Systems: External Benefits Environment: (a) lesser purification necessity (a) no loss of agricultural profits (a) no cleanup cost for polluted environment (a) higher productivity of environment (b) joy in healthy environment External Benefits: - (a) economically measurable - (b) not economically measurable Improved Health: (a) more working hours / days (fewer illnesses of workers & children who need to be looked after) (a) higher productivity

(a) lower costs of medical care (transport, fees) (b) better living conditions Source: adapted from (1) Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Human Dignity/Convenience: (b) increased dignity (less psychological stress) (b) more safety (esp. girls & women) (b) better accessibility (b) higher status (b) no smell, flies, etc. (b) better quality of life Ecological Systems: External Benefits Environment: (a) lesser purification necessity (a) no loss of agricultural profits (a) no cleanup cost for polluted environment

(a) higher productivity of environment (b) joy in healthy environment External Benefits: - (a) economically measurable - (b) not economically measurable Improved Health: (a) more working hours / days (fewer illnesses of workers & children who need to be looked after) (a) higher productivity (a) lower costs of medical care (transport, fees) (b) better living conditions Source: adapted from (1) Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Human Dignity/Convenience: (b) increased dignity (less psychological stress) (b) more safety (esp. girls & women)

(b) better accessibility (b) higher status (b) no smell, flies, etc. (b) better quality of life Ecological Systems: External Benefits Environment: (a) lesser purification necessity (a) no loss of agricultural profits (a) no cleanup cost for polluted environment (a) higher productivity of environment (b) joy in healthy environment External Benefits: - (a) economically measurable - (b) not economically measurable Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Human Dignity/Convenience:

(b) increased dignity (less psychological stress) (b) more safety (esp. girls & women) Improved Health: (a) more working hours / days (fewer(b) illnesses of better accessibility workers & children who need to be looked after) (b) higher status (a) higher productivity (b) no (a) lower costs of medical care (transport, fees) smell, flies, etc. (b) better living conditions (b) better quality of life Source: adapted from (1) Ecological Systems: External Benefits Environment: (a) lesser purification necessity (a) no loss of agricultural profits (a) no cleanup cost for polluted environment (a) higher productivity of environment (b) joy in healthy environment External Benefits: - (a) economically measurable - (b) not economically

measurable Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Improved Health: Human Dignity/Convenience: (a) more working hours / days (fewer illnesses (b) increased dignity (less psychological stress)of more safety (esp. girls & women) workers & children (b) who to be looked after) (b) betterneed accessibility higher status

(a) higher productivity(b) (b) no smell, flies, etc. (b) better quality (a) lower costs of medical careof life(transport, fees) (b) better living conditions Source: adapted from (1) Ecological Systems: Microeconomic Benefits Survey in rural Nepal: about 30% of bio-gas users [note: households that were treating their wastewater in small-scale biogas tanks] feel that the cases of intestinal diseases been prevented after installation of bio-gas plant. rural households can increase the amount of gas productionby an hour of evening lighting better school performance of children (housework can be done in the evening) additional income generation through home-based occupation (sewing, stitching etc.) of women can be increased. Source: adapted from 15 Source: GTZ Ecological Systems: Macroeconomic Benefits National level: Macroeconomic benefits Improved Sanitation: monetary and professional resources are relieved from cases of faeco-oral diseases and can be concentrated in other areas.

Source: http://www.visadienst.com/html/body_weltkarte_detail.html Shadow prices (getting more of one thing means getting less of another) The construction of ecosan schemes can most often be carried out using locally available skills, tradesmen, and using locally available material requires less imported equipment than other processes job creation Source: (17) Source: http://www.visadienst.com/html/body_weltkarte_detail.html Ecological Systems: Macroeconomic benefits investments in sanitation have a huge positive impact on the national economy: cost-benefit ratios averaging 5.5 WHO/UNICEF MDG Joint Monitoring Programme: access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation will bring dividend many times larger than the investment required. Meeting the sanitation Millennium Development Goal target: Costs estimations: between US$ 9 billion (20) and US$ 15 billion (19) Payback estimation: between US$ 65 billion and US$ 84 billion lower health care costs productivity gains. Improved water supplies and basic toilets generate returns range from 3 to 34 times the original investment, depending on the type of investment and the country

For closed loop sanitation systems the return on investment is expected to be even higher. Source: (17) Financing mechanisms The cost structures of conventional and safe use oriented sanitation systems Source: GTZ (17) Sanitation systems that recover and use excreta and greywater generally have a different cost structure than conventional systems. This needs to be recognised and practice oriented research should focus on developing appropriate financing mechanisms to support private households in their decision to install them. As shown in the above figure, the total costs to install such systems tend to be lower than those for more conventional sanitation systems. This is mainly due to the decentralised, modular nature of source separating systems, which do not require large sanitary infrastructure, such as centralised treatment works, sewerage, or pump stations. In comparison to traditional decentralised sanitation (such as pit latrines or VIPs), they normally provide permanent solutions, and thus do not have to be replaced when full, representing a significant saving over time. However, although the overall costs are less, those to be covered by the private household may very well increase be higher as a result of having to replace or transform domestic sanitary facilities (for example by installing a urine diversion toilet). (17) Financing mechanisms Financing mechanisms: Mainly two sources: the individual or household, external (e.g. government) Payment should ideally recover costs, but also ensure equitable access to

sanitation. Source: (17) Cost Recovery Technology Selection Influence on cost recovery: Technology selection Community aspects Management options Policies at local, regional and national levels Support to the community and/or the municipality Economic environment. Technology selection Ratio between capital and recurrent costs (e.g. technology with higher capital costs could but lower O&M costs. clear information about the costs and charges necessary Source: (28) Cost Recovery Community and Management Options Community aspects Demand by and participation of the community influence communitys willingness to assume financial responsibility availability of materials and spare parts within the community Possibility to include community artisans Organisation of community Division of responsibilities Management options

Management by community By water committee inter-village association Each option has different interests and capacities J. Heeb Cost Recovery Policies, Support, Willingness to Pay Policies at local, regional and national levels Different policies influence cost recovery subsidies for poorer people. Regulations and tariffs for public services like water supply and sanitation Support to the community or the municipality training in book-keeping and financial management may be necessary Communities may need support from external experts Economic environment Inflation etc. Willingness to pay (WTP) expression of the communitys demand strong prerequisite for the financial sustainability of a water supply system. Tariffs equity, affordability and willingness to pay must be kept in mind Users must be willing and able to pay Cost Recovery Minimizing Cost Minimizing Cost optimize or reduce O&M costs: technology with inexpensive spare parts/ inexpensive operating costs reducing the transport costs for spare parts and chemicals reducing dependence on chemical use

reducing dependence on fuel or electric consumption (solar energy, gravity) organizing preventive maintenance activities where users are also involved installing systematic leakage control applying economies of scale for larger systems (reduces costs for the consumer) applying a control for unaccounted-for water (because of both leakage and bad management) installing proper administrative and financial control mechanisms. Source: (28) Conclusion Childrens Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore Developing countries: Often no established infrastructure for wastewater handling Water, money, and fertilisers are scarce resources while labour is cheap and available. Conditions do not match characteristics of conventional wastewater systems (water intensive + costly infrastructure) Ecological sanitation systems are often locally managed: low transport costs minor requirements for water reuse of nutrients (fertilizer) ecological sanitation may be more appropriate in low-income countries than conventional systems Source: (3)

Ecological sanitation can provide both the poor and the wealthy with sustainable sanitary systems at an affordable cost. END OF MODULE M4-4 J. Heeb (all) FOR FURTHER READINGS REFER TO M4-4 TUTORIAL Dr. Johannes Heeb, International Ecological Engineering Society & seecon international Prof. Dr. Petter Jenssen, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Dr. Ken Gnanakan, ACTS Bangalore, India Katharina Conradin, seecon international 2006 Click here to go to the references part seecon International gmbh ACTS Agriculture -Crafts Trades - Studies BACK TO THE MAIN MENU ++ References (1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Bruecher, J. (2005): ecosan & -nomics: A thinkpiece on the costs and benefits of ecological sanitation. Unpublished Power-Point Presentation. Seminar by Dr. Johannes Heeb: Sustainable Resource Management and socially viable technical innovation, University of Basel, January 2005. Gardner, G. (1997): Recycling organic waste: From urban pollutant to farm resource. Worldwatch Institute, Paper 135, 58p. Jenssen, P.D. et al (2004): Ecological Sanitation and Reuse of Wastewater ecosan. A thinkpiece on ecological sanitation. Agricultural University of Norway, March 2004. UNEP (2004): Financing wastewater collection and treatment in relation to the Millennium Development Goals and World Summit on Sustainable Development targets on water and sanitation. Eighth special session of the Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum Jeju, Republic of Korea, 29-31 March 2004. UNEP/GCSS.VIII/INF/4 Winblad, U. & M. Simpson-Hbert (2004): Ecological Sanitation. Revised and enlarged edition. Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Stockholm, Sweden. Jenssen, P.D. (2005): Ecological Sanitation an overview. PP-Presentation, Course: Appropriate Sanitation for the developing world. 15th of August 2005, Agricultural University of Norway.

Sderberg, H. & Krrman, E. (2003) (Eds.). MIKA. Methodologies for integration of knowledge areas. The case of sustainable urban water management. Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg. In: Refsgaard, K., Jenssen, P. D. & Magid, J. (2005): Possibilities for closing the urban-rural nutrient cycles. In: CAB International (2005): Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Promises (eds. N. Halberg, H.F. Alre, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) Refsgaard, K., Jenssen, P. D. & Magid, J. (2005): Possibilities for closing the urban-rural nutrient cycles. In: CAB International (2005): Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Promises (eds. N. Halberg, H.F. Alre, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) Lystad, H., McKinnon, K. & Henriksen, T. (2002). Organisk avfall som gjdselvare i kologisk landbruk. Resultater fra sprreunderskelser og identifisering av FoU-behov. Jordforsk-report 72-02. In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) Vatn, A. (forthcoming). Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar. In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) Vatn, A. & Bromley, D.W. (1997). Externalities a market model failure. Environmental and Resource Economics 9: 135-151 In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) Werner, Ch (2004): Ecological sanitation principles, urban application and challenges. PP-Presentation. UN Commission on Sustainable Development, 12th Session - New York, 14-30 April M. Maurer, P. Schwegler and T.A. Larsen (2003): Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects of removal and recovery. EAWAG. In: Water Science and Technology Vol. 48 No 1 pp 3746 IWA Publishing 2003. Available at: http://www2.gtz.de/ecosan/download/Nutriens-in-urine.pdf (Accessed 12.11.2005) UNDP (2000). Human Development Report 2000. Oxford University Press. N.Y. In: (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year): ++ References (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year): Economical and ecological benefits of decentralised, small-scale human excreta management system in Nepal. University of Flensburg & University of Hamburg-Harburg. (16) BSP (Biogas Support Program) (no date): An Introduction to Biogas Technology. Kathmandu In: (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year): (17) Werner, Ch. Et al (2006): An ecosan source book for the preparation and implementation of ecological sanitation projects. Unesco/IHP and Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. (18) Cardone, R. and Fonseca, C. (2003): Financing and Cost recovery. Thematic Overview Paper, IRC (International Water and Sanitation Centre). In: Werner et al. (17). (19) SEI (2005):Sustainable Pathways to Attain the MDGs: Addressing the Key Role of Water, Energy and Sanitation. - SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute). In: Werner et al. (17).

(20) Evans, B. (2001) Financing and cost recovery, Sanitation Connection, WSP Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, USA. In: Werner et al. (17). (21) WHO/UNICEF JMP (World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Programme) for Water Supply and Sanitation (2005):Water for life: making it happen. - World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. In: Werner et al. (17). (22) Jnsson, Hkan; Werner, Christine; Otterpohl, Ralf, Rosmarin, Arno; Calvert, Paul and Vinners, Bjrn (2005):ecosan - both economic and eco-sane. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (23) McCann, Bill (2005):The sanity of ecosan. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (24) Mara, Duncan (2005):Duncan Mara responds - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (25) Mara, Duncan (2005):Ecological Sanitation - an unaffordable option?. - WATER 21 April 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (26) Ashworth, John (2005):Support for the dissent. - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (27) Otterpohl, Ralf (2005):A shift to resources management sanitation. - WATER 21 June 2005, IWA (International Water Association) Publishing, London, UK - part of the discussion on ecosan in WATER 21, complete discussion digitally available at: http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf In: Werner et al. (17). (28) Brikk, F. (2000):Operation and Maintenance of rural water supply and sanitation systems A training package for managers and planners. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and World Health Organization. ++ Abbreviations ACTS GTZ

IRC HR MDG TOP UNEP UNICEF WHO WSP WTP Agriculture, Crafts, Trades, Studies German Agency for Technical Cooperation International Water and Sanitation Centre Human Resources Millennium Development Goals Thematic Overview Paper United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Childrens Fund World Health Organisation Water and Sanitation Program (World Bank) Willingness to pay

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • The Caste System

    The Caste System

    Where does this system come from? The most widely accepted theory is that the four basic divisions of the Hindu caste system—the varna—developed in the period 1500-1000 B.C. as a result of the Aryan conquest of India.. The word caste...
  • Installing Template Theme Files

    Installing Template Theme Files

    Build end-to-end architecture for multimedia experience in the network. Auto Smartports. Dynamically configure ports based on the device type detected on the port using Auto Smartports macros. Deployment of Cisco EnergyWise. Cisco Confidential.
  • hubbardworldstudies.weebly.com

    hubbardworldstudies.weebly.com

    Aztec Gods The Aztecs worshiped many different gods. They were a vital part of the Aztec calendar and daily life. The Aztecs paid tribute to different gods depending, in part, on the day, week, month, year, and religious cycle of...
  • Aim To develop a taxonomy (hierarchically structured list)

    Aim To develop a taxonomy (hierarchically structured list)

    Definition of a BCT. aims to change behaviour. is the proposed "active ingredient" of interventions . is the smallest component compatible with retaining the proposed active ingredients
  • Linking People: Collaborations Between Metadata Librarians ...

    Linking People: Collaborations Between Metadata Librarians ...

    Brigham Young University. Utah State Archives. University of Oregon. University of Nevada, Reno. University of Denver. Advisory Board: Kevin Ford, Art Institute of Chicago. Gretchen Gueguen, DPLA. Eric Miller, Zepheira. Philip Schreur, Stanford "Looking Across Donner Lake - To the...
  • Common-Civil Compared - Wake Forest University

    Common-Civil Compared - Wake Forest University

    Common-Civil Compared Which is true - in the Philippines, in Puerto Rico? "American doctrines and theories must control the court … even in the construction of the law of Spain" "We are always inclined to adduce the doctrines of American...
  • Camp 1 - Louisiana Tech University

    Camp 1 - Louisiana Tech University

    The order of the group is the total number of symmetry elements and is given the symbol h. For C. 2v . h = 4. First Column has labels for the irreducible representations. A. 1 A 2 B 1 B....
  • Trans Anal Irrigation - coloplast.co.uk

    Trans Anal Irrigation - coloplast.co.uk

    Coloplast Care patient start pack (Patient guide, step by step guide, DVD) 24 November, 2015. Getting Started - Teaching . Ensure you have all equipment to hand - register patient with Charter Healthcare. Ensure patient is not impacted.