1. M4: Management: Planning, Implementation and Operation M 4-4: Economic Aspects seecon International gmbh ACTS Agriculture -Crafts - Trades - Studies 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 J. Heeb (all) DEMO-VERSION: LINKS TO EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS DO NOT WORK!

2. K. Conradin 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 CD- ROM 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 johannes.heeb@seecon.ch or petter.jenssen@umb.no.johannes.heeb@seecon.chpetter.jenssen@umb.no seecon Credits K. Conradin

3. seecon Credits K. Conradin ecosan Curriculum - Credits Concept and ecosan expertise:Johannes Heeb, Petter D. Jenssen, Ken Gnanakan Compiling of Information: Katharina Conradin Layout:Katharina Conradin Photo Credits:Mostly Johannes Heeb & Katharina Conradin, otherwise as per credit. Text Credits:As per source indication. Financial support:Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) How to obtain the curriculum material Free download of PDF tutorials: www.seecon.chwww.seecon.ch www.ecosan.no www.gtz.de/ecosan Order full curriculum CD:johannes.heeb@seecon.chjohannes.heeb@seecon.ch € 50 (€ 10 Developing Countries) petter.jenssen@umb.nopetter.jenssen@umb.no 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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. Treatment : -pipe system (?) -Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. -Transport to and from treatment facility -sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) -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. Source: adapted from (1)

8. Economic considerations: Costs of Sanitation Systems 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. 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) 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)

9. 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. Treatment : -pipe system (?) -Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. -Transport to and from treatment facility -sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) -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) 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.

10. 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. Treatment : -pipe system (?) -Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. -Transport to and from treatment facility -sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) -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. Source: adapted from (1)

11. 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. Treatment : -pipe system (?) -Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. -Transport to and from treatment facility -sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) -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. Source: adapted from (1)

12. 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. Source: adapted from (1) Treatment : -pipe system (?) -Construction cost: biogas plant, composting facility etc. -Transport to and from treatment facility -sewage treatment system (plant, decentralized construction) -etc.

13. Costs: Conventional Waterborne Sanitation 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) Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

14. ++ Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Investment Cost for Collection 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! 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) Investment Cost of centralised sewer systems Wastewater treatment plant Sewer lines P. Jenssen Source: adapted from (6)

15. ++ Conventional Waterborne Sanitation: Water Cost Source: adapted from (6) “Moreover, 20 - 40 % of the water consumption in sewered cities is due to the water toilet.” (2)

16. 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) Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

17. Ecological Sanitation Systems: Cost Considerations Source: (4) improved traditional practice & hygiene Simple Pit Latrine VIP Latrine Pour Flush Latrine Septic Tank Latrine Sewer Connection with Local Labour Connection to Conventional Sewer Sewer Connection & Secondary WWT Tertiary WWT ECOLOGICAL SANITATION ECOLOGICAL DRY SANITATION WWT = Wastewater Treatment

18. ++ 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:  value of the fertilizers produced could be significant. Payment for sanitation services Source: (5) Back K. Conradin

19. Ecological Systems: Economic Aspects of Resource Recycling Immaterial/ Institutional Structures Material/ Technical Structures Users/ Stakeholders Source: (7)

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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) Further reading P. Jenssen

23. Ecological Systems: Fertilizer Value www.fertilizer.org  Yearly requirement: 135 Mio tons of mineral fertiliser  Conventional sanitation dumps 50 Mio tons of fertiliser equivalents - worth 15 Billion US dollar.” (9)

24. Ecological Systems: External Benefits External Benefits: -(a) economically measurable -(b) not economically measurable 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 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 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 Source: adapted from (1) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer)

25. Ecological Systems: External Benefits External Benefits: -(a) economically measurable -(b) not economically measurable 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 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 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 Source: adapted from (1) Food Security: (a) higher food productivity (a) higher food security (a) less money spent on food (b) better quality of nutrition Direct Economic Benefits (a) Creation of jobs (for construction, maintenance) (a) Creation of economic benefits through the sale of recyclates (compost, fertilizer)

26. Ecological Systems: External Benefits External Benefits: -(a) economically measurable -(b) not economically measurable 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 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 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 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

27. Ecological Systems: External Benefits External Benefits: -(a) economically measurable -(b) not economically measurable 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 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

28. Ecological Systems: External Benefits External Benefits: -(a) economically measurable -(b) not economically measurable 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 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 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

29. 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 production- by 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

30. 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. 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

31. 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) Source: http://www.visadienst.com/html/body_weltkarte_detail.html

32. Financing mechanisms “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) The cost structures of conventional and safe use oriented sanitation systems Source: GTZ (17)

33. 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)

34. 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)

35. Cost Recovery – Community and Management Options Community aspects Demand by and participation of the community influence community’s 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

36. 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 community’s 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

37. 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)

38. Conclusion 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 Ecological sanitation can provide both the poor and the wealthy with sustainable sanitary systems at an affordable cost. Source: (3) Children’s Drawings from Rajendranagar, Bangalore

39. Click here to go to the references part BACK TO THE MAIN MENU seecon International gmbh ACTS Agriculture -Crafts - Trades - Studies 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 J. Heeb (all) END OF MODULE M4-4 FOR FURTHER READINGS REFER TO M4-4 TUTORIAL

40. ++ References (1)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. (2)Gardner, G. (1997): Recycling organic waste: From urban pollutant to farm resource. Worldwatch Institute, Paper 135, 58p. (3)Jenssen, P.D. et al (2004): Ecological Sanitation and Reuse of Wastewater – ecosan. A thinkpiece on ecological sanitation. Agricultural University of Norway, March 2004. (4)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 (5)Winblad, U. & M. Simpson-Hébert (2004): Ecological Sanitation. Revised and enlarged edition. Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Stockholm, Sweden. (6)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. (7)Söderberg, H. & Kärrman, E. (2003) (Eds.). MIKA. Methodologies for integration of knowledge areas. The case of sustainable urban water management. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. 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. Alrøe, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) (8)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. Alrøe, M.T. Knudsen and E.S. Kristensen) (9)Lystad, H., McKinnon, K. & Henriksen, T. (2002). Organisk avfall som gjødselvare i økologisk landbruk. Resultater fra spørreundersøkelser og identifisering av FoU-behov. Jordforsk-report 72-02. – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (10)Vatn, A. (forthcoming). Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar. – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (11)Vatn, A. & Bromley, D.W. (1997). Externalities – a market model failure. Environmental and Resource Economics 9: 135-151 – In: (8) Refsgaard et al. (2005) (12)Werner, Ch (2004): Ecological sanitation – principles, urban application and challenges. PP-Presentation. UN Commission on Sustainable Development, 12th Session - New York, 14-30 April (13)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 37–46 IWA Publishing 2003. Available at: http://www2.gtz.de/ecosan/download/Nutriens-in-urine.pdf (Accessed 12.11.2005) http://www2.gtz.de/ecosan/download/Nutriens-in-urine.pdf (14)UNDP (2000). Human Development Report 2000. Oxford University Press. N.Y. – In: (15) Pokharel, G. R. & Gajurel, D.R. (no year):

41. ++ 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 für 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)Jönsson, Håkan; Werner, Christine; Otterpohl, Ralf, Rosmarin, Arno; Calvert, Paul and Vinnerås, Björn (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (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). http://www.tuhh.de/susan/downloads/water21ecosan_discussion.pdf (28)Brikké, 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.

42. ++ Abbreviations ACTSAgriculture, Crafts, Trades, Studies GTZGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation IRCInternational Water and Sanitation Centre HRHuman Resources MDGMillennium Development Goals TOPThematic Overview Paper UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WHO World Health Organisation WSPWater and Sanitation Program (World Bank) WTPWillingness to pay