Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS...Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS Global M&E Report...

Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS

Global M&E Report 2017 / 2018: Sustainable performance assessment of BORDA DEWATS

1P R E FA C E

Preface

Developing a tailor-made DEWATS M&E

methodology (Global Monitoring Form GMF2;

2017) was an achievement of cross-regional

collaboration and the much needed next step

to generate knowledge on the performance of

DEWATS in a holistic way. Having a methodol-

ogy in place which is focusing on all relevant

sustainability criteria (defined by so-called

Statements of Change) rather than on tech-

nical aspects only, is a major advancement

and asset for our work & credibility - and that

of our partners – in the future.

With the ratification of the Sustainable Devel-

opment Goals (SDGs), BORDA is finally provid-

ed the mandate and framework to continue its

work and act in line with a globally pursued

agenda. The SDGs highlight the importance

and value of quantitative (i.e. measurable)

data for wastewater treatment on country

and global level and, also donor organisations

worldwide further align their funding strate-

gies alongside the SDGs. Hence, being able to

monitor our work on both programmatic and

on system level provides international donor

organisations the much-needed evidence for

successful investments in/scaling-up of de-

centralized sanitation solutions as part of the

(peri-) urban development. Being able to gen-

erate knowledge within the BORDA network

to advance such – so far – limited evidence

is key for the transformational process the

sanitation sector is about to experience in

the decades to come. Internally, this report

offers us the great chance for cross-regional

learning and measuring the impact of our

work: by acknowledging the challenges in

establishing sustainable sanitation services,

this report is an invitation for constructive and

self-critical reflection of our work as part of a

necessary organisational learning and quality

management process. For that reflection to

take place, we need to take specific findings

forward to engage in a few distinct discussions

within the Global Directorate where needed.

On global level, this work also reminds us of

the required and not yet finalized positioning

of BORDA towards:

i DEWATS implementation within the

new programmatic approaches (Livea-

bles cities, integrated Water Resource

Management),

i DEWATS technology upgrades to meet

new legisations and the requirements of

city-wide cluster concepts and

i BORDAs global responsibility for the

correct application and implementation

of DEWATS in the sector

Equally important, such evidence-based con-

clusions and recommendations, if taken up

and disseminated regionally, will also open

the door for increased cooperation with a

variety of stakeholders and sectors beyond

the water and sanitation sector. Therefore,

we would like to see our regions taking up the

courage to disseminate selected findings and

pro-actively showing our work to the world,

with all of its potential and obstacles, in order

to pin down hot spots of further commitment

and to consolidate our positioning as honest

broker in the sanitation sector.

Enjoy the read

BORDA and its BMZ partner network have committed

themselves to professionalism and quality throughout its

programs and fields of expertise, not only since the

formulation of the BNS Quality Policy in 2012.

‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ has long been emphasized

as a crucial business aspect for accountability, credibility

and quality assurance, thus paving the ground for

our future success. Therefore, ‘M&E’ is also reflected in

BORDA’s current ’Mission & Vision’ statement.

Regarding BORDA’s decentralized sanitation solutions,

the DEWATS inventory 2017 was the first step to

structurally extract the knowledge and assets BORDA

has created over the last 30 years across the globe,

and to make it available to our network – and beyond.

Stefan Reuter Andreas Schmidt Alexander Wolf

2 3N AV I G A T E T H E R E P O R T

The report starts off with the very consensed

Excecutive Summary. It highlights positive

findings & challenges, formulated as con-

densed conclusions and recommendations for

either the Global directorate (GD) or country

offices. This is done to best direct the reader

to the most relevant chapters and findings.

Please always refer to the specific thematic

sections (Statements of Change – ‘SoC’s) to

understand where results, conclusions and

recommendations derive from (Chapter 3).

Thematic sections (Statements of Change) are

always structured as follows:

! Where suitable/available, results and/or parameters are further explained by so-called Background/’Soft’ information. This is information/experience from the regions/

senior staff that puts potentially surprising results in a different light by adding some not-obvious/well-known reasons. Such information is highlighted in boxes and indicated by this icon.

Navigate the report

First, the global evaluation result (Pie chart)

for the SoC is presented, combining all related

parameters and objectives, to an overall score

for the SoC.

Then, a ‘per country’ evaluation for that SoC

is provided (Bar chart).

Secondly, to highlight specific findings for

a SoC, the most often occurring responses

for parameters (i.e. the ones which had the

biggest impact) are shown.

Thirdly, specific (managerial/technical) rec-

ommendations for the SoC are provided.

Picture: Tanzanian Building Agency (TBA) Housing Development Project, Bunju, Dar es Salaam. On-site wastewater management system (designed by BORDA Tanzania) with simplified sewers, biodigester, ABR, PGF, vortex and polishing pond.

4 5G L O S S A R Y

Few definitions, existing in parts already but

useful to be repeated, help to put the M&E

activities into context and understand the

evaluation:

9 Statements of Change (SoC) have been

identified as being crucial for the

comprehensive evaluation of BORDA

DEWATS. Their formulation is based on

the sustainability criteria for small-scale

sanitation systems as defined by ISF through

previous work (Functioning Technology,

Effective Management, Sustaining Demand

and Sustainable Financing). All SoCs were

jointly elaborated by BORDA’s M&E team,

BORDA’s Global Directorate and country

directors in 2016.

Each SoC is defined by 1 to 3 Objectives.

Objectives consist of Prioriy Indicators (PI)

which in turn are devided into Parameters.

Parameters are in most cases the exact

questions as asked during field surveys.

COD - Chemical oxygen demand – is

commonly used at BORDA to express the

level of organic wastewater pollution.

For M&E activities, COD as parameter is

considered the minimum required indicator

for analytical effluent qualification. Additional

indicators (turbidity, nutrient concentrations)

are desirable and suggested, but are not

enforced by the M&E program to keep the

costs for M&E efforts at a minimum.

Management entity (m.e.) The management

entity is a person or a group of people having

the responsibility for all required managerial

tasks relating to DEWATS O&M after handover

(financial administration, employing an

operator, organizing repairs etc). It typically

consists of members of the served community,

institution or SME, the household owner or an

external or governmental agency.

Operator The system operator is defined as

the ‘person/caretaker/operator assigned and

responsible for O&M activities’ and can be a

community member, an employee (of SME or

institution), the house-owner or an external

system provider.

The evaluation method differentiates between

an operator and ‘one or more people without

O&M responsibility taking care of facility’

to cover the situation often observed in the

field where a formal operator does not exist

but some O&M is done by others.

Project types have been re-defined for the

Global DEWATS Inventory in 2017 to have

a standardized description for all BORDA

projects. Here a few selected definitions:

‘CSC - Community sanitation centres’ are

public or semi-public (e.g. in schools or

hospitals) toilet blocks, generally including

showers and laundry areas.

‘RES - Residential DEWATS’ treat domestic

wastewater, e.g. from residential apartments,

single houses or settlements. Community

Sanitation Centres, including public toilets,

connected to DEWATS are also considered as

residential projects.

‘SME DEWATS’ treat the grey- and/ or

blackwater as well as organic industrial

effluent of SME, such as public and private

hospitals (no medical wastewater streams),

slaughterhouses, animal husbandries, food

production, markets, offices, hotels, hostels

and resorts as well as other industries.

‘Institution DEWATS’ treat the grey- and/ or

blackwater of public and private institutions

such as schools and universities (including

vocational schools, orphanages, child centres

and student dormitories), religious centres,

prisons, and all institutions which are not

considered as small and medium enterprises

(SME).

BORDA’s mission and vision according to

BORDA’s mission & vision statement (2017),

all DEWATS are assumed to have the project

objectives of ‘environmental health’ and

‘improvement of living conditions of the

disadvantaged’.

‘Disadvantaged’ in this evaluation method

refers to people with ‘low income according to

project planning’ in order to avoid the difficulty

of formulating a general valid definition for

poverty.

Specific O&M practices There are no clearly

defined standards on DEWATS O&M practices

across all BORDA regions against which to

evaluate ME data. The following definitions

were elaborated by reviewing existing BORDA

SOPs and handbooks as well as outside

publications. These definitions represent a

first draft for global benchmarks on acceptable

DEWATS O&M practices.

The following activities were considered

important for SoC 5 ‘Functioning maintenance

and operation’ and were defined as follows:

Sludge disposal i Safely buried

In specific situations sludge may be safely

buried1 close to the DEWATS. Safely buried

sludge should be covered by at least 30

cm of uncontaminated topsoil. This leads

to anaerobic conditions inside the sludge

helping to further stabilise it, removing smells

and creating a safe pathogen barrier to the

top. Buried sludge should not be disturbed for

a minimum of 3 years to avoid contact with

buried pathogens.2

i Reused

About safe reuse of wastewater sludge (Still

et al, 2012):’Agricultural use at agronomic

rates is permitted if stability class 1 or 2 is

achieved. Vegetables shall not be grown which

are consumed raw, that touch or are below the

soil/sludge mixture or have harvested parts

below the soil surface. Crops whose edible

parts do not touch the soil/sludge mixture,

shall not be harvested until 90 days after

the last sludge application. Animals shall

not be grazed on land until 90 days after the

last sludge application. Notably, there are no

restrictions on the production of industrial

crops (e.g. timber).’

Since raw DEWATS sludge never reaches

class 2 requirements, it should not be used

for agriculture, even when following the rules

for ‘safe reuse’ above.

1 Based on information in Still et al (2014) and ‘DEWATS Operation and Maintenance Manual’.

2 For more details on correct burial technique see Still et al (2014) p. 120 – 122.

i On land, not safely reused or buried

Unsafe on-site burial:

] Burial holes in very sandy or

gravelly soils because of the potential of

groundwater contamination.

] Burial holes on eroded banks or

cutaways where activity could erode

the vertical face into the sludge itself,

exposing pathogens.

] Burial holes located within 15m of a

stream or well.

Scum disposal i Sealed into domestic solid waste

collection

Sealed means at least three layers of knotted

water-tight plastic bags

i Safely stored

Safely stored in a water- and air-tight

container, placed on shaded, stable ground

and inaccessible to animals and children

i Safely buried

Dispose the scum safely into a pit, which is at

least 10 meters away from dug or bore wells.

Cover with at least 30 cm of uncontaminated

topsoil.

Solid waste disposal i Sealed into domestic solid waste

collection

Sealed at least by three layers of knotted

water tight plastics bags

i Safely stored

Safely stored in a water- and air-tight

container, placed on shaded, stable ground

and inaccessible to animals and children

i Safely buried

Dispose the waste safely into a pit, which is at

least 10 meters away from dug or bore wells.

Cover with at least 30 cm of uncontaminated

topsoil.

Glossary

6 7T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S6

Executive Summary — 8

1 Introduction — 14

1.1 Objectives of the BORDA M&E program — 15

1.2 Objectives of this report — 15

1.3 Project selection process — 16

1.4 Visited projects — 17

1.5 Team members involved — 19

2 BORDA’s M&E methodology — 20

2.1 Evaluation matrix — 21

2.2 Scoring — 22

2.3 Assumptions made during evaluation method development — 24

2.4 Data quality-assurance (QA) — 25

2.4.1 Data plausibility testing — 25

2.4.2 Confirmation of draft results between HQ and regions — 25

2.4.3 QA for wastewater concentration measurements — 25

3.4.5 Project specific objective ‘Pre-treat ww before discharge to solid-free sewer’ — 41

3.4.6 Project specific objective ‘Reduction of O&M costs’ — 42

3.5 SoC 4: Functioning technology – systems are operating as intended — 44

3.5.1 Statement of Change structure — 44

3.5.2 Result overview on Statement of Change level — 44

3.5.3 Parameters with strong impact — 45

3.5.4 Recommendations regarding strong impact Parameters — 47

3.6 SoC 5: Functioning maintenance - systems are maintained as intended — 49





3.7 SoC 6: Sustaining demand - system is available, used to capacity and acceptable — 57





3.8 SoC 7: Effective management - active and accountable management entity and operator — 60





3.9 SoC 8: Sustainable financing – sufficient income to cover all short and long term costs — 68





3.10 SoC 9: Quality planning, design and construction — 74





4a Appendix A: M&E Matrix structure and Parameter responses

4b Appendix B: Per project average SoC scores

3 Evaluation results — 26

3.1 Global overview across all SoCs — 27

3.2 SoC 1: The sanitation service maintains or improves environmental health — 29





3.3 SoC 2: The sanitation service improves the living conditions of communities — 33





3.4 SoC 3: The service achieves project specific impact — 37



3.4.3 Project specific objective ‘Produce and use biogas’ — 39

3.4.4 Project specific objective ‘Reuse of wastewater’ — 40

Table of Contents

8 9E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

This internal report is intended for BORDA

management on global, regional and country

level.

The 2017/2018 edition is BORDAs first global

M&E report of its kind; its dissemination the

second last step required to complete the M&E

program’s learning cycle by finally translating

the findings into evidence-based corrective

action. All data and observations were

collected by trained staff and conclusions and

recommendations were supported by valuable

knowledge from our network to understand

‘the context behind’ whenever possible. The

global M&E report is intended to be published

in one-year intervals.

The report’s objectives are to highlight general

areas of strength and concern of existing DEWATS

projects, allow for evidence-based global

(programmatic) and local corrective action,

motivate cross-regional learning and identify

topics of possible future in-depth analysis.

Specifically, this report evaluates project

outcomes and impacts in these areas:

Environmental health, Improved living

conditions of served communities, Project

specific impact, Functioning technology,

Functioning maintenance, Sustaining demand,

Effective management, Sustainable financing,

Quality of planning, design and construction.

The underlying M&E methodology was

developed in cooperation with the Institute

for Sustainable Futures (ISF). It is based on

the most relevant sustainability criteria for

small-scale sanitation systems and BORDA’s

M&E requirements as specified by BORDA’s

Global Directorate and country directors in

2016.

In total, 140 systems have been monitored

between April 2017 and March 2018 in 11

countries (Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Lesotho,

Tanzania, Zambia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,

Philippines and Vietnam). 123 systems were

conventional DEWATS systems, 14 consisted

of prefab modules and three designs included

both module types.

Recommendations for the Global Directorate

(GD) are expected to motivate HQ initiated

discussions regarding i) required definitions

or standards and ii) programmatic decisions

and the positioning of BORDA where required.

Recommendations for country directors highlight

areas of DEWATS performance which require

corrective actions depending on countries.

Environmental health (SoC1)

i C1. Globally, effluent COD concentrations

of many systems (67%) don’t fulfill respective

national discharge standards, as they are valid

at present.

R1. Promote the concept of progressive

implementation and engage in discussions

on appropriate national discharge standards.

(All countries, GD)

i C2. In 45% of visited systems, effluent

COD concentrations are above BORDA

internal discharge standards (200 mg COD/l

for anaerobic effluent, 80 mg COD/l for

aerobic effluent).

R2a. Perform in-depth investigations

(country engineers, available R&D staff) to

identify probable reasons for high effluent

concentrations where those are difficult to

comprehend. (All countries)

R2b. Validate the correctness of the

currently widely used definition of aerobic

treatment/effluent when referring to PGF

installations (GD).

i C3. Field observations showed that

practices of handling and disposal of the non-

liquid DEWATS waste streams scum, sludge

and solid waste are unsafe in 21%, 35% and

22% of the investigated cases, respectively.

So far, there is no global BORDA standard

regarding those practices.

R3. Discuss and decide on the here suggested

definitions on safe handling of waste streams.

Update training materials and emphasize the

importance during workshops. (GD)

i C4. For a large number of visited systems

(44%), existing effluent concentration values

were either not considered reliable because

they were measured by external laboratories

of questionable quality (11%) or no effluent

samples were taken in the first place because

of budget constraints (34%).

R4a. Internal laboratories are still

considered the most reliable option. If

external laboratories are considered, their

quality assessment must be completed before

relying on the laboratories. A guideline how

to proceed is available. (All countries)

R4b. Discuss and decide whether COD

measurements should be mandatory for each

M&E visit (see p.27/28 ). (GD)

i C5. So far, neither nutrient nor pathogen

measurements are part of the methodology,

yet both are crucial to appropriately describe

DEWATS’ impact on environmental health.

Also, the topic of GHG contributions by

DEWATS is not touched in any way.

R5. Discuss and decide whether nutrient

& pathogen concentrations or the topic of

GHG emissions should be included in future

evaluations (see p.32). (GD)

Improving livingconditions (SoC2)

i C1. 18% of all visited residential systems do

not cater for a majority of poor people, although

BORDAs mission statement is: “Aim of all BORDA

activities is to support poor people to establish a

life in a healthy and liveable environment”. Also,

in 10% of cases, the predominant sanitation

option before project implementation was

already classified as ‘improved’.

R1: Discuss and potentially adapt

BORDAs mission statement and internal

communication glossary to ensure that all

future projects align with it. (GD)

i C2. Difficult access for elderly and

disabled was observed at numerous projects

which include sanitation facilities, especially

in Tanzania and Zambia.

R2. Improve/highlight the importance of

access to the sanitation facilities in future

projects. Cross regional learning opportunity

exists with Cambodia, where all such systems

are designed with good access for elderly and

disabled. (Tanzania, Zambia)

C3a. The specific project objectives to

1) improve the previous sanitation options

and 2) to minimize the exposure to fecal

pathogens for the surrounding communities,

were largely met throughout projects, globally.

C3b. Exposure to pathogens was found

to be not well or only moderately managed at

residential systems (apartments and multiple

houses) in 7 and 18 cases, respectively.

R3b. Discuss within country teams the

actual pathogen exposure risks for surrounding

communities in the identified projects and – if

necessary – find solutions to minimize the

exposure risks for system users and their

neighbours. (Afghanistan, Indonesia)

Executive summary

10 11E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Project specific impact (SoC3)

i C1. The evaluation of project specific

impacts showed very different results,

depending on the objective.

i C1a. ‘Produce and use of biogas’ has been

evaluated with ‘cautious’ or ‘bad’ in (83%; n=29)

of the visited systems, either due to biogas not

reaching the appliances or not being used in

the first place. However, all visits in Zambia

indicated regular use of biogas.

R1a. Investigate why biogas is not used

and/or does not reach appliances. (India, Nepal,

Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia, Vietnam)

Discuss how relevant the appropriate

and rigorous use and promotion of biogas is

for BORDA, also concerning its positioning

regarding climate friendly technologies.

Decide next steps (see p.39). (GD)

i C1b. ‘Re-use of wastewater’. The objective

is met for most (88%; n=51) of the visited

systems.

R1b. Emphasize the importance of

accurate project objective definitions in

Nepal, where, in many cases in which reuse

is stated as one of the project objectives,

wastewater is actually not being reused at all.

i C1c. ‘Pre-treat ww before discharge to

solid-free sewer’ has been achieved in 31%

of the 13 projects with this objective for

which all required data was available. The

main reasons for poor performance scores are

minor building structure damage and under- or

overload. (see p. 41 for the used indicators and

discuss if considered not suitable)

R1c. Repair systems with minor building

structure damages in Zambia.

C1d. ‘Reduction of maintenance costs’ has

been achieved in all projects where the

objective has been initially set.

Functioning technology (SoC4)

i C1. Lack of COD effluent data (see SoC1;

C4 and R4)

i C2. 7 visited systems (1 in Zambia, 6 in

India) were found to not treat any wastewater

at all, 2 of which are repaired and fully

functional by the time this report is written.

R2a. Investigate reasons why 5 systems

don’t treat any wastewater at all and, if

possible, initiate corrective action (India).

R2b. Discuss and define what ‘corrective

action’ means for BORDA. Discuss and

develop a protocol for future financing and

implementation of required corrective actions

and strategies how to deal with factors that

are beyond BORDAs control. (GD)

i C3. Where COD measurements were

taken from reactor effluents, BORDA’s

internal standards for anaerobic and

aerobic reactor effluent were met in

70% and 49% of systems, respectively.

Note: Compliance to national discharge

standards is not considered in this SoC in

order to evaluate ‘functioning technology’ of

all systems against a common and appropriate

benchmark.

R3. (see SoC1; R2)

i C4. The utilisation rates in almost half of

the systems (42%; n=103) are either too low or

too high (i.e. user numbers being either below

66% or above 133% design value). This does

not seem to depend on system age or type

(with the exception of CSCs, where 10 out of

11 systems are underloaded).

R4a. Identify reasons for low utilisation

rates (especially in India).

R4b. Consider the development of

technical solutions to make systems more

adaptable to varying loads (e.g. designs with

several treatment trains which can easily be

by-passed or include space for additional

modules in future). (GD)

i C5. Biogas appliances & usage (see SoC3;

R1a)

i C6. 14% of 134 systems experience severe

flow surges and 19% experience some form

of related issues.

R6. Continue the development of

functional storm-water diversion options for

large scale roll-out. (GD)

The wastewater type discharged to (by far)

most systems matches design

assumptions (96%).

Functioning maintenance (SoC5)

i C1. Overall, system maintenance is

a challenge in all investigated countries

(although less pronounced in Afghanistan,

Cambodia and Indonesia).

i C2a. Almost no or only minor physical

damages to the building structures (not

affecting operation or safety) are observed.

i C2b. 4% of visited systems however are

severly damaged.

R2b. Initiate corrective action for 11

systems with severe structural damage. (India,

Nepal, Lesotho, Tanzania, Vietnam)

i C3a. Desludging of systems (not

underloaded and operating more than 3 years)

took place in 43% of the 56 visited systems.

(All countries)

R3a. Communicate with m.e.’s to

understand and share across the network

why systems are often not desludged within

3 years of operation and to initiate short-term

desludging of systems where needed. (Most

countries)

C3b. Good access to desludging service

providers was observed for almost all

systems (94%).

i C4. Filter blockages were observed at 11

HGFs (14% of all visited HGF) (India)

R4. Investigate and share across the

network observed reasons for filter blockages.

Remediate blocked filters. (India, Nepal,

Lesotho, Tanzania and Zambia)


network observed reasons for insufficient

sewer system maintenance. Initiate repairs

where needed. (India, Nepal, Indonesia)

i C5. Sewer system maintenance was

insufficient in 23% of the 42 systems at which

maintenance was needed in the past. Major

issues were insufficiently repaired in 28%

of the 38 systems. Broken pipes/manholes,

clogging, blockages and bad smell were the

most common issues. (India, Nepal, Indonesia)

i C6. Biogas system maintenance in general

is not good. Major points relate to missing

pressure gauge installation (71%), biogas not

reaching the stove (51%) or, when unused, not

being flared off (92%).

R6a. Investigate and share across the

network observed reasons for poor biogas

system maintenance. Initiate repairs where

needed (India, Nepal, Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia,

Vietnam)

R6b. Emphasize the relevance and

benefits of biogas usage during m.e. and

operator training materials. (GD)

C7. Pump maintenance seemed to work

very well in most cases (86%).

i C8. Incorrect grease trap dimensioning

and maintenance at one system (SME-

restaurant) lead to complete blockage of the

reactors.

R8. Detailed design and maintenance

guidelines for grease traps should be

disseminated amongst regions and their

importance stressed amongst engineers

(especially for systems treating effluents from

food industry or restaurants). (GD)

12 13

Sustaining demand (SoC6)

i C1. Too low utilization rates (i.e. <66% of

designed rate) are an issue at a significant

number of systems. (34%; n=103) (see SoC 4; R4)

i C2. At 43% of the 21 visited sanitation

centres more (at times far more!) than 20 users

are using one toilet.

R2. Discuss adequate users per toilet

ratios depending on project type and (if nec-

essary) review design recommendations. (GD)

C3. Cultural acceptability appears high

across all systems: in 136 out of 139 cases

(98%), utilisation rates are either high

enough to indicate ‘good acceptance’ or too low

utilisation rates are due to other reasons than

(cultural) ‘in-acceptance’.

Effective management (SoC7)

i C1. Almost all systems (99%) have a

management entity (m.e.) (for the definition

of m.e., see glossary).

R1. Investigate why in two cases no

management entity exists and initiate

corrective action. (India)

i C2. 10% of visited systems do not have an

operator or person that is taking up the tasks

of the operator.

R2. Investigate reasons for non-existence

of designated operators, initiate corrective

action and share lessons learned. (Afghanistan,

India, Nepal, Tanzania, Indonesia)

i C3. There is no global BORDA standard

for the type and content of m.e. trainings.

Data indicates that: (i) the types of trainings

received by m.e. vary a lot across (and

sometimes within) countries and (ii) m.e.s are

often not aware of important responsibilities

such as financial administration and O&M /

operator management.

R3. Discuss and define minimum

requirements for m.e. training modules,

conduct workshops, emphasize the relevance

of trainings for project sustainability and

provide templates for facilitation. (GD)

i C4. Field observations showed that the

onsite documentation of O&M activities

(financial administration, O&M, responsibility

definitions) is missing in 40%, 72% and 21%

of investigated cases, respectively.

R4. Discuss and decide whether onsite

documentation should be emphasized during

training modules for system managers. (GD)

i C5. The operators' awareness regarding

responsibilities is limited.

R5. Discuss and define minimum require-

ments for operator training modules. (GD)

i C6. 17% of operators receive no payment

(excluding household systems).


network observed reasons why operators

receive no payment. Emphasize operator

costs as part of general O&M costs (see SoC8).

(India, Nepal, Lesotho, Zambia, Laos, Philippines,

Vietnam)

Sustainable financing (SoC8)

i C1. 6% of visited systems have no income

source which could contribute to the O&M

budget (for this evaluation, household

systems are assumed to always have an

income source).

R1. Investigate reasons why some projects

have no source of income to cover operational

costs. (India, Lesotho, Zambia, Vietnam)

i C2. In roughly half of the projects (44%;

n=133), an O&M budget was not defined. This

was observed for most project types.

R2. Discuss and decide whether an O&M

budget definition by the local authority,

management entity, members of community

or owner should be compulsory part of the

hand-over procedure of DEWATS (GD)

i C3. Globally, O&M expenses can be

covered in most cases. In some countries

however, solutions for irregular/major O&M

expenses often do not exist and irregular/

major as well as regular O&M expenses have

often not been covered in the past.

R3. Investigate and share lessons

learned across the network why irregular/

major and regular O&M expenses are not

covered. Identify and implement solutions

where needed (cases exist in all countries, but

especially in India, Nepal, Tanzania, Lesotho,

Vietnam).

C4. Where user fees are part of the income

sources (Afghanistan, Nepal, Tanzania,

Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines),

the associated processes (agreement on fees,

responsibilities, collection) work well to very well

(exception Afghanistan, where often fees are not

collected).

Planning, design, documentation (SoC9)

i C1. Estimation of O&M costs is not

included in the project documentation of

62% of visited projects. Countries in which

O&M cost estimation is never contained in

project documentation are Lesotho, Zambia,

Indonesia, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam.

In India, for most projects such information

is not available through available project

documentation.

R1. Discuss and decide whether an O&M

cost estimation should become compulsory

part of project planning and documentation

(GD)

i C2. For 50% of projects, no or only 1 out

of the 3 documents considered important for

this evaluation (Design drawing, Design spread

sheet, Feasibility study) was available in the

respective BORDA offices.

R2a. Discuss and decide which documents

and project information should become

compulsory part of project documentation

(see p.73) (GD)

R2b. Emphasize the importance of

complete sets of project documentation,

(Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Lesotho, Tanzania,

Zambia, Vietnam)

C3. For 98% of 118 systems, designs

observed in the field matched the original

design.

i C4. Per capita investment costs of 38

residential systems were found to vary

considerably, ranging from approx. 50 to 300

EUR per user (calculated with design number

of users).

R4a. Discuss and decide whether infor-

mation on per capita investment costs would

support BORDAs project management. (GD)

R4b. Discuss and decide whether bench-

marking and evaluating such costs would

support BORDAs project management. (GD)

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

15I N T R O D U C T I O N

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives of the BORDA M&E programBORDA’s M&E program was initiated by BORDA in order to:

i Monitor the functionality of installed systems and the quality of sanitation

service delivery

i Improve availability of project data in order to quantify and qualify:

] The impact over the service on the beneficiaries’ living conditions and

the environment

] BORDA’s collective outputs and outcomes across the installed systems

i Learn from M&E to improve functionality of installed systems and sanitation

service (quality management)

i Learn from M&E to improve the impact of future system implementation and

programs (quality management)

1.2 Objectives of this reportThis internal report is intended for BORDA management on global, region

and country level.

It is intended to be published in one-year intervals.

Its objectives are to:

i highlight general areas of strength and concern of existing DEWATS

projects by providing insights into

] global Statement of Change (SoC) performance

] country specific Statement of Change (SoC) performance

] project type specific differences

i allow for evidence-based global (programmatic) and local corrective action

i motivate cross-regional learning

i identify topics of possible future in-depth analysis

Specifically, this report will focus on the evaluation of project outcomes and

impacts in the areas of 9 SoCs:

i Environmental health

i Improved living conditions of served communities

i Project specific impact

i Functioning technology

i Functioning maintenance

i Sustaining demand

i Effective management

i Sustainable financing

i Quality of planning, design and construction

The spread or publication of this report or parts of it outside of BORDA,

requires BORDA management approval.

16 17I N T R O D U C T I O N

1.3 Project selection processAll investigated projects are part of the DEWATS inventory

(https://bordahq.sharepoint.com/me/SitePages/DEWATS.aspx).

Projects are selected by regional ME coordinators and directors based on

available ressources and the following ‘must have’ and ‘should have’ criteria:

Must have criteria: i Period of DEWATS operation: > 12 months operation

i Minimum of 6 months between two field visits

i No FSTPs. The current version of the Global Monitoring Form (GMF2.3)

does not allow for monitoring of FSTPs.

i For field investigations to represent normal plant activity, projects are not

to be monitored on public holidays or on the 3 days after public holidays.

Same applies to school holidays, especially for SBS projects.

Should have criteria: i Period of DEWATS operation: > 24 months operation

i A representative sub-group of projects should be monitored considering

the project type, size, geographic location, climate zone, income

groups. For example, if CSC projects represent 20% of 100 existing

projects in one country, but resources only allow for the monitoring

of 10 projects, approx. 2 CSC projects should be visited that year.

Other aspects that are considered during the project selection process: i Distance of projects to one another to minimize travel costs. Monitoring

of regional project clusters is prioritized.

i Possible combination of ME field visits with other activities scheduled

in the same area to minimize travel costs.

1.4 Visited projectsOnly systems which were constructed or implemented with BORDA support

or partners were monitored.

This report evaluates data from a total of 140 systems visited between April

2017 and March 2018 in 11 countries (Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Lesotho,

Tanzania, Zambia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam).

123 systems are conventional DEWATS systems, 14 consist only of prefab

modules and three designs include both module types.

The following 5 figures present information on visited systems per country,

project types, treatment modules, design treatment capacities and years of

operation at time of field visit.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Per

cent

age

of e

xist

ing

syst

ems

Num

ber o

f vis

ited

syst

ems

Visited systems

Percentage of existing systems

Please note: In Figure 1, the 2nd y-axis is – for scaling purposes - showing

the relation of visited vs. overall existing systems as percentage [%] of

existing systems. The percentage gives the reader an idea about the general

representativeness of the dataset.

Figures 2, 4 and 5 provide similar information by showing the number of visited

systems (1st x-Axis) and the number (2nd x-Axis) of overall existing systems.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Num

ber o

f exi

stin

g sy

stem

s

Num

ber o

f vis

ited

syst

ems Residential systems - visited

SME - visitedInstitutional systems - visitedExisting

Figure 1: Number of visited systems per country and the percentage of existing systems visited in 2017

Figure 2: Number of visited systems per project type

18 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120N

umbe

r of t

reat

men

t mod

ules

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

05

101520253035404550

0-5

5-1

010

-15

15 -

2020

-25

25-3

030

-35

35-4

040

-45

45-5

050

-55

55-6

060

-65

65-7

070

-75

75-8

080

-85

85-9

090

-95

95-1

00>

100

Num

ber o

f exi

stin

g sy

stem

s

Num

ber o

f vis

ited

syst

ems

Design treatment capacity (m³/d)

Visited

Existing

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

05

101520253035404550

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >20

Num

ber o

f exi

stin

g sy

stem

s

Num

ber o

f vis

ited

syst

ems

Years of operation

VisitedExisting

At the time of field-visit more than 65% of visited systems operated between

2–6 years.

Figure 3: Total number of treatment modules

Figure 4: Design treatment capacities of the 140 visited systems (values for systems above 100 m³/d are: 103, 130, 150, 188, 225, 349, 418 and 600 m³/d) and of all existing

Figure 5: Years of operation (rounded up) of the 140 visited systems at time of field visit and years of operation of existing DEWATS (n = 2709) in 2017

1.5 Team members involvedThe following BORDA staff was involved in M&E activities 2017/20183:

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Table 1: Staff involvement

1

3 Please note that this list is not exhaustive. Other staff members might have also participated in M&E activities.

Activity Region/country: Staff

Global coordination of M&E activities, questionnaire- and methodology development, including SOPs and training material

HQ: Elli Rodriguez, Nicolas Reynaud, Alex Wolf

Country-wide coordination of M&E activities, including logisitics, staff training, quality assurance and feedback on questionnaires

Africa: Leonidas Bernado Deogratius, Aubrey Simwambi, Angela Kapembwa,

South Asia: Anusha Narayan, Rohini Pradeep, Shreyas Kumar

South East Asia: Dao Thi Hoa Anh, Jenni Kesip, Mirko Dietrich, Monivanh Boulom, Nguyen Quang Vinh, Pham Thi Hai Yen, Ry Borin

West- and Central Asia: Emal Waziri

Field investigations, laboratory analyses, team support

Africa: Diana Tursarinow, Evelyn Herrera Lopera, Eva Schoell, Lekhotla Lebona, Sophia Hibler, Tobias Pomplun, Tsietsi Leteane

South Asia: Sarani Sasidharan, Daniela Schmitz, Sujatha Gaddipatti, Varshini J. Reddy

South East Asia: Bot Khorn, Chhun Sophear, Dwi Maryanto, Ikatri Wulandari, Louise Stephen, Mang Opasith, Marlon Oiga, Mary Evelina Jose, Miftah Huda, Nguyen Thi Ha Chau, Nguyen Thu Van, Nungki Paradita Kartikasari, Rudi Rudiyanto, Somock Keopashath, Trias Windi Hapsari, Truong Ngoc Hien, Vansoukkhy Keosengsay, Vorn Thary,

Data evaluation and reportHQ: Nicolas Reynaud, Andreas Schmidt, Pascal Siemsen, Alex Wolf, Elli Rodriguez, Wilm Mäteling

21B O R D A’ S M & E M E T H O D O L O G Y

2.1 Evaluation matrixThe underlying methodology has been developed by BORDA in cooperation

with ISF (Institute for Sustainable Futures). It is based on sustainability

criteria for small-scale sanitation systems (Functioning Technology, Effective

Management, Sustaining Demand and Sustainable Financing) and BORDA’s

M&E requirements as specified by BORDA’s Global Directorate and country

directors.

Nine Statements of Change (SoC) have been identified as crucial for the

comprehensive evaluation of BORDA DEWATS. Each SoC is defined by 1 to 3

Objectives, shown in Table 2.

Statement of Change Objective

1. The sanitation service maintains or improves environmental health

1.1 Effluent meets discharge standards

1.2 Removed waste is safely disposed or reused

2. The sanitation service improves the living conditions of communities

2.1 Underserved4 people are connected to the sanitation service

2.2 Potential exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding commu-nities is managed

3. The service achieves project specific impact

3 Sanitation service achieves intended Objectives

4. Functioning Technology - systems are operating as intended

4.1 System operating as designed - acceptable loading5 and system hydraulics

4.2 Systems operating as designed - treatment meets BORDA requirements

5. Functioning Maintenance - systems are maintained as intended

5.1 Systems maintained - no major damage

5.2 Maintenance activities occurring as intended

6. Sustaining Demand - system is available, used to capacity and acceptable

6.1 Service is adequately available to users

6.2 Utilisation rate: Service is used to capacity

6.3 Acceptability: Culturally acceptable, users satisfied with system

7. Effective management: Existing, active and accountable management entity and operator

7.1 Active and accountable management entity

7.2 Trained and equipped operator

8. Sustainable Financing: Sufficient ongoing income to cover all short and long term costs

8.1 Regular income

8.2 Sufficient income to cover all short and long term costs

9. Planning, design, construction

9.1 Project design appropriate to context

9.2 Systems built to design

9.3 Acceptable investment cost per user

Table 2: Statement of Change structure

1 2

4 ‘Underserved’ refers to low income households without access to basic sanitation

5 ‘Acceptable loading’ is defined as actual user numbers being between 66 – 133% design value, treatment of intended wastewater type only, signs of feed and effluent flow and no evidence of severe flow surges

2 BORDA’s M&E methodology

22 23

Objectives consist of Prioriy Indicators (PI) which in turn are devided into Parameters. Parameters are in most cases the exact questions as asked during field surveys.

Statement of Change Objective Priority Indicators Parameters

1

1.1 1.1A1.1A.1

1.1A.2

1.1B 1.1B.1

1.2 1.2A 1.2A.1

In the results section, the structure of each SoC is discussed in detail.

Data collection is conducted through surveys on technical design details,

field observations, interviews with the management entity and the operator

and field and laboratory measurements.

2.2 ScoringParameter responses are rated as: ‘good’ (numerical score: 3), ‘caution’

(numerical score: 2), ‘bad’ (numerical score: 1), ‘data not available’ or ‘not

relevant’.

In this report, all scores for Statements of Change, Objectives and Priority

Indicators are calculated by averaging all relevant Parameter response scores.

Averaged scores smaller than 1.5 are rated as ‘Bad’ (red), scores larger than

1.5 to 2.5 as ‘Caution’ (yellow) and scores larger than 2.5 are rated as ‘Good’

(green) (see, for example, Figure 6 or Figure 8).

In case certain extremely negative Parameter responses are given, the score for

all related matrix items (PIs, Objectives, SoC) for that system is automatically

‘bad’. Table 4 summarizes these so called ‘killer criteria’.

If one Parameter response is rated as ‘data not available’ the affected average

is labelled ‘Dataset incomplete’ for that system.

Parameters which often (i.e. for many systems) received positive or negative

scoring and which therefore often affect SoC scores, are listed in the

subchapters ‘Parameters with strong impact’.

Parameter textParameter response rated as ‘killer criteria’

Affected matrix items

SoC Objective PI

Do you observe flow or signs of recent flow (wet piping, etc.) at plant outlet?

No, because piping system is not connected to the plant

SoC 1SoC 2SoC 3SoC 4SoC 5SoC 6

All Objectives of:SoC 1SoC 2SoC 3SoC 4SoC 5SoC 6

All PIs of:SoC 1SoC 2 (2.1C only if sanitation facility is part of project)SoC 3SoC 4 (4.2B only if digester is part of the system)SoC 5Soc 6 (PIs de-pending on system setup)

Do you observe flow or signs of recent flow at plant inlet (wet piping, wet inlet chamber)?


What building structure problems do you observe at treatment system (digester, settler, ABR, AF, HGF/PGF)?

System is clearly not connected to piping

What building structure problems do you observe at treatment system (digester, settler, ABR, AF, HGF/PGF)?

Major physical damage (e.g. large cracks, leakages, broken divider walls); affects operation or safety

5. Functioning Maintenance - systems are main-tained as intended

5.1 System is maintained - no major damage

5.1A No signs of structural damage compromising functionality or waranty aspects

What structural problems with the sanitation facili-ty(ies) (walls, roof and floor) do you observe?

Major physical damage (e.g. large cracks), affecting operation, use or safety.

Does a management entity (m.e.) exist?

No management entity exists

7. Effective man-agement: Existing, active and account-able management entity and operator


7.1A Existence of trained management entity with clarified responsibilities

Is there a person/caretaker/operator assigned and responsible for O&M activities? (in the following called ‘operator’)

No, nobody is assigned and responsible for O&M activities

7. Effective man-agement: Existing, active and account-able management entity and operator


7.2A Existence of trained, equipped operator who knows his responsibilities

What are the income sourc-es contributing to available O&M budget?

None 8. Sustainable Fi-nancing: Sufficient ongoing income to cover all short and long term costs

8.1 Regular income8.2A Regular operation and maintenance expenses (operator salary, material, equipment, elec-tricity and water costs) are covered by income

8.1A O&M budget and/or user fees have been agreed on and are collected8.2A Regular operation and maintenance expenses (operator salary, material, equipment, elec-tricity and water costs) are covered by income

Table 4: Killer criteria and affected matrix items

Table 3: Evaluation matrix structure

B O R D A’ S M & E M E T H O D O L O G Y

24 25

2.3 Assumptions made during evaluation method development

Assumptions had to be made during the development of this evaluation

methodology.

In order to best represent the widely varying field realities and project types

in the 11 countries represented in this study, they were developed together

with numerous BORDA senior staff and country staff members.

The authors are therefore confident that formulations which could lead to

misinterpretation of data have been avoided in most cases.

However, because of the challenges of long-range communication and the

complexity of certain project aspects, some readers may identify mismatches

between the evaluation-methodology/results and the project reality in their

countries. Please help remove potential mismatches by providing us feedback.

The following points represent a list of some major assumptions made during

method development:

Acceptable sludge, scum and solid waste disposal (SoC 1) See glossary for listing

of disposal practices assumed acceptable at DEWATS projects.

Acceptable reactor effluent quality (SoC 1, SoC 4) Effluent concentrations

benchmarks indicating acceptable performance quality are 200 mg COD/ l

for anaerobic effluent and 80 mg COD/ l for aerobic effluent. They are based

on feedback from BORDA Regional Directors and existing R&D data (see table

10 in ‘DEWATS Guide V1_2018-05-09’ for a summary of typical DEWATS reactor

effluent concentrations under tropical climates – the COD benchmark values

are chosen slightly higher to consider the effect of lower temperatures in

non-tropical applications) and discussions with senior engineers.

Acceptable system loading/ utilisation (SoC 4) System loading/ utilisation is

acceptable when the actual user number is between 66 and 133% of the user

number assumed for design.

Acceptable wastewater type discharged to system (SoC 4) The wastewater

type discharged to the DEWATS is acceptable when it matches the design

assumption. Any situation in which blackwater was designed to be treated

by the DEWATS but actually is not, is scored with ‘bad’ since it is assumed

that then, untreated blackwater is discharged to the environment. Most other

situation in which treatment or non-treatment of greywater or non-communal

wastewater does not match system design, is scored as ‘caution’.

M.e. responsibilities (SoC 7) The ‘complete’ list of responsibilities a m.e.

representative should be aware of is: financial administration, coordinating

& arranging financing of major repairs, employing, managing and training an

operator and deciding about additional connections.

Operator responsibilities (SoC 7) The ‘complete’ list of responsibilities an operator

should be aware of is: removing blockages, removing scum, cleaning facility,

desludging, reporting problems to m.e. and collecting fees.

O&M documentation (SoC 7, SoC 8) The ‘complete’ list of O&M related written

documentation existing at a well managed project site are documents for

financial administration (important), operator responsibilities (optional),

performed O&M activities (optional), m.e. meeting minutes (optional), legal

registration of m.e. (optional)

Project documentation (SoC 9) The ‘complete’ set of project documentation

contains at least design drawings, the design spread sheet and the feasibility

study.

M.e. training modules (SoC 9) Traning modules needed for comprehensive m.e.

training are financial training, O&M training and HHE training.

2.4 Data quality-assurance (QA)2.4.1 Data plausibility testingAll submitted surveys were tested for consistency and plausibility in mWater

(IT Platform) before being approved. Unplausibile data and inconsistencies

were then discussed with the respective M&E coordinators and corrected.

Only consistent datasets are included in this report.

2.4.2 Confirmation of draft results between HQ and regionsAfter the first evaluation of all approved data sets, HQ contacted all M&E

coordinators to confirm or rule out specific outliers or inconsistencies. In

cases that distinct results or tendencies could be identified as incorrect, e.g.

due to misunderstanding of the question and answer options, these mistakes

were corrected by HQ referencing the M&E coordinator.

2.4.3 QA for wastewater concentration measurementsSubmitted concentration data was considered reliable enough to be used in

this report if it fulfilled the following criteria:

i Measurements done by BORDA team not by external laboratory (exception:

Cambodia and Tanzania where data from the used external laboratory are

assumed to have been trustworthy in 2017)

i Samples were not taken on days with strong rain (there was no such case

in this dataset)

i Data is plausible: extreme differences between duplicate measurements

as well as extremely high values were double-checked and confirmed or

corrected by M&E coordinators

B O R D A’ S M & E M E T H O D O L O G Y

27E VA L U A T I O N R E S U L T S

3.1 Global overview across all SoCs To start with, we visualized the results for all SoCs over all visited projects

(n=140), i.e. on global level (Figures 6 and 7), to point out key tendencies which

are then elaborated in detail in each SoC Section.

0% 50% 100%

1. Environmental health (n = 81)2. Improving living conditions (n = 100)

3. Project specific impact (n = 75)4. Functioning technology (n = 42)

5. Functioning maintenance (n = 127)6. Sustaining demand (n = 92)

7. Effective management (n = 118)8. Sustainable financing (n = 119)

9. Planning, design, construction (n = 118)

%age of systems with complete datasets

Good Caution Bad

The overall messages conveyed by Figure 6 are that

i for more than 50% of projects with complete datasets, scores are ‘good’

for SoCs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (SoC 4 scores however, are only available for 56

systems)

i ‘Good’ project performance concerning SoCs 1, 7 and 9 occurs in only 40%

or less of visited projects with complete datasets. Strategies for improvement

may therefore be most important concerning these SoCs

i badly performing systems exist (although being a minority in this dataset)

and would require (rather urgent) corrective action.

Figure 7 displays the same information while indicating the magnitude

of incomplete datasets for each SoC. Overall, data collection has

been rather comprehensive for many SoCs already (acknowledging

that this is the first year using a new methodology across 11 countries).

However, the evaluation of SoC 1 and 4 is particularly affected by incomplete

datasets.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1. Environmental health2. Improving living conditions

3. Project specific impact4. Functioning technology

5. Functioning maintenance6. Sustaining demand

7. Effective management8. Sustainable financing

9. Planning, design, construction

Number of systems

Good Caution Bad Dataset incomplete Not relevant

Figure 6: Average SoC scores of investigated systems with complete datasets (‘Good’: score ≥ 2.5, ‘Caution’: 1.5 ≤ score < 2.5, ‘Bad’: score < 1.5)

Figure 7: Average SoC scores of all investigated systems (‘Good’: score ≥ 2.5, ‘Caution’: 1.5 ≤ score < 2.5, ‘Bad’: score < 1.5) (n=140)

3 Evaluation results

28 29E VA L U A T I O N R E S U L T S

‘Incomplete datasets’ mean that ‘data was not available’ – which is neither a

positive or negative weighting.

However, it means that a comprehensive evaluation of these 2 SoCs - for

those projects - is not possible for the time being, and, that the global results

(Figure 6, 7) are based on comparably smaller datasets.

The large numbers of incomplete datasets shown for SoCs 1 and 4 (see Figure

7) are mainly due to missing…

i effluent concentration measurements (SoC 1 and 4)

i information on actual user numbers derived from interviews on site (SoC 4)

! Suggested discussion on GD level D1: Should COD measurements be considered mandatory for

each M&E visit? Without ate least 1 proxy for treatment efficiency, the evaluation of system operation and project impact is bound to be incomplete.

We consider the approach to retrieve information on ‘user numbers’ by asking

the responsible person/management entity still more or feasible than by

conducting flow measurements.

Therefore, this proxy parameter should remain in place and even more emphasis

must be put in gaining answers during the M&E field visits (For details to

understand the precise parameter and response options, see SoC4 and Annex A).

17

36

25

62

Figure 8: Distribution of average scores for SoC 1: Environmental health

3.2 SoC 1: The sanitation service maintains or improves environmental health

3.2.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project impact on environmental health by investigating

effluent quality and safe waste disposal.

Statement of Change

ObjectivesPriority Indicators

Parameters

1. The sanita-tion service maintains or improves environmen-tal health


1.1A The most recent effluent analysis complies with BORDA Standards

If data available and reliable6, does the average effluent COD meet relevant BORDA discharge standards (200 mg/l or 80 mg/l depending whether anaerobic or aearobic effluent)?

1.1B The most recent effluent analysis complies with Local Standards

If data available and reliable does the average efflu-ent, COD meet relevant local discharge standards.7


1.2 Evidence that waste or by-products (sludge, scum, trash, biogas) is safely disposed or reused

Where is the sludge disposed to after desludging?

Where is the scum disposed to after descumming?

Where is the solid waste disposed to after removal from reactors or piping?

For BGD, is unused biogas burned off?

34

! SoCs 1 and 2 indirectly address the BMZ program objective ‘protection of freshwater resources’ (if relevant) by investigating

effluent quality, the disposal of other DEWATS waste streams and the exposure to faecal pathogens of surrounding communities. Specific in-depth investigations on this topic - e.g. on the distance between discharge point and ground water table, soil properties etc. – are currently beyond the scope and technical possibilities of ME field visits

3.2.2 Result overview on Statement of Change levelFigure 8 shows the average SoC 1 scores of all 140 visited systems, globally.

For all details on Objectives, Priority Indicator and Parameter results, refer

to Appendix A.

The large number of incomplete data sets is mainly due to lack of effluent

sampling (40 cases) and laboratory analyes deemed unreliable (15 cases).

Red = ‘Bad’ (score < 1.5), Yellow = ‘Caution’ (1.5 ≤ score < 2.5), Green = ‘Good’ (score ≥ 2.5),Grey = ‘Dataset incomplete’; numbers indicate number of systems per score range

6 Data are considered unreliable if measured in external labs, except in Cambodia and Tanzania

7 Present standards checked in April, 2018

Table 5: Structure of SoC 1 - The sanitation service maintains or improves environmental health.

Picture: DEWATS effluent discharging into river in close vicinity to local communities (Yogyakarta; Indonesia)

30 31

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Anaerobicsystem

effluentconcentration(m

gCO

D/l)

Afghanistan India Indonesia Laos

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Aerobicsystem

effluentconcentration(m

gCO

D/l)

Afghanistan Cambodia India Lesotho Tanzania

Concerning safe disposal of removed waste:

i Out of the 94 cases in which solid waste is removed from systems, in 21

cases (22%) solid waste is disposed unsafely.

i Out of the 77 cases in which systems have been reported to be descummed,

in 16 cases (21%) scum is disposed unsafely.

i Out of the 31 cases in which systems have been reported to be desludged,

in 11 cases (35%) sludge is disposed unsafely.

i Concerning solid waste removal, descumming and desludging, there is

no clear correation with country or system type.

i Biogas, when unused, is almost never flared off (12 out of 13 cases).

There is no clear relationship between system type and safe disposal for

removed waste.

Figure 9 shows the per country distribution of average SoC scores.

0 10 20 30 40 50

AfghanistanIndiaNepal

LesothoTanzaniaZambia

CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Good Caution Bad Datasetincomplete

3.2.3 Parameters with strong impactThe following Parameters had the strongest negative or positive impact.

Concerning effluent standard compliance:

i In 39 out of 58 cases (67%) measured effluent COD concentrations do not

meet local standards (see Figure 10). Concerning this aspect, there is no clear

reation with system type.

i Out of the 78 available system effluent concentration measurements, 35

(45%) do not meet the BORDA standard8 5 (200 mg COD/ l for anaerobic effluent,

80 mg COD/ l for aerobic effluent, Figure 11 and Figure 12). I The dataset shows

no relation between this parameter and system type.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippinesVietnam

Number ofsystems

Belowstandard <20%abovestandard ≥20%abovestandard

Nodata Datanotreliable Nolocalstandards

8 ‘Effluent concentrations benchmarks indicating acceptable performance quality are 200 mg COD/ l for anaerobic effluent and 80 mg COD/ l for aerobic effluent. These are based on existing R&D data (see table 10 in ‘DEWATS Guide V1_2018-05-09’ for a summary of typical DEWATS reactor effluent concentrations under tropical climates – the COD benchmark values are chosen slightly higher to consider the effect of lower temperatures in non-tropical applications) and discussions with senior engineers.’

Figure 9: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 1: Environmental health

Figure 10: Compliance of measured DEWATS effluent COD concentrations to local standards

Figure 11: Measured system effluent concentrations at DEWATS without aerobic treatment step. Each data-point represents one or the average of two measurements per system effluent. 2 datapoints are > 1000 mg COD /l (1675 mg COD/ l, Ammankulam Housing Colony Cluster 2 & 3/ India)

Figure 12: Measured system effluent concentrations at DEWATS with HGF. Each data-point represents one or the average of two measurements per system effluent

E VA L U A T I O N R E S U L T S

BORDA-internal standard

BORDA-internal standard


3.2.4 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersChallenges concerning this SoC were observed at systems from all countries.

Possible follow-up actions:

i in-depth investigation (with country engineers or involved R&D staff) to

identify probable reasons for high and low effluent concentrations.

i in-depth investigation to identify probable reasons for low desludging,

descumming and solid waste removal frequencies and reasons for inadequate

disposal

i BORDA internal discussion and definition of proper and safe handling of

waste streams to update training material for system managers.

i For a large number of visited systems (62 out of 140, 44%) existing effluent

concentration values were either not considered reliable because they were

measured by external laboratories of questionable quality (15 out of 140,

11%) or no effluent samples were taken in the first place because of budget

constraints (47 out of 140, 34%).

Therefore an internal protocol for the quality assessment of external laboratory

data needs to be developed. Additionally, the practice of sample stabilization

(not followed for most data presented in this report) will need to be adhered to.

! Suggested discussion on GD level D2: How important is the monitoring (cost-benefit) of the effluents’

nutrient and/or pathogen concentrations with regard to the future importance of re-use aspects & environmental health of small scale sanitation systems and BORDAs positioning (Mission &Vision)?

3.3 SoC 2: The sanitation service improves the living conditions of communities

3.3.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project impact on the living conditions of underserved

and disadvantaged9 connected communities as well as the project impact on

the living conditions of surrounding communities.

9

31

58

42

Figure 13: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 2: Improving living conditions

Picture: Test of submersible pump in Chachchamal Healing Center; highlighting the need for appropriately treated wastewater prior to discharge into the environment (Chamchamal, Kurdistan)

Statement of Change


Parameters

2. The sani-tation service improves the living conditions of communities

2.1 Underserved people are connected to the sanitation service

2.1A Majority of sanita-tion users previously had no or basic access to sanitation

Before this system existed, what was the sanitation option used (or if SME, the wastewater discharge method) by the majority of users connected to the system?

2.1B Majority of sanita-tion users are classified as disadvantaged (ie. Income)

What proportion of users are classified/registered as low income according to Project planning/FS?

2.1C Unrestricted CSC access for disabled and elderly

Is access to the sanitation facility difficult or impossible for disabled/ elderly?

2.2 Potential exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding communities is managed

2.2 Exposure to faecal pathogens for sur-rounding communities is managed

Is the exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding communities managed?

3.3.2 Result overview on Statement of Change level

Figure 13 shows the average SoC 2 scores for all 140 visited systems, globally.


to Appendix A.

Red = ‘Bad’ (score < 1.5), Yellow = ‘Caution’ (1.5 ≤ score < 2.5), Green = ‘Good’ (score ≥ 2.5),Grey = ‘Dataset incomplete’;

numbers indicate number of systems per score range

Table 6: Evaluation structure for SoC 2 - The sanitation service improves the living conditions of communities.

1

9 ‘Underserved and disadvantaged’ refers to low income households without access to basic sanitation



0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i In some cases systems don’t cater for underserved and disadvantaged

] In 15 out of 82 (18%) cases where systems were designed for

communities (mostly systems connected to several households - 13 out

of 15), most community members are not part of the low income segment.

This is the case for 12 out of 13 investigated systems in Indonesia (see

Figure 15).

! ‘Background information’: ‘Low income’ population in Indonesia BORDA guided DEWATS implementations in Indonesia are part of

the national SANIMAS program. BORDA’s role is an advisory one, both on local and/or national governmental level, but final decision making in terms of where and what kind of projects to implement is up to the local government bodies.

Slum areas with – by definition - a low income population are not part of the SANIMAS program due to their illegal status and ineligibility to receive public infrastructure funding, in most cases.

0 10 20 30 40 50

AfghanistanIndia

NepalLesotho

TanzaniaZambia

CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number of systems

Majority (> 50%)

Some (25 - 50%)

Few (<25%)

Info not available

No proj. doc.

Not relevant, no human "users" -e.g. some SME

] The previous sanitation option was already classified as improved

in 12 out of 119 (10%) cases. This concerns significant fractions of visited

systems in Tanzania and the Philippines (see Figure 16). This aspect does

not clearly depend on system type – it is observed at residential, SME

and certain institutional systems.

] In 11 out of 24 (46%) visited sanitation centres, there is no easy access

for elderly and disabled (Tanzania 2; Zambia 9). All visited systems in

Afghanistan (1), India (1), Lesotho (1), Laos (1) and Cambodia (9) had good

access.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

ImprovedsanitationoptiondidNOTexistbeforeprojectstartImprovedsanitationoptionexistedbeforeprojectstartNotrelevant,wastewater-stream didnotexistbeforeNodata

i The exposure to fecal pathogens for the surrounding communities is

mostly well managed. All seven situations in which exposure is not well

managed as well as most of the 18 cases in which exposure management is

scored as medium occur in Afghanistan and Indonesia at residential systems

(appartments and multiple houses) because:

] Systems with post-treatment and discharge to stream or river used

by community close downstream (100m): 4 cases

] Systems without post-treatment and reuse for fish farming: 1 case

] Systems without post-treatment and reuse for vegetable production:

18 cases

] Systems without post-treatment and discharge to stream or river used

by community close downstream (100m): 2 cases

] Systems without post-treatment and discharge to stream or river

which is dry during some parts of the year: 6 cases

Figure 16: Occurance of improved sanitation options before project implementations

Figure 15: Responses given to the question ‘What proportion of users are classified/registered as low income according to project documentation?’

Figure 14: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 2: Improving living conditions


3.3.4 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersPossible follow-up actions:

i Confirm or adapt BORDAs mission statement at managerial level and

make sure most projects are aligned with it at local level.

] Indonesian SoC scores (those of Afghanistan, Nepal and Laos to

smaller extent) are affected in this data-set due to systems at which

small fractions of system-users are classified/registered as low ‘income’ .

] Tanzanian and Philippines SoC scores (those of India, Lesotho, Cam-

bodia and Laos to smaller extent) are affected in this data-set due to

systems at which sanitation options were classified as ‘improved’ before

project start.

i Improve access to the sanitation facilities for (elderly and) disabled in

Tanzania and Zambia. Define ‘improved access’ design options depending on

local and social factors; exchange with the technical team in Cambodia (all

9 visited systems had good access in Cambodia).

i Discuss within country teams the actual pathogen exposure risks for

surrounding communities in the identified projects and – if necessary – find

solutions to minimize the exposure risks for system users and their neighbours.

3.4 SoC 3: The service achieves project specific impact

3.4.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC identifies project impacts which are detailed in the project

documentation, as embedded into a country’s program, and go beyond BORDA’s

main mission statement of creating liveable spaces while improving the living

conditions of beneficiaries and cater for environmental protection. This SoC

therefore complements SoC 1 and SoC 2.

Table 8: Evaluation structure of project specific objectives

Picture: BORDA – gardening next to the ...slaugtherhouse, creating direct and additional benefits for the community members („Rastro Municipal“ Léon; Nicaragua)

Table 7: Evaluation structure for SoC 3 – Achieving project specific impact

Statement of Change Objectives Priority Indicators Parameter

3. The service achieves project specific impact

3.1 Sanitation service achieves intended Objectives

3.1A Compared with the project documents the original Objective(s) of the sanitation service was (were) achieved

Was/ were the Objective(s) of the sanitation service achieved?

Note: This SoC also processes (draws from) PIs from other SoCs, depending on

the projects’ specific objectives. Table 8 lists all considered project specific

objectives and indicates which PIs are used to assess their impact.

Specific project objectives can vary across countries and project types.

Considered here are: production and usage of biogas, re-use of wastewater,

pre-treatment of wastewater before discharge to solid-free sewer, reduction

of O&M costs).

Project specific objectivesAssociated Priority Indicators

Parameter

Produce and use biogas10

4.2B There are obvious signs of biogas production from the biogas digester

When you open the gas valve furthest away from the BGD, do you hear or smell gas release?

6.2B For biogas systems, biogas is used to full capacity

How often is the biogas of this system being used?

Re-use of wastewater Where does the effluent go?

Pre-treat wastewater before discharge to solid-free sewer

4.1A Users within acceptable range of design11

Is the utilisation (design/actual connected user) within acceptable range (66 – 133%)?

Is the intended wastewater type discharged to treatment?

5.1A No signs of structural damage compromising func-tionality or warranty aspects

What building structure problems do you observe at treatment system (digester, settler, ABR, AF, PGF)?

Do you observe problems with existing pumps (wastewater or water pumps)?

What structural problems with the sanitation facility(ies) (walls, roof and floor) do you observe?

Reduction of O&M costsIf the Objective was reduction of desludging costs, were desludging costs significantly reduced by this project?

67

10 This project specific objective is assumed for every system with a biogas digester in its set-up

11 This Indicator is included based on the assumption that incorrect loading or wastewater type would lead to reduced treatment and – in the case of underload - discharge of completely untreated wastewater to the environment


! ‘Background information’ on the objective ‘reduction of O&M costs’

In Lesotho DEWATS are often implemented because of the comparably low operation costs for households: due to local soil conditions (very rocky and clayey) septic tank effluent does not easily infiltrate with frequent clogging and overflow of soak-aways – therefore requiring regular and costly emptying. DEWATS effluent on the other hand has undergone better treatment and can be recycled for gardening or better infiltrated – reducing the need of reactor emptying by desludging services. This objective may not exist in situations with different soil conditions.

In South Africa, reduction of O&M costs would rather refer to minimized electric costs when applying DEWATS, for comparison.

3.4.2 Result overview on Statement of Change level

Table 9 contains the average scores for project specific objectives (e.g. 51

projects aim for the re-use of wastewater. Out of these 51 projects, 45 achieve

this aim).

Note: Not all objectives are part of all projects

Systems with this project specific objective

Average scores per project specific objective

Produce and use biogas 29

4

19

51

Re-use of wastewater 51

45

06 0

Pre-treat ww before discharge to solid-free sewer

19

4

54

6

Reduction of O&M costs 40

35

005

3.4.3 Project specific objective ‘Produce and use biogas’3.4.3.1 Result overviewFigure 17 shows the per country distribution of average scores for the objective

‘Produce and use biogas’.

0 5 10 15 20



CambodiaIndonesia


Number ofsystemsObjectivemet Objectivesomewhatmet Objectivenotmet Infonotavailable

3.4.3.2 Parameters with strong impactPlease refer to Table 8 for the evaluation structure of this project specific

objective.

The following Parameters had the strongest negative or positive impact.

In 6 out of 34 cases (18%) biogas is not used at all (Nepal 1 out of 4, Lesotho

3 out of 9 and Tanzania 2 out of 6) (see Figure 18), which coincides in most

countries with the number of systems where no biogas reaches the appliances

(see Figure 19).

There was no clear relation between this observation and system type.

! 'Background information' on the objective ‘reduction of O&M costs'

The responses recorded by ME team Zambia indicate in all implemented systems biogas usage as well as no gas pressure on the piping systems. This may be due to the fact that coincidentaly all gas had been used up by the users just before the field-visits took place. Due to the responses given on gas usage, it is assumed here that biogas digesters are in good working order in Zambia.

! Suggested discussion on GD level D3: How relevant is the appropriate and rigorous use and promotion

of biogas for BORDA and its positioning regarding climate friendly technologies? If considered relevant, what are the required next steps?

Figure 17: Average scores of systems with the project specific objective ‘Produce and use biogas’

Table 9: Overview of average system scores per project specific objectives


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Dailybiogasusage

Notdailybutregularly

Seldom(lessthanonceaweek)

Nobiogasusage

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,biogasreachedappliance

Noaccesstogasvalve

Biogaspipinghasnotbeeninstalled

No,biogasdoesnotreachapplianceandNOleakages orblockagesinpipingareobserved

3.4.3.3 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersPossible follow-up action:

i Identify why in many cases biogas is not used and does not reach appliances

(formulate steps to improve hardware and/or maintenance issues)

3.4.4 Project specific objective ‘Reuse of wastewater’3.4.4.1 Result overviewFigure 20 shows the per country distribution of average system scores for

the objective ‘Reuse of wastewater’.

0 5 10 15 20

AfghanistanIndia

NepalLesotho

TanzaniaZambia

CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number of systems

Objective met Objective not met Info not available


objective.

This objective is evaluated with only one parameter. If effluent is being reused

(fish, agriculture and/or horticulture for food production, non-food horticulture,

other) this objective is scored ‘Objective met’ – which is the case in 45 out

of 51 systems (88%). Otherwise this objective is scored ‘Objective not met’.

There was no clear relation between this parameter and system type.

3.4.4.3 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersPossible follow-up action:

i Emphasize the relevance of accurate definition of project objectives in

Nepal, where, in many cases in which reuse is stated as one of the project

objectives, wastewater is actually not being reused at all.

3.4.5 Project specific objective ‘Pre-treat ww before discharge to solid-free sewer’

3.4.5.1 Result overviewFigure 21 shows the per country distribution of average system scores for the

objective ‘Pre-treat ww before discharge to solid-free sewer’.

0 5 10 15 20



CambodiaIndonesia




objective.

! ‘Background information’ The project specific objective ‘Pre-treat wastewater before discharge to solid-free sewer’ is scored with the help of parameters which investigate

• the volume of wastewater to be pre-treated (an underloaded system scores bad because it would in effect not pre-treat large volumes of wastewater it was designed for)

• the technical ability of the system to adequately pre-treat wastewater (load, wastewater type discharged to system, state of building structure of reactors and sanitation centres)

Figure 18: Biogas usage as observed in the different countries

Figure 19: Responses given to the question ‘When you open the gas valve furthest away from the BGD (e.g. at the stove), do you hear or smell gas release?’

Figure 20: Average scores of systems with the project specific objective ‘Reuse of wastewater’

Figure 21: Average scores of systems with the project specific objective ‘Pre-treat ww before discharge to solid-free sewer’


The following Parameters had the strongest negative or positive impact.

The yellow and red scores shown for Zambian systems are mainly due to

i Parameter responses with red scores: utilisation rates below 66% (one

system) and above 133% design value (two systems)

i Parameter responses with yellow scores: minor physical damage of reactor

building structure (digester, settler, ABR, AF, PGF) which does not affect

operation or safety (six out of nine systems) but which may impede future

treatment

i Parameter responses with yellow scores: minor physical damage of

sanitation centre building structure which does not affect operation or safety

(seven out of nine systems) but which may lead in future to reduced usage

The red score for the Vietnamese system is mainly due to the fact that no

black-water is discharged to the system although it was designed for it – it is

therefore assumed that significant volumes of untreated blackwater reach

the environment.

3.4.5.3 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersPossible follow-up actions:

i repair systems with minor building structure damages in Zambia

3.4.6 Project specific objective ‘Reduction of O&M costs’3.4.6.1 Result overviewFigure 22 shows the per country distribution of average system scores for

the objective ‘Reduction of desludging costs’.

0 5 10 15 20



CambodiaIndonesia




objective.

This objective is evaluated with only one parameter. The question ‘Were

desludging costs significantly reduced by this project?’ was confirmed in all

cases in which responses were given.

3.4.6.3 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersNo follow-up action required.

Picture: Re-use of biogas for cooking purposes (Tanzania)

Figure 22: Average scores of systems with the project specific objective ‘Reduction of desludging costs’

44 45

3.5 SoC 4: Functioning technology – systems are operating as intended

3.5.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project outcome ‘functioning technology’ by considering

system loading and wastewater treatment.

Statement of Change

Objectives Priority Indicators Parameters

4. Functioning Technology - systems are operating as intended

4.1 System operat-ing as designed - acceptable loading and system hydraulics

4.1A Users within acceptable range of design

Is the utilisation (design/actual connected user) within acceptable range (66 – 133%)?


4.1B Influent flow to the treatment system is observed


4.1C The system does not experience severe flow surges

Does the system experience any flow surge issues?

4.1D Evidence of effluent flow

Do you observe flow or signs of recent flow (wet piping, etc.) at plant outlet? (RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

4.2 Systems operating as de-signed - treatment meets BORDA requirements

4.2A Anaerobic, and where applicable aerobic, effluent quality meet BORDA requirements

Does the average COD concentration of the anaerobic effluent comply to BORDA design value (200 mg/ l)?

Does the average COD concentration of the aerobic effluent comply to BORDA design value (80 mg/ l)?



3.5.2 Result overview on Statement of Change levelFigure 23 shows the average SoC 4 scores for all visited systems, globally.

The large number of incomplete data sets is mainly due to

i lack of anaerobic and (where relevant) aerobic effluent sampling (55 and

57 cases respectively).

i lack of information on the actual user number (36 cases)

Red = ‘Bad’ (score < 1.5), Yellow = ‘Caution’ (1.5 ≤ score < 2.5), Green = ‘Good’ (score ≥ 2.5),Grey = ‘Dataset incomplete’;numbers indicate number of systems per score range


to Appendix A.


0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i 7 systems (5%) do not treat any wastewater at the time of field-visit.

! Corrective action motivated by ME field visits7 visited systems (1 in Zambia, 6 in India) were found to not treat any

wastewater at all. Motivated by the findings of the ME field visits in 2017, repairs were done at 2 of them (1 in Zambia and 1 in India) and at the time this report is written both are fully functional.

This highlights the importance of • ME-type quality assessment of implemented DEWATS • The elaboration of procedures for the financing and implementation

of corrective actions

i The utilitsation rate in 43 out of 103 (42%) cases is either below 66% or

above 133% design value (see Figure 25). Out of these 43 systems, by far most

(35) have a too low utilisation rate.

This issue is observed in all countries and is not dependent on age. However, the

largest fractions of systems with low loading are found in India (see Figure 26)

where by far most systems cater for less people than assumed during design.

The utilitsation rate for system type ‘CSC’ in 10 out of 11 cases is below the

benchmark of 66% design value. For all other system types there appears to

be no clear relation with this parameter.

i Effluent concentrations:

] The internal BORDA standard for acceptable anaerobic reactor

effluent of 200 mg COD/ l is not met in 16 out of 76 (21%) cases (see Figure

27) when allowing for 20% tolerance (actual benchmark: 240 mg COD/ l).

] Available data shows no relation with system type.

] In some cases the anaerobic effluent is further treated aerobically

(usually by a HGF).

Figure 24: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 4: Functioning technology

Figure 23: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 4: Functioning technology

Table 10: Evaluation structure for SoC 4 – Functioning technology

711

3884



] The internal BORDA standard for acceptable aerobic effluent of 80

mg COD/ l is not met in 16 out of 39 (41%) cases (see Figure 12) even when

allowing for 20% tolerance (actual benchmark: 96 mg COD/ l). Countries

with the highest fraction of high effluent concentrations are Lesotho

followed by India. Available data shows no relation with system type.

i Observations on flow surge issues (signs of water fluctuations inside reactor

chambers, observed changes during strong rain, backflow from waterbody

system discharges to) indicate that out of 134 cases, 19 systems (14%) experience

severe flow surges and 26 systems (19%) experience some form of related

issues. These issues are found across all countries and most system types.

i Two thirds of all visited systems show no signs of exposure.

i In 11 out of 35 cases (31%) biogas does not reach biogas appliances.

i Positive: The wastewater type discharged to the systems matches design

assumptions in 129 out of 134 cases (96%).

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

Util

isat

ion

rate

(a

ctua

l vs

desi

gn u

nit n

umbe

r)

Estimated utilisation rates of 103 systems

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystemsBelow (<66%) Acceptable (≥66%,<133%) Above(≥133%) Nodata

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Anaerobicreactore

ffluentconcentration

(mgCO

D/l)

Afghanistan Cambodia India Indonesia Laos Lesotho Tanzania


i identify reasons for low utilisation rates – especially in India. Consider

technical solutions to make systems more adaptable to varying loads (e.g.

designs with several treatment trains which can easily be by-passed).

i Increase number of COD sampling data (acidification and accredited

laboratories) by stricter adherence to ME SOPs

i Implement storm-water diversion options for large scale roll-out

i identify why in many cases biogas does not reach appliances to provide

corrective action, i.e. repair the hardware and/or address maintenance issues

i investigate (with/by country engineers or involved R&D staff) probable

reasons for high and low effluent concentrations.

Figure 26: Utilitsation rates as estimated for 103 systems depending on country

Figure 27: Measured effluent concentrations of anaerobic treatment12 Each data-point represents one or the average of two measurements per system effluent. Two datapoints are beyond 1000 mg COD /l (both values are 1675 mg COD/ l, Ammankulam Housing Colony Cluster 2 & 3/ India)

1 2 This Figure differs from Figure 11 by showing all measured anaerobic reactor effluents, also those which are further treated aerobically

Figure 25: Utilitsation rates as estimated for 103 systems, values are plotted in accending order

Picture: Structural damage and system hydraulics inspection of ABR (Indonesia).


3.6 SoC 5: Functioning maintenance – systems are maintained as intended

3.6.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project outcome ‘functioning maintenance’ by

investigating signs of major damage and regular system maintenance.

Statement of Change


Parameters

5. Functioning Maintenance - systems are maintained as intended


5.1A No signs of structural damage compromising functionality or warranty aspects

What building structure problems do you observe at treatment system (digester, settler, ABR, AF, PGF)?(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)


What structural problems with the sanitation facili-ty(ies) (walls, roof and floor) do you observe?(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)


5.2A Maintenance is adequate


In the past, were maintenance issues with the sewer network fixed (clogging, blockage, bad smell or overflow)?

In the past, were major issues with the sewer network fixed (broken pipes or manhole, leakages, other major damage)?

In the past, were maintenance issues with the house-hold grease-traps fixed (clogging, bad smells)?

Can the manhole covers of the treatment system be opened? Please try at least 5 manhole covers. In case they were opened before the start of the field visit, please ask the m.e. or operator.

Could a local desludging service provider access the treatment system with his cart, truck, etc.?

Has the system been desludged?

How thick is the scum in the second (or if too difficult to open, third) ABR chamber?

Do you see much plastic waste (more than 20 items) inside the second (or if too difficult to open, third) anaerobic reactor chamber (can be settler, ABR or AF chamber)? (single selection)

Do you observe problems concerning the planted gravel filter?

What functional problems do you observe about the sanitary installations?

Do you observe problems with the water trap?

When you open the gas valve furthest away from the BGD (e.g. at the stove), do you hear or smell gas release?

Is the biogas appliance working (lamp/ heater/ stove)?

Do you observe problems with the pressure gauge?


Table 11: Evaluation structure for SoC 5 – Functioning maintenance

Picture: DEWATS effluent sampling at Beedi-workers-colony for subsequent laboratory analysis at CDD Society (Bangalore, India)


0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Noproblem Minordamage Majordamage

] Of 24 visited sanitation facilities, 11 (46%) show some signs of minor

physical damage (e.g. small cracks), not affecting operation, use or safety.

i Maintenance related Parameters relevant to all system types:

] The typical desludging interval of normal loaded ABRs is about 3

years (desludging periods for normal loaded settlers have been revised

and shortened; see DEWATS Spread sheet). 46 out of 78 visited systems

(56%) which have been operating longer than 3 years have never been

desludged.

Figure 31 presents the per country distribution: all or almost all systems

visited in Lesotho, Tanzania and Zambia are concerned as well as most

systems in India and Afghanistan.

Out of these 46 systems, 22 systems are underloaded (actual user number

is below the threshold of 66% of design user number) which could explain

why desludging did not happen after 3 years of operation. However, 22

systems (50%) are normal to highly loaded (actual user number is above

66% of design user number).

Most systems in SEA are operating less than three years.

Available data shows no relation with system type.

! Appropriate desludging intervalsFor this evaluation, desludging intervals of 3 years – an estimation

often used in BORDA documents and supported by R&D results for tropical applications – is taken as benchmark.

Appropriate desludging is used as one of several proxies for ‘functioning maintenance’ because of its importance for adequate system operation.

What limits the use of this proxy is the underlying assumption that all reactors are designed with a similar 'load to reactor volume' ratio – an assumption which was found to be wrong during the review of this report (e.g. reactors in Lesotho are often designed larger than in other countries).

Also, ideally actual system load per m³ reactor volume would need to be calculated to ensure that no underloaded systems are scored ‘bad’ (a first attempt was done to identify underloaded systems by comparing actual and design user number).

Figure 30: Physical damage observed at treatment system building structure (digester, settler, ABR, AF, HGF/PGF). If minor and major damages were observed at the same system, only the occurance of major damage is shown in this graph

3.6.2 Result overview on Statement of Change levelFigure 28 shows the average SoC 5 scores for all visited 140 systems, globally.



to Appendix A


Most system scores are ‘good’ in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos

and Philippines.

On the other hand, system scores in Zambia and Lesotho are very often ‘caution’

and partly ‘bad’ for all visited systems. Details are provided by below graphics.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i In most cases (132 systems; 94%) there is no or only minor structural

damage to the reactor building structure

] Major structural damage compromising functionality or warranty aspects

was however observed at 11 systems (major physical damage observed 6

times: India, 2; Lesotho, 1; Nepal, 1; Tanzania, 1; Vietnam, 1), severely damaged

or missing manhole cover observed 3 times (India, 1; Lesotho, 1; Zambia, 1),

7 systems were found not to be treating any wastewater))


] 26 instances (19%) of minor physical damage (e.g. cracks in building

structure) which do not affect operation or safety (but would probably

require some reparation work in the medium term) were observed (digester,

settler, ABR, AF, HGF/PGF). See Figure 30 for the distribution across

countries: in Lesotho, Zambia and Tanzania large fractions of visited

systems have minor physical damage.

] In 103 systems (73%) there was no noticeable damage at all.


Figure 29: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 5: Functioning maintenance

11

5165

13

Figure 28: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 5: Functioning maintenance


i Parameters relevant to sewer system maintenance:

] Often, maintenance of sewer network is insufficient: in the past, 42 out

of 73 visited systems connected to a sewer line experienced maintenance

issues (clogging, blockage, bad smell or overflow) which were not fixed

in 10 (23%) cases.

Figure 33 shows the per country distribution. In Nepal, maintenance of all

sewer systems is reported to be inadequate. In India a very large fraction

of interviewees did not know whether the sewer system ever required any

maintenance at all – which probably indicates poor maintenance.

] 38 systems experienced major issues in sewer networks (broken

pipes or manhole, leakages, other major damage) of which 11 cases (28%)

were not corrected

Figure 34 shows the per country distribution and indicates an identical

trend as for sewer network maintenance: In Nepal, repairs of all sewer

systems is reported to be inadequate. In India a very large fraction of

interviewees did not know whether the sewer system ever required repairs

at all – which can indicate poor maintenance.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,allissuesfixedSome issesfixedNoissuesfixedInterviewee doesnotknowNomaintenanceissuessofarNosewernetwork- notrelevant

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,allmajor issuesfixedSomemajorissuesfixedNomajorissuesfixedInterviewee doesnotknowNomajorissuessofarNosewernetwork- notrelevant

] Out of 26 visited systems with grease traps, 6 responses (23%) indicate

maintenance issues which were never fixed.

Figure 33: Management entity or operator responses to the question: ‘In the past, were maintenance issues with the sewer network fixed (clogging, blockage, bad smell or overflow)?’, colors indicate response scoring, ‘Interviewee does not know’is scored ‘caution’

Figure 34: Management entity or operator responses to the question: ‘In the past, were major issues with the sewer network fixed (broken pipes or manhole, leakages, other major damage)?’, colors indicate response scoring, ‘Interviewee does not know’is scored ‘caution’

Since such tests go beyond the scope of this report (available loading information is scarce and difficult to interpret and reactor volumes are often missing in project documentation) the evaluation results of this parameter should be regarded as indicative only.

For future data evaluation, the scoring of this parameter will be adapted to better suit the existing, varying situations.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,withinthelast3years Yes,butmorethan3yearsago

Never, systemisolderthan3years Interviewee doesnotknow

Never, systemisyoungerthan3years

] At 23 out of 140 systems (16%), reactor manhole covers could not be

opened at all or only after very much effort. This affects also the parameter

scores on scum and solid waste removal in PI 5.2A (see Table 11).

] Good access of local desludging service provider was reported in 132

out of 140 cases (94%).

i Parameters relevant to HGF maintenance:

] A total of 52 observations on maintenance were made at 45 out of

76 visited HGFs (59%). For details see Figure 32.

] The most critical aspect is filter blockage:

Filter material is considered blocked if water stagnates on filter surface

and swivel pipe is set correctly. This was observed at 11 systems (6, 1, 1, 2

and 1 systems in India, Nepal, Lesotho, Tanzania and Zambia, respectively

– the data set does not show an obvious relation with system type).

05101520

Otherproblems(e.g.systemsmellsbad.,manydeadleaves,fewplants)

Deadplants

Stagnatingwateronthesurface-probablereason:filterblockage

Stagnatingwateronthesurface-swivelpipetoohigh

Largeamountsofsolidwaste

Slimeonsurface

Swivelpipebroken,waterlevelverylow

Numberofobservations

Figure 31: Occurance of ABR/AF desludging

Figure 32: Observations made on the maintenance of 76 visited HGFs


3.6.4 Recommendations regarding strong impact ParametersSystem maintenance is a challenge in all investigated countries (although

less pronounced in Afghanistan, Cambodia and Indonesia).

Possible follow-up actions:

i corrective action for all 11 systems with severe structural damage.

i investigate reasons for poor system maintenance concerning:

] Desludging

] PGF (blockages)

] Sanitation centres

] Small sewer systems

] Biogas systems

Picture: Manual desludging with sludge gulper (Daressalaam; Tanzania)

! Grease trapsMissing effluent flow at one Vietnamese DEWATS treating wastewater

from a restaurant lead to further investigations. It was found that the installed grease trap was too small and that therefore large amounts of grease reached the reactors and blocked pipes and the HGF.

This highlights the critical importance of correct grease trap dimensioning and maintenance – especially in the case of food industry and restaurants – and – should they not yet exist or not be accessible to all BORDA engineers - the need for the dissemination of detailed design and maintenance guidelines for grease traps.

i Parameters relevant to sanitation facility maintenance (all implemented

by the BORDA partner network):

] A total of 62 observations on various issues were made at 16 out of

24 visited sanitation facilities (66%). For details see Figure 35.

] Most frequently observed issues are missing O&M and HHE posters,

missing waste bins with covers inside cubicles, no functioning lights,

unused laundry area and missing handwashing facilities.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Water isnotavailable

Sometoilets/bathroomsseemunused

Facilitydoesnothavefunctioninglights

Blockedfloor-drains

Sometoilets/bathroomsareblocked/broken

Sometoilets/bathroomsareunclean

Brokenhandwashing-basinortap

Somedoorsaremissing/broken/can'tbelocked

Laundryareaseemsunused

Nohandwashingfacility

Electricity isnotavailable

Nowastebinswithcoversinsidecubicles

NoO&MorHHEpostersarehungup

Number ofobservations

i Parameters relevant to biogas system maintenance:

] Water trap installation is an issue at 31 out of 35 (89%) visited biogas

settlers: in 23 cases (66%) there is no watertrap; in 8 cases it cannot be

accessed (23%).

] Biogas often does not reach the stove (18 cases; 51%).

] Biogas, when unused, is almost never flared off (12 out of 13 cases;

92%).

] In many cases, pressure gauges are not installed (25 cases; 71%). In

3 cases pressure gauges are installed but don’t contain water (which can

lead to biogas loss).

] The stove was reported to be in working order in 22 cases (63%).

i About Parameters relevant to pump maintenance:

] Pumps generally work well: 44 visted projects included pumps, out of

which all worked in 38 cases (86%). At four projects the pump was found

to be broken, which however only affected the treatment in one case.

Figure 35: Observed maintenance issues at sanitation centres (24 visited sanitation centres)

56 57

3.7 SoC 6: Sustaining demand – system is available, used to capacity and acceptable

3.7.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project outcome ‘sustaining demand’ by investigating

availability, utilisation rate and acceptability of the system.

Table 12: Evaluation structure for SoC 6 – Sustaining demand

Figure 36: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 6: Sustaining demand

7 9

76

48

Statement of Change


6. Sustaining Demand - system is available, used to capacity and acceptable


6.1A For systems with SSS, system receives and processes wastewater


(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

6.1B For systems with CSC, ratio of users to functioning toilets is acceptable

Acceptable ratio of users per functioning toilets (20 users per toilet)

6.1C DEWATS processes wastewater


(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

6.1D For biogas systems, biogas can be used



6.2A Utilisation is close to full capacity (ie. actual/design users)

Is the utilisation (actual/design users) wihin acceptable range?



6.3 Acceptability: Culturally ac-ceptable, users satisfied with system

6.3A Satisfaction indicated by high utilisation or no evident issues of low acceptance

Good acceptance and satisfaction is indicated by:

- utilization rate above 66% (actual vs. design value) or

- if users do not give reasons related to low ac-ceptability when asked why people don’t connect to/ use the DEWATS


The large number of incomplete datasets is mainly due to lack of information

on the actual user number (37 cases).



to Appendix A.

Figure 37 shows the per country distribution of average SoC scores.Picture: Gravel washing with freshwater at Beedi-workers Colony, highlighting the partially work intensive O&M activities (Kengeri; India)


58 59

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i The utilitsation rate in 43 out of 103 (42%) cases is either below 66% or

above 133% design value (see 25). Out of these 43 systems, by far most (35)

have a low utilisation rate.

This issue is observed in all countries to a degree or another and is not

dependent on age or system type. However, the largest fractions of systems

with low loading are found in India (see Figure 26) where by far most systems

cater for less people than assumed during design.

The utilitsation rate for system type ‘CSC’ in 10 out of 11 cases (91%) is below

the benchmark of 66% design value. Other system types do not show a clear

relation with this parameter.

i Availability of sanitation service is reduced since:

] 7 systems don’t treat any wastewater.

] In 11 out of 35 cases (31%) biogas does not reach biogas appliances.

] Often high ratio of users per functioning toilet: in 9 out of 21 cases

(43%), more (at times far more!) than 20 users are using one toilet. 8 of

these 9 cases are schools with up to 300 users per toilets.

i Cultural acceptability appears high across all systems: in 136 out of 139

cases (98%) utilitsation rate is either high enough to indicate acceptance or

lower utilisation rates are due to other reasons than (cultural) inacceptance

(when asked the question ‘Why do people / HH not connect to DEWATS system?’

community representatives would answer ‘technical issues’, ‘community budget

does not allow for further connections’ or ‘community internal conflict’).


i investigate reasons for the large number of systems with low utilisation

rates (especially in India). Consider technical solutions to make systems more

adaptable to varying loads (e.g. designs with several treatment trains which

can easily be bypassed).

i investigate why biogas does not reach appliances and improve hardware

and/or maintenance issues.

i discuss and define an adequate ‘users per toilet ratio’ depending on

project type and review design recommendations.

Figure 37: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 6: Sustaining demand

Picture:: Explaining the importance of WASH to school kids (Kurdistan)


60 61

3.8 SoC 7: Effective management - existing, active and accountable management entity and operator

3.8.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project outcome ‘effective management’ based on the

existence of an active and accountable management entity and of a trained

and adequately equipped operator.

In some project types the management entity and the operator are one and

the same person (e.g. in the case of single house systems: the house owner)

or the operator has other main duties for which he/she is employed (e.g. some

school systems where the teachers take on O&M activities).

Statement of Change


Parameters

7. Effective management: Existing, active and accountable management entity and operator



Does a management entity (m.e.) exist?(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

Did the management entity receive the required trainings (Financial, O&M, HHE)?

Is the management entity aware of its responsibilities?

Does management entity have documentation of legal registration to carry out its responsibilities (e.g. officially registered with appropriate government department)?

7.1B Management entity is active and accountable

Does the management entity meet regularly?

Are O&M responsibilities of the operator defined and documented?

Is the operator regularly paid an agreed salary (in cash, in kind or both)?

Are income and/or expenses documented in financial administration logbook or elsewhere?

Is there documentation of conducted O&M activities?



Is there a person/caretaker/operator assigned and responsible for O&M activities? (in the following called ‘operator’)(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

Has the operator received O&M training?

Is the operator aware of his responsibilities?

Does the operator have all necessary tools required to perform O&M activities (opening manholes, deblocking sewer system, scum and solid waste removal from reactors)?



to Appendix A.

Red = ‘Bad’ (score < 1.5), Yellow = ‘Caution’ (1.5 ≤ score < 2.5), Green = ‘Good’ (score ≥ 2.5),Grey = ‘Dataset incomplete’;`numbers indicate number of systems per score range


0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems


Concerning Afghanistan: this graph depicts a worse than actual situation since

five systems are managed by one management entity which (at the time of the

field visit, due to various external factors) was not able to employ an operator.


i 2 out of 136 cases (1%) have no management entity (both cases are in India).

i At 14 out of 140 systems (10%), nobody at all performs O&M activities (see

Figure 40). These systems are almost all residential systems, all located in

India (9 systems) and Afghanistan (in the case of Afghanistan: all 5 systems

are part of the same housing complex managed by one entity, thus 1 operator

is missing at time of field visit).

i At 14 out of 140 systems (10%), people without formal O&M responsibility

take over the O&M of the system to some degree.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystemsYes,operatoriscommunitymember,employee (ofSMEorinstitution)ortheowner

Yes,operatorisexternal serviceprovider

No,butoneormorepeopleWITHOUTO&Mresponsibilitytakecareoffacility

No,nobodyisassignedandresponsibleforO&Mactivities

15

5548

22

Figure 39: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 7: Effective management

Figure 38: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 7: Effective management

Figure 40: Operator existence at visited systems depending on country

Table 13: Evaluation structure for SoC 7 – Effective management


62 63

i Observations indicating low activity or accountability of management entities:

] No documentation of conducted O&M activities: 101 out of 140 cases (72%)

] No documentation on financial administration: 56 out of 140 cases (40%)

] No operator payment: 16 out of 95 known cases in which the operator

should have been paid (17%) (see Figure 41 for country details)

] The management entity does not meet regularly in 27 out of 107 cases

(25%)

] No documentation of the operators’ O&M responsibilities in 26 out of

123 cases (21%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Operator ispaid

Notalwayspaidornotenough

Nopayment

There isnooperator

Operatornotavailable forinterview

Nodata

HHsystem- operatorisnotpaid

! O&M related documentation held by usersThis ME method includes checks on whether the following O&M

related written documentation exists at a project site:

– Financial administration– Operator responsibilities– Performed O&M activities– Meeting documentation of m.e. meetings ! – Legal registration of m.e.Missing documentation is currently scored as ‘bad’ in the case of financial administration, in all other cases ‘yellow’ or ‘green’.

] Limited awareness of responsibilities: when asked what their

responsibilities are, management entity representatives often exclude

the operator management although listing other responsibilities (55 out of

109, 50%, excluding single household systems138) (see Figure 42 for country

distribution). Also, ‘financial administration’ was only listed in 41 out of 132

cases (31%) (see Figure 43). In six cases the response by the management

entity representative indicates no awareness of responsibilities.

Available data indicates no relation with system type.

13 Single household systems are excluded from this analysis because existing data is difficult to interpret. At such systems, the management entity and the operator are typically one and the same person: the household owner. It would therefore seem unnatural for a household owner to consider ‘employing and managing operator’ as part of his responsibilities.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia


Number ofsystemsYes,awareofallfive responsibilities

Aware ofatleastoneresponsibility(includingmanagingoperator)

Aware ofatleastoneresponsibility(butnotmanagingoperator)

Notawareofanyresponsibility

Aware ofotherresponsibilities

There isnomanagemententity

Managemententitynotavailable forinterview

Nodata

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Coordinating&arrangingfinancingofmajorrepairs

Employingandmanagingoperator

Financialadministration(generatingandadministratingincome)

Trainingoperator

Decidingaboutadditionalconnections

Other

Interviewee doesnotknow

M.e. thinkshe/shehasnoresponsibility

Projects atwhich responseoption wasgiven(%oftotal 123systems)

] Training of management entities generally occurs but in most cases

includes only O&M training:

] Training of management entities does often not include all three

modules (financial, O&M, HHE) defined in this evalution as the benchmark:

only in 18 out of 132 cases (14%) were all modules received – mainly in

Indonesia and Cambodia (see Figure 44).

Figure 41: Occurance of operator payment per country

Figure 42: Evaluation of question answered by the management entity: ‘What are your responsibilities concerning this project?’ Options (not shown to the m.e.): Financial administration, coordinating and arranging financing of major repairs, employing and managing operator, training operator, deciding about additional connections, other; colors indicate scoring

Figure 43: Given response options for the question: ‘What are your (the management entity’s) responsibilities concerning this project?’. Graph excludes the 17 visited sinlge household projects. Out of the 123 remaining projects, 2 did not have a management entity.


64 65

In most cases one or two modules were received (in 95 out of 132 cases,

72%). Financial and HHE training were the least received trainings. O&M

trainings were significantly more often received (see Figure 45).

Interestingly, a higher number of received training modules does not

correlate with increased management entity awareness of responsibilities

such as defined for this evaluation (compare Figure 42 and Figure 44).

The dataset does not indicate a clear relationship between this parameter

and system type.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystemsYes,allthree trainingmoduleswere received

Oneortwooutofthreetrainingswere received

None- m.e.haschangedsincestartofoperation

None- m.e.hasnotchangedsincestartofoperation

M.e. receivedothertypeoftraining

There isnomanagemententity

Managemententitynotavailable forinterview

Nodata

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

None- m.e. samesincestartofoperation

None- m.e.haschangedsincestartofoperation

HHEtraining

Financialtraining

Othertraining

O&Mtraining

Number ofprojects atwhichm.e.trainingmodulewasreceived

i Operators are often not aware of most or any of the operator responsibilities

(as defined as: removing blockages, removing scum, cleaning facility, desludging,

reporting problems to management, collection fees, other): 48 out of 109 cases

(45%). This is especially the case for systems visited in India, Lesotho and

Indonesia (see Figure 46 for the per country distribution).


and system type.

Figure 47 indicates which activities operators consider part of their

responsibility. Operators most often don’t consider ‘collecting user fees’,

‘desludging’ and ‘removing scum’ as part of their responsibility.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Aware ofall(5or6)responsibilities

Aware ofmost(3or4)responsibilities

Aware offew(1or2)responsibilities

Notawareofanyresponsibility

There isnooperator

Operatornotavailable forinterview

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Cleaningfacility

Removingblockages

Reportingproblemstomanagemententity

Removingscum

Desludging

Nodata

Other

Collectingfees*


Operator thinkshehasnoresponsibilities

Projects atwhich responsewasgiven(%oftotal visitedsystems)

i In most (104 out of 109 cases, 95%) cases operators have received O&M

training. However this training is often described as limited or brief, especially

in India, Tanzania and Zambia (see Figure 48).

Interestingly, an (assumed) higher level of training does not correlate with

increased operator awareness of responsibilities such as defined for this

evaluation (compare Figure 46 and Figure 48).


and system type.

Figure 44: Number of training modules received by management entity across countries

Figure 45: Given response options for the question: ‘What trainings did the management entity receive?’. Out of 140 projects, 2 did not have a management entity.

Figure 47: Given response options for the parameter: ‘What are your (the operator’s) responsibilities concerning this project?’. Out of 140 projects, 30 did not have an operator. *Percentage for response option ‘Collecting fees’ was calculated based on 29 systems at which user fees were reported to be part of the income

Figure 46: Evaluation of operator question: ‘What are your responsibilities concerning this project?’ Options (not shown to the operator): Removing blockages, removing scum, cleaning facility, desludging, reporting problems to management, collection fees, other; colors indicate scoring


66 67

0 10 20 30 40 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes

Onlylimited/brief training

No,operatorhaschangedsincestartofoperationNo,operatorsamesincestartofoperation

There isnooperator


i investigate why in two Indian cases no management entity exists and

initiate corrective action

i investigate reasons for non-existence of operators in 28 cases (Afghanistan,

India, Nepal, Tanzania, Indonesia), initiate corrective action and share lessons

learned

i discuss the importance of written documentation of conducted O&M

activities, O&M responsibilities, management entity meetings and financial

administration for effective management

i emphasize the relevance of trainings and m.e.’s/operators’ awareness for

project sustainability

i investigate

] reasons why m.e.’s in most countries don’t receive all three training

modules (especially financial and HHE training),

] links between missing training, limited anwareness of responsibilities

and actual O&M and financial management

] reasons why m.e.’s often have limited awareness of their responsibilities.

] reasons why in some cases, operators are not paid.

] reasons why operators are often not aware of most or any of the

commonly assumed operator responsibilities (see Figure 46)

Figure 48: O&M training received by operator across countries

Picture: Management workshop with educators at NPH orphanage starting a DEWATS project with BORDA (Nicaragua)


68 69

3.9 SoC 8: Sustainable financing – sufficient ongoing income to cover all short and long term costs

3.9.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project outcome ‘sustainable financing’ by investigating

the existence of regular income sufficient to cover all short and long term costs.

Statement of Change


8. Sustainable Financing: Sufficient ongoing income to cover all short and long term costs

8.1 Regular income

8.1A O&M budget and/or user fees have been agreed on and are collected

Was a fixed O&M budget defined?

What are the income sources contributing to available O&M budget?(RESPONSES INCLUDE KILLER CRITERIA)

Were the user fees set by local authority or agreed on by users themselves?

Is someone responsible for the user fee collection process and is this documented?

Are user fees collected?

What proportion of users pay fees?


8.2A Regular operation and maintenance expenses (operator salary, material, equipment, electricity and water costs) are covered by income


Are regular expenses other than operator salaries (e.g. material, equipment, electricity, water) paid through the available income?

8.2B Irregular expenses (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage) are covered by income

Do solutions exist for irregular expenses in the future (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage)?

In the past, have irregular expenses been paid?



to Appendix A.



0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i In 9 out of 140 cases (6%) there is no income source which would contribute

to available O&M budget (see Figure 51 for the per country and Figure 52 for

the per system-type split-up).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number oftimesanincome sourcewasreportedUserfees

Regulargovernment/utilitysupport

IncomethroughSMEactivities

Incomethroughotheracitivies(e.g. sellingwater etc)

Other(pleasespecify)

None


9

30

80

21

Figure 49: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 8: Sustainable financing

Figure 50: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 8: Sustainable financing

Figure 51: Income sources contributing to available O&M budget depending on country, there can be multiple sources per system

Table 14: Evaluation structure for SoC 8 – Sustainable financing


70 71

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

RES- ApartmentsRES- Multiplehouses

RES- SinglehouseRES- CSC

RES- CSC+MultiplehousesSME- FoodindustrySME- Hotel/Hostel

SME- OfficesSME- Industry(other)

INS- HospitalINS- Religiouscentre

INS- SchoolINS- University

INS- Otherinstitution

Number oftimesanincome sourcewasreportedUserfeesRegulargovernment/utilitysupportIncomethroughSMEactivitiesIncomethroughotheracitivies(e.g. sellingwater etc)Other(pleasespecify)NoneInterviewee doesnotknow

i In many cases O&M budget was not defined (59 out of 133 cases, 44%).

This is especially the case for systems visited in India, Nepal, Lesotho and

Vietnam (see Figure 53).

The project type distribution of the data (see Figure 54) indicates that most

project types are affected. Mostly, however, multiple and single households,

food industry, industry and institutions.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,O&Mbudgetdefinedbylocalauthority

Yes,O&Mbudgetdefinedbymanagemententity,membersofcommunityorownerNoO&Mbudgetdefined


! 'Methodological background information'Note: Fig 53: During the review of this report, the following question

was raised: ‘Normal households don’t have a defined budget for car repairs, why should they have defined one for O&M?’ To clarify: this parameter does not investigate whether or not O&M is functioning (aspects covered in SoC5). Missing O&M budget definition is scored as ‘bad’ based on the assumption that any management entity (also a household owner) who knows what to expect in terms of O&M costs also better assures the ‘sustainable financing of the system’ (see formulation of this SoC).

Secondly, communicating the importance of O&M budget definition to the management entities has often been described as essential and should therefore be done by BORDA, e.g. during commissioning.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

RES- ApartmentsRES- Multiplehouses

RES- SinglehouseRES- CSC

RES- CSC+MultiplehousesSME- FoodindustrySME- Hotel/Hostel

SME- OfficesSME- Industry(other)

INS- HospitalINS- Religiouscentre

INS- SchoolINS- University

INS- Otherinstitution

Number ofsystems

Yes,O&Mbudgetdefinedbylocalauthority

Yes,O&Mbudgetdefinedbymanagemententity,membersofcommunityorownerNoO&Mbudgetdefined


Nodata

i There is no solution available for irregular expenses (replacing major parts,

desludging, structural damage) in 19 out ot 140 cases (14%). Countries where

such solutions appear to be missing completely are Lesotho and Vietnam (see

Figure 55), also, in Nepal and Tanzania most systems are affected.

Dataset shows no relation with project type.

i In 17 out of the 76 cases in which major repairs ocurred (22%), these

irregular expenses could not be paid. This has mainly been observed in India,

Nepal and Lesotho (see Figure 56).


i In some cases (16 out of 95 cases, 17%) operator salaries are not paid (see

Figure 57 for per country split-up).


i Other regular expenses (e.g. material, equipment, electricity, water) are not

covered in 13 out of 140 cases (9%, see Figure 58 for per country split-up). This

last point concerns systems in almost all countries – especially taking into

account that in 20 additional cases, interviewees did not know the situation

at their system. Dataset shows no relation with project type.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Solutionexists

Nosolutionexists


Figure 52: Income sources contributing to available O&M budget depending on project type

Figure 53: O&M budget definition depending on country

Figure 54: O&M budget definition depending on system type

Figure 55: Given response options for the question: ‘Do solutions exist for irregular expenses in the future (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage)?’ – per country distribution, colors indicate scoring


72 73

0 5 10 15 20 25

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Yes,all

Yes,all- butafterlongwait

Yes, someirregularexpenseswerepaidNoirregularexpenseswerepaid


0 10 20 30 40 50

Afghanistan

India

Nepal

Lesotho

Tanzania

Zambia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Philippines

Vietnam

Number of systems

Regular operator payment

Not always or not enough

No operator payment

There is no operator

HH system - operator is not paid

No data

0 10 20 30 40 50

AfghanistanIndia

NepalLesotho

TanzaniaZambia

CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number of systems

All regular expenses (other than op. salary) are covered

Some regular expenses (other than op. salary) are coveredNo income to pay regular expenses (other than op. salary)Interviewee does not know

i In those cases (29 out of 140, 21%) in which user fees are part of the income

sources, the associated processes work well:

] User fees discussed and agreed on by users (27 out of 29, 93%)

] Responsibility for fee collection is defined (28 out of 29, 97%), even

though mostly (25 out of 28, 89%) not in written

] Userfees are regularly collected (21 out of 29, 72%)

] Almost all community members are said to pay the fee (20 out of 29

cases, 69%)


i Investigate reasons why some projects have no source of income to cover

operational costs.

i highlighting the importance of an O&M budget definition by system users

as part of the hand-over procedure or training

i investigate reasons why in some cases, operators are not paid.

i investigate reasons why in some cases costs for regular expenses cannot

be covered

i investigate reasons why in some cases solutions for irregular expenses

do not exist

Figure 56: Given response options for the question: ‘In the past, have irregular expenses (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage) been paid? ‘ – per country distribution, colors indicate scoring, figure shows data from 76 systems at which irregular expenses were needed

Figure 57: Operator payment per country, colors indicate scoring

Figure 58: Regular expense coverage per country, colors indicate scoring

Picture: Administrative log book for orders; FSTP Context Kigamboni (Dar e Salaam, Tanzania)


74 75

3.10 SoC 9: Quality planning, design and construction

3.10.1 Statement of Change structureThis SoC evaluates the project output ‘quality planning, design and construction’

by investigating the existence of project specific and accurate design

documentation as well as acceptability of overall investment costs.

Statement of Change


9. Quality planning/ design and construction


9.1A Project documentation is availa-ble and specific to project

Are all important project documents available (design drawings, design spread sheet, feasibility study)?

9.1B Project documentation includes appropriate information on O&M costs

Does documentation include cost es-timations of required O&M activities?


9.2A Constructed systems matches design

Does type and the number of reactor chambers (for settler, ABR and AF) observed in the field, match the design?



to Appendix A.


0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems



i Estimation of O&M costs is not included in project documentation in 87

out of 140 cases (62%). See Figure 61 for the per country distribution. Countries

in which O&M cost estimation is never contained in project documentation

are Lesotho, Zambia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam. In India, for

most projects such information is not available through available project

documentation.

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Yes No Noaccesstodesigndocumentation

i For 70 out of 140 visited systems (50%) 1 or no project documents (out of

design drawings, design spread sheet, feasibility study) are available. This

issue is observed for older (31 out of 35 visited systems, 86%, >5 years age)

but also younger (35 out of 100 systems, 35%, <5 years age) systems.

Most such cases are observed in India, Nepal, Lesotho and Zambia (see

Figure 62).

! Background information: Lesotho – Quotations In the case of Lesotho, project documentation only consists of a

“quotation to the client”.

Since all household system designs in Lesotho are standardised and identical, otherwise important project documents such as design drawings, design spread sheet and feasibility study are deemed not necessary by the local management. The M&E methodology will be adapted to better suit these circumstances.

Figure 60: Per country distribution of average scores for SoC 9: Quality planning, design and construction

Figure 61: Availability of O&M costs in design documentation

0

8335

22

Table 15: Evaluation structure for SoC 9 – Quality planning, design and construction

Figure 59: Pie charts with distribution of average scores for SoC 9: Quality planning/ design and construction


76 77

0 10 20 30 40 50



CambodiaIndonesia

LaosPhilippines

Vietnam

Number ofsystems

Threeoutofthree Twooutofthree Oneoutofthree Noneofthethree

i In most cases, the constructed treatment modules and reactor chamber

numbers match the design (116 out of 118; 98%).

Not part of this SoC evaluation – but obviously related to it – is the question

of implementation costs:

In any case, knowing the overall investment costs should be considered

important to evaluate a project’s accurate ‘planning' (ie. SoC9). However, a

detailed investigation would take into account various factors such as country,

system type, reactor setup, system size, age and inflation.

As a suggestion by the authors, Figure 63 presents the per user (design user

number) construction costs (defined as: ‘the total costs, direct and indirect,

associated with transforming the design plan into a DEWATS plant ready for

operation, Start: site preparation – End: Commissioning /Handover”) of the

38 visited residential systems for which data was available.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Cons

truction

costs(

EUR/

use

r)

Systems

Afghanistan

India

Indonesia

Lesotho

Nepal

Philippines

Tanzania

! Suggested discussion at GD level D4: Does BORDA see an added value in reporting ‘DEWATS

investment costs per user’ (see Figure 63) and in defining (and monitoring) benchmarks for it??

On one hand, BORDA has a non-profit driven approach to projects, which in the past and for various reasons may not have focussed on economic aspects. On the other hand, there is understandably an increasing pressure from donors to optimize implementation costs of sanitation infrastructure in order to reach a maximum number of beneficiaries with available funds. Depending on the decision regarding benchmarks, investment costs can either be displayed simply as existing ranges (No good-bad weighting; see Figure 63), or, in case benchmarks are considered useful or relevant, they need to be defined and can become part of the SoC9 evaluation in future reports.


i highlight the importance of an O&M costs estimation as part of project

design and documentation.

i Investigate whether project implementation costs are contained in project

documentation as part of this SoC.

i Improve the availabilityof key project documents (design drawings, design

spread sheet, feasibility study) which are often missing (35% of investigated

cases younger than 5.5 years).

Figure 63: Per user (user number as assumed during design) construction costs of 38 visited residential systems

Figure 62: Availability of important project documents (design drawings, design spread sheet, feasibility study) at visited projects

Picture: Insertion of baffled pipes during construction work (Kabul, Afghanistan)


78 79

Published by BORDA e.V.

Am Deich 45

28199 Bremen

www.borda.org

Photos All rights reserved

by BORDA

Main authors Dr. Nicolas Reynaud

Elli Rodriguez

Dr. Alexander Wolf

Contact [email protected]

Design gegenfeuer.net

Release August 2018

with support from:

1

4a Appendix A: M&E Matrix structure and Parameter responses

In this Appendix, results are presented of each SoC with its Objectives, Priority Indicators and Parameters is shown (data from 2017 M&E investigations in 11 countries at 140 systems). Pie charts indicate average values as described in Chapter 2.2.

Note: SoC, Objective and PI scores depend on Parameter scores and killer criteria (see Table 4).

Color coding: Red = ‘Bad’, Yellow = ‘Caution’, Green = ‘Good’, Grey = ‘Dataset incomplete’ or ‘Data not available’, White = ‘Not relevant’

Statement of Change

Objective Priority indicator Parameter

1. The sanitationservice maintainsor improvesenvironmentalhealth


1.1A The most recent effluent analysis complies with BORDA Standards

If data available and reliable, does the average effluent COD meet relevant BORDA discharge standards (200mg/L or 80 mg/L depending whether anaerobic or aerobic effluent)? (Caution, yellow, means <20% above standard)

No <20% above

standard Yes No data Data not

reliable*

25 10 43 50 12

*Data not reliable if measured in external labs, except in Cambodia andTanzania

1.1B The most recent effluent analysis complies with Local Standards

If data available and reliable, does the average effluent COD meet relevant local discharge standards*? (Caution, yellow, means <20% above standard)

No No local standards

<20% above

standard Yes No data

Data not

reliable

32 20 7 19 50 12

Where is the sludge disposed to after desludging?

20

36

25

59

23

29

32

56

032

10

42

56

0

38

2719

56

0

2

Statement of Change



1.2 Evidence that waste or by-products (sludge, scum, trash, biogas) is safely disposed or reused

Truc

ked

to S

TP -

no

man

ual h

andl

ing

Truc

ked

to s

olid

w

aste

site

- n

o m

anua

l han

dlin

g

Man

ually

col

lect

ed

with

sol

id w

aste

Reu

sed

Saf

ely

buri

ed

On

land

, no

t sa

fely

re

used

or

buri

ed

Wat

erbo

dy o

r ri

ver

Oth

er

Inte

rvie

wee

doe

s no

t kn

ow

Inte

rvie

wee

not

av

aila

ble

Slu

dge

neve

r re

mov

ed

9 0 2 7 6 2 1 0 8 0 106

Where is the scum disposed to after descumming?

Scu

m

neve

r re

mov

ed

Sea

led

into

do

mes

tic

solid

w

aste

co

llect

ion

Uns

eale

din

to

dom

estic

so

lid

was

te

colle

ctio

nSaf

ely

stor

ed

Saf

ely

buri

ed

On

land

, no

t bu

ried

Wat

erbo

dy

or

rive

r

Oth

er

Inte

rvie

wee

do

es n

ot k

now

Inte

rvie

wee

no

t av

aila

ble

63 9 2 8 40 8 6 6 3 0

Where is the solid waste disposed to after removal from reactors or piping?

Sol

id

was

te

neve

r re

mov

ed

Sea

led

into

dom

estic

so

lid w

aste

col

lect

ion

Uns

eale

d in

to

dom

estic

sol

id w

aste

co

llect

ion

Saf

ely

stor

ed

Saf

ely

buri

ed

On

land

, no

t bu

ried

Wat

erbo

dy o

r ri

ver

Oth

er

Inte

rvie

wee

doe

s no

t kn

ow

Dat

a no

t av

aila

ble

46 18 4 13 41 14 3 5 7 0


25

62

50

3 0

25

62

50

3 0

3

Statement of Change


No

BG

D -

not

re

leva

nt

Bio

gas

is

alw

ays

used

Yes,

un

used

bi

ogas

is

al

way

s bu

rned

of

f

Unu

sed

biog

as

is

som

etim

es

burn

ed o

ff

No,

un

used

bi

ogas

is n

ever

bu

rned

off

Inte

rvie

wee

do

esn'

t kn

ow

Inte

rvie

wee

no

t av

aila

ble

105 21 0 1 12 1 0

Statement of Change Objective Priority indicators Parameters

2. The sanitationservice improves theliving conditions ofcommunities

2.1 Underserved people are connected to the sanitation service

2.1A Majority of sanitation users previously had no or basic access to sanitation

Before this system existed, what was the sanitation option used (or if SME, the wastewater discharge method) by the majority of users connected to the system?

Open defecation

Pit/Unimproved latrine

Toilet directly to waterbody

Flush-toilet connected to soak pit

Other unimproved sanitation option

10 16 6 23 13

Other improved sanitation option

Flush-toilet connected to functional and sealed septic tank

Not relevant, wastewater-stream did not exist before

Info not available

Project documentation not available

12 0 39 17 4

2.1B Majority of sanitation users are classified as disadvantaged (ie. Income)

What proportion of users are classified/registered as low income according to Project planning/FS?

Not relevant, system does not have users, e.g. someSME

Majority (> 50%)

Some (25 - 50%)

Few (<25%)

Info not available

Project documentation not available

58 31 6 15 26 4

12

31

57

40

11

37

44

18

30 160

6718

39

20

31

283

58

4


2.1C Unrestricted CSC access for disabled and elderly

Is access to the sanitation facility difficult or impossible for disabled/ elderly?

Yes, difficult. Access by stairs (not ramp), rough or uneven path

Yes, difficult. Distance too far for easy access

Yes, difficult. Other observed/reported access issues

Good access. No issues observed

No sanitation facility

11 0 0 13 116

2.2 Potential exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding communities is managed

2.2 Exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding communities is managed

Problematic wastewaterdischarge of systems with post treatment

Stream or river used by community close downstream (100m)

Stream or river which is dry during some parts of the year

Pond/lake used by community

Percolation pit within 10m of a water well

4 0 0 0

Problematic wastewaterdischarge of systems without post treatment

Reu

se f

or f

ish

farm

ing

Reu

se f

or

agri

cultu

re a

nd/o

r ho

rtic

ultu

re f

or f

ood

prod

uctio

n

Reu

se f

or n

on-f

ood

hort

icul

ture

(e.

g.

law

n, la

ndsc

apin

g)

Str

eam

or

rive

r us

ed

by c

omm

unity

clo

se

dow

nstr

eam

(10

0m)

Str

eam

or

rive

r w

hich

is d

ry d

urin

g so

me

part

s of

the

ye

ar

Pond

/lak

e us

ed b

y co

mm

unity

Perc

olat

ion

pit

with

in 1

0m o

f a

wat

er w

ell

1 18 0 2 6 0 0

è Therefore: Is the exposure to faecal pathogens for surrounding communitiesmanaged?

Yes Somewhat No Information not available

88 18 7 27

110

13 0

116

1418

82

260

1418

82

260

5


3. The service achievesproject specific impact

3.1 Sanitation service achieves intended objectives

3.1A Compared with the project documents, the original objective(s) of the sanitation service was (were) achieved

Pro

du

ce a

nd

u

se b

iog

as

Re-

use

of

was

tew

ater

Pre

-tre

at

was

tew

ater

b

efo

re

dis

char

ge

to

soli

d-f

ree

sew

er

Red

uct

ion

of

O&

M c

ost

s

Systems with this objective

35 51 19 40

Objective met 4 45 4 35

Objective somewhat met

23 0 5 0

Objective not met 7 6 4 0

Info not available 1 0 6 5

Not objective 97 83 113 94

No info on objectives

4 4 4 4

Statement of Change Objective Priority indicator Parameter

4. FunctioningTechnology - systemsare operating asintended

4.1 System operating as designed - acceptable loading and system hydraulics

4.1A Users within acceptable range of design

Is the utilisation (design/actual connected user) equal or above acceptable range?

Below (<66%)

Acceptable (>=66%, <133%)

Above (>=133%)

No data

35 60 8 37

11

21

4315

50

11

21

4315

50

11

21

4315

50

6



Yes

No,

gr

ey-w

ater

is

di

scha

rged

to

syst

em b

ut

it w

as n

ot d

esig

ned

for

it

No,

gr

ey-w

ater

is

no

t di

scha

rged

to

syst

em b

ut

it w

as d

esig

ned

for

it

No,

bl

ack-

wat

er

is

disc

harg

ed t

o sy

stem

but

it

was

not

des

igne

d fo

r it

No,

bl

ack-

wat

er

is

not

disc

harg

ed t

o sy

stem

but

it

was

des

igne

d fo

r it

No,

no

n-co

mm

unal

w

aste

wat

er is

dis

char

ged

to s

yste

m b

ut i

t w

as n

ot

desi

gned

for

it

No,

no

n-co

mm

unal

w

aste

wat

er

is

not

disc

harg

ed t

o sy

stem

but

it

was

des

igne

d fo

r it

Info

rmat

ion

not

avai

labl

e

127 2 1 1 2 1 0 6

4.1B Influent flow to the treatment system is observed


Yes No No, plant not conctd to piping

No access to plant inlet

TM not sure

126 6 0 8 0

4.1C The system does not experience severe flow surges

Are there signs of strong water level fluctuations inside anaerobic reactors (water, scum or small plastics on reactor walls above water level)? For details see GMF2 manual.

No Yes No access to inside of reactor

Settler, ABR and AF are not part of the design

TM not sure

98 13 19 3 7

Does the treatment system show changes during strong rain (overflow, bypass, smells)?

No strong rain in area

No, never Yes, changes observed

Yes, changes

Interviewee does not know

Interviewee not available

7 11

3884

711

75

47

07

37

59

37

0

90

123

8

24

26

86

40

7


sometimes

observed everytime

19 59 29 7 26 0

Does the treatment system experience backflow / inundation from the waterbody it discharges to?

No, never Yes, but only during major events (e.g. severe storm)

Yes, regularly

No discharge to waterbody



118 4 1 2 15 0

Based on the above three parameters, does the system experience any flow surge issues?

*Only scored as ‘Information not available” if none of the above three parametersis answered

No Minor issues At least one type of issue

Information not available*

88 28 18 6

4.1D Evidence of effluent flow


Yes, signs of recent flow

No signs of recent flow


No access to plant outlet

TM not sure

117 5 2 14 2

70

117

160

8


4.2 Systems operating as designed - treatment meets BORDA requirements

4.2A Anaerobic, and where applicable aerobic, effluent quality meet BORDA requirements

No rain Short rain or drizzle

Rain Strong rain No field sampling

91 0 25 2 22

Does the average COD concentration of the anaerobic effluent comply to BORDA design value (200 mg/ l)?

*Data not reliable if measured in external labs, except in Cambodia and Tanzania**Considered as affected by rain only if ‘strong rain” was observed in the field

Yes Almost <20% above standard

No No data There is no anaerobic treatment step

Data-source not reliable* and/or data probably affected by rain**

53 7 16 40 10 14

Does the average COD concentration of the aerobic effluent comply to BORDA design value (80 mg/ l)?

*Data not reliable if measured in external labs, except in Cambodia and Tanzania**Considered as affected by rain only if ‘strong rain” was observed in the field

Yes Almost <20% above standard

No No data There is no aerobic treatment step

Data-source not reliable* and/or data probably affected by rain**

19 4 16 48 44 9



21

17

44

58

0

24

13

45

58

0

9


Yes

No

acce

ss t

o ga

s va

lve

Bio

gas

pipi

ng

has

not

been

in

stal

led

No,

bio

gas

does

no

t re

ach

appl

ianc

e an

d le

akag

es o

r bl

ocka

ges

in

pipi

ng a

re

obse

rved

No,

bio

gas

does

no

t re

ach

appl

ianc

e an

d N

O le

akag

es o

r bl

ocka

ges

in

pipi

ng a

re

obse

rved

Not

rel

evan

t

11 6 1 0 17 105

222

110

105

10


5. FunctioningMaintenance - systems are maintained as intended


5.1A No signs of structural damage compromising functionality or warranty aspects

What building structure problems do you observe at treatment system (digester, settler, ABR, AF, PGF)?

Minor physical damage (e.g. small cracks); does not affect operation or safety

Major physical damage (e.g. large cracks, leakages, broken divider walls, floating bioballs in prefab-AF); affects operation or safety

Damaged manhole cover (cracked, partly missing); covering most of the manhole

Severely damaged or missing manhole cover

System is clearly not connected to piping

No noticeable damage

26 6 7 3 7 100


There are no pumps

No, all pumps work

Yes, at least one pump is broken but it does not affect plant treatment

Yes, at least one pump is broken and it affects plant treatment

No access to pumps

TM not sure

95 39 3 1 1 1

What structural problems with the sanitation facility(ies) (walls, roof and floor) do you observe?

11

5165

13 11

25

103

1 0

11

25

103

1 0

11


Minor physical damage (e.g. small cracks), not affecting operation, use or safety.

Major physical damage (e.g. large cracks), affecting operation, use or safety.

No noticeable damage

No CSC

10 0 14 116


5.2A Maintenance is adequate

See tables below

The following tables present parameter responses relevant to PI 5.2A


Yes No signs of recent flow



TM not sure

126 6 0 8 0

In the past, were maintenance issues with the sewer network fixed (clogging, blockage, bad smell or overflow)?

7

5962

120

7

5962

120

12

No sewer network - notrelevant

No maintenance issues so far

Yes, all issues fixed

Some isses fixed

No issues fixed



67 31 17 4 10 11 0

In the past, were major issues with the sewer network fixed (broken pipes or manhole, leakages, other major damage)?

No sewer network - notrelevant



Some isses fixed

No issues fixed



67 35 13 3 11 11 0

In the past, were maintenance issues with the household grease-traps fixed (clogging, bad smells)?

No household grease traps - not relevant



Some isses fixed

No issues fixed



114 11 7 1 6 1 0

Can the manhole covers of the treatment system be opened? Please try at least 5 manhole covers. In case they were opened before the start of the field visit, please ask the m.e. or operator.

All can be opened within 10 min each

Majority (≥ 50%) can be opened within 10 min each

Majority (> 50%) can NOT be opened within 10 min each

Majority (> 50%) can NOT be opened at all

94 22 10 14

Could a local desludging service provider access the treatment system with his cart, truck, etc.?

Yes No TM not sure

13

132 6 2

Has the system been desludged?

Yes, within the last 3 years

Yes, but more than 3 years ago

Never, system is younger than 3 years

Never, system is older than 3 years



28 3 60 46 3 0

How thick is the scum in the second (or if too difficult to open, third) ABR chamber?

There is no ABR

There is no scum

Less than 2 cm

2 cm or more

No access to chambers

24 44 42 11 19

Do you see much plastic waste (more than 20 items) inside the second (or if too difficult to open, third) anaerobic reactor chamber (can be settler, ABR or AF chamber)? (single selection)

No Some waste (< 20 items)

Yes, much waste (> 20 items)

No access to chambers

Settler, ABR and AF are not part of the design

92 25 6 13 4

Do you observe problems concerning the planted gravel filter?

No PGF Dead plants Slime on surface

Stagnating water on the surface - because swivel pipe is set too high

Stagnating water on the surface - probable reason: filter blockage

Swivel pipe broken, water level very low

No plants Large amounts of solid waste

Other problems (e.g. smell, dead leaves, few plants)

No problems

64 11 3 6 11 1 19 5 15 31

14

What functional problems do you observe about the sanitary installations?

Som

e to

ilets

/ ba

thro

oms

seem

unu

sed

Laun

dry

area

see

ms

unus

ed

Faci

lity

does

no

t ha

ve

func

tioni

ng li

ghts

Elec

tric

ity is

not

ava

ilabl

e

Wat

er is

not

ava

ilabl

e

Blo

cked

flo

or-d

rain

s

No

was

te b

ins

with

cov

ers

are

prov

ided

insi

de c

ubic

les

Som

e to

ilets

/ ba

thro

oms

are

bloc

ked/

brok

en

Som

e to

ilets

/ ba

thro

om

door

s ar

e m

issi

ng/b

roke

n/ca

n't

be

lock

ed

Som

e to

ilets

/ ba

thro

oms

are

uncl

ean

(rub

bish

, di

rty,

not

cl

eane

d in

pas

t 2

d)

No

O&

M o

r H

HE

post

ers

are

hung

up

Bro

ken

hand

was

hing

-bas

in

or t

ap

No

hand

was

hing

fac

ility

No

prob

lem

s

No

CSC

/Not

rel

evan

t

2 7 2 9 1 2 10 2 4 2 11 3 7 8 116

Do you observe problems with the water trap?

There is no water trap

No access to water trap

No problem, the current water trap setting allows free biogas flow

Yes. Water trap has not been emptied, although required by design

Yes. Water trap is not at the lowest point of the biogas piping

Yes, other problem

Not relevant

23 8 4 0 0 0 105


Yes No access to gas valve

Biogas piping has not been installed

No, biogas does not reach appliance and leakages or blockages in piping are observed

No, biogas does not reach appliance and NO leakages or blockages in piping are observed

Not relevant

11 6 1 0 17 105

15

Is the biogas appliance working (lamp/ heater/ stove)?

There is no appliance and/or biogas piping

Yes Not accessible, cannot be checked

No, appears broken, corroded or clogged

No, because gas does not reach

No, because of other problem

Not relevant

5 22 2 1 3 2 105

Do you observe problems with the pressure gauge?

No pressure gauge installed

No. it contains water and is well calibrated

Yes. it contains water but is not well calibrated

Yes. it is empty (no water)

Not relevant

25 7 0 3 105


No BGD - not relevant

Biogas is always used

Yes, unused biogas is always burned off

Unused biogas is sometimes burned off

No, unused biogas is never burned off

Interviewee doesn't know


105 21 0 1 12 1 0


6. SustainingDemand - system isavailable, used tocapacity andacceptable


6.1A For systems with SSS, system receives and processes wastewater


Yes No No, plant is clearly not connected to piping system


TM not sure

126 6 0 8 0

16


6.1B For systems with CSC, ratio of users to functioning toilets is acceptable

Acceptable ratio of users per functioning toilets (20 users per toilet)

Defined ratio and below

Above defined ratio

No data No CSC

11 10 3 116

6.1C DEWATS processes wastewater


Yes, signs of recent flow

No signs of recent flow


No access to plant outlet

TM not sure

117 5 2 14 2

6.1D For biogas systems, biogas can be used

When you open the gas valve furtherst away from the BGD, do you hear or smell gas release?

7 9

76

48

720

89

240

70

125

80

100

11 3

116

90

116

150


Yes No access to gas valve

Biogas piping has not been installed

No, biogas does not reach appliance and leakages or blockages in piping are observed

No, biogas does not reach appliance and NO leakages or blockages in piping are observed

Not relevant

18 6 11 0 0 105


6.2A Utilisation is close to full capacity (ie. actual/design users)14

Is the utilisation (actual/design users) equal or above acceptable range?

Below (<66%)

Acceptable (>=66%, <133%)

Above (>=133%)

No data

35 60 8 37



No BGD - notrelevant

Daily Not daily but regularly

Seldom (less than once a week)

Never Interviewee does not know


105 20 2 5 7 1 0

14 May be affected by ‚killer criteria’: scored as ‘bad’ if piping is not connected to system. 17

19 5

110

105

38

13

54

35

0

47

059

34

0

8 5

211

105

18


6.3 Acceptability: Culturally acceptable, users satisfied with system

6.3A Satisfaction indicated by high utilisation or no evident issues of low acceptance

If the utilisation is below 66% design value, what are the reasons?

High utilisation rate (> 66%) (=3)

Low utilisation rate (<= 66%) but reported reasons do not indicate low acceptance

Low utilisation rate (<= 66%) and reported reasons indicate low acceptance

Low utilisation rate (<= 66%) but no information available about reasons

No information on utilisation rate but reported feedback does not indicate low acceptance

No information on utilisation rate and reported feedback indicates low acceptance

No data

68 32 2 1 35 2 0

110

128

1 011

0

128

1 0

19


7. Effectivemanagement:Existing, active andaccountablemanagement entityand operator



Does a management entity (m.e.) exist?

Yes, members of the served community

Yes, members of the institution (e.g. school) or SME

Yes, external agency

Yes, other (e. g. owner)

Yes, but not available for personal / phone interview

No management entity exists

25 67 1 0 41 2

Did the management entity receive the required trainings (Financial, O&M, HHE)?

Yes, all required trainings were received

One or two out of three trainings were received

None -m. e.haschangedsincestart of operation

None - m. e.has notchangedsincestart ofoperation

M.e.received othertype oftraining

There is no management entity

Management entity not available for interview

19 95 9 4 5 2 2

Is the management entity aware of its responsibilities (financial administration; coordinating & arranging financing of major repairs - pumps, broken piping, structural damage to treatment system; employing and managing operator; training operator; deciding about additional connections)?

Yes, aware of all responsibilities above

Aware of some responsibilities (including managing operator)

Aware of some responsibilities (but not managing operator)

Not aware of any responsibility

Aware of other responsibilities



1 58 59 7 7 2 2

15

5548

22

6

59

52

230

2

45

87

60

20


Does management entity have documentation of legal registration to carry out its responsibilities (e.g. officially registered with appropriate government department)?

Not applicable as no legal registration necessary

Yes and legal documentation is shown (photograph must be taken)

Yes, but legal documentation is not shown

No Interviewee does not know



59 4 57 9 3 2 2

7.1B Management entity is active and accountable

Does the management entity meet regularly?

No, but m. e. exists ofonly 1 person (owner household system)

Yes and meting documention is shown (photograph must be taken)

Yes, but meeting documentation is not shown

No, m. e. does not meet regularly



27 5 75 25 2 2

Are O&M responsibilities of the operator defined and documented?

Yes, as part of a contract

Yes, in a printed document

No documents, but interviewee can provide detail on operator role

No documents and interviewee cannot provide details on operator role


Operator not available for interview

22 9 66 12 14 3


20

62

35

230

21


Yes Not always or not enough

No payment



No data


77 2 16 13 3 11 18

Are income and/or expenses documented in financial administration logbook or elsewhere?

Yes, documentation is shown

Yes, but documentation NOT shown

No documentation exists


Management entity exists but nobody is available for interview

6 78 54 2 0

Is there documentation of conducted O&M activities?

Yes, logbook or documentation shown (photograph must be taken)

Yes, but documentation NOT shown

No documentation exists


Management entity exists but nobody is available for interview

8 31 99 2 0



Is there a person/caretaker/operator assigned and responsible for O&M activities? (in the following called ‘operator’)

Yes, operator is community member, SME employee or owner

Yes, operator is external service provider

No, but one or more people WITHOUT O&M responsibility take care of facility


107 5 14 14

Has the operator received O&M training?

16

67

54

3 0

16

67

54

3 0

22


Yes Only limited/ brief training

No, operator has changed since start of operation

No, operator same since start of operation



No data

74 30 4 1 28 3 0

Is the operator aware of his responsibilities?

Yes, aware of all responsibilities

Aware of most responsibilities

Not aware of most responsibilities

Not aware of any responsibility



No data

13 48 44 4 28 3 0

Does the operator have all necessary tools required to perform O&M activities (opening manholes, deblocking sewer system, scum and solid waste removal from reactors)?

Yes, all tools

Some tools

No tools




48 63 11 4 14 0

23


8. SustainableFinancing: Sufficientongoing income tocover all short andlong term costs

8.1 Regular income 8.1A O&M budget and/or user fees have been agreed on and are collected

Was a fixed O&M budget defined?

Yes, O&M budget defined by local authority

Yes, O&M budget defined by m.e.

No O&M budget defined



26 49 49 9 0

What are the income sources contributing to available O&M budget?

Use

r fe

es

Reg

ular

(lo

cal)

go

vern

men

t/ u

tility

su

ppor

t

Inco

me

thro

ugh

SM

E ac

tiviti

es

Inco

me

thro

ugh

othe

r ac

itivi

es (

e.g.

se

lling

wat

er e

tc)

Oth

er (

plea

se

spec

ify)

Non

e

Inte

rvie

wee

doe

s no

t kn

ow

Inte

rvie

wee

not

av

aila

ble

31 44 25 12 34 8 1 0

Were the user fees set by local authority or agreed on by users themselves?

Yes, user fees set by local authority

Yes, user fees discussed and agreed on by users

User fees discussed but not agreed on by users


No set user fees


11 18 2 0 102 0

Is someone responsible for the user fee collection process and is this documented?

9

30

80

21

9

52

72

70

9

52

72

70

24


Yes, responsibility is defined and documentation is shown (photograph must be taken)

Responsibility is defined but documention is NOT shown

Responsibility is not defined


No set user fees


3 27 1 0 102 0

Are user fees collected?

Yes, regularly

Yes, but irregularly/ on demand

No Interviewee does not know

No set user fees


23 3 5 0 102 7

What proportion of users pay fees?

Almost all (> 66%)

Some/half (33 - 66%)

Few/None (< 33%)


No set user fees


20 3 0 8 102 7


8.2A Regular operation and maintenance expenses (operator salary, material, equipment, electricity and water costs) are covered by income


Yes Not always or not enough

No payment



No data


77 2 16 13 3 11 18

Are regular expenses other than operator salaries (e.g. material, equipment, electricity, water) paid through the available income?

Yes, all regular expenses are paid

Yes, some regular expenses are paid

No income to pay regular expenses



84 23 13 20 0

17

29

80

140

25

15

86

140

25


8.2B Irregular expenses (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage) are covered by income

Do solutions exist for irregular expenses in the future (replacing major parts, desludging, structural damage)?

Yes (e.g. via regular income, extra community contribution, local government support)

No solution exists



102 19 19 0

In the past, have irregular expenses been paid?

Yes,

all

Yes,

all

- bu

t af

ter

long

wai

t

Yes,

som

e ir

regu

lar

expe

nses

wer

e pa

id

No

irre

gula

r ex

pens

es w

ere

paid

No

maj

or r

epai

rs

Inte

rvie

wee

do

es

not

know

Inte

rvie

wee

no

t av

aila

ble

37 3 10 17 64 9 0

30

1991

00

26


9. Quality planning/design andconstruction


9.1A Project documentation is available and specific to project

Are all important project documents available (design drawings, design spread sheet, feasibility study)?

Yes, all three

Two out of three

One out of three

None of the three is available

51 19 35 35

9.1B Project documentation includes appropriate information on O&M costs

Does documentation include cost estimations of required O&M activities?

Yes No No access to any design documentation

53 83 4


9.2A Constructed systems matches design

Does type and the number of reactor chambers (for settler, ABR and AF) observed in the field, match the design?

Yes No No access to count reactor chambers

No access to documentation or documentation insufficiently detailed

116 2 2 20

0

8335

22 49

55

36

00

70

19

51

00

83

4

53

00

20

116

220

20

116

220

27

4b Appendix B: Per project average SoC scores

This Appendix presents the per system average SoC scores sorted by countries (scale 1 to 3, 1 representing bad performance, 2 caution, 3 good performance). Grey cells indicate missing scores because of incomplete datasets or, in the case of some SoC 3 scores, non-relevance of the SoC for these projects.

Country Name 1.Environmental

health

2.Improving

livingcond.

3.Projectspec.

impact

4.Functioning

technology

5.Functioning

maintenance

6.Sustaining

demand

7.Effective

management

8.Sustainable

financing

9.Planning,

design,constr.

Killer

Criterion(ia)

Afghanistan ACTcampus 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.0Afghanistan BanaiMUDA 3.0 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.0Afghanistan AbdulRahmanMosque 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0Afghanistan AUWSSC 2.6 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0Afghanistan Qasabahousingcomplex(I) 2.0 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.4 3.0 YesAfghanistan Qasabahousingcomplex(II) 2.3 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.1 3.0 YesAfghanistan Qasabahousingcomplex(III) 2.0 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.1 3.0 YesAfghanistan Qasabahousingcomplex(IV) 1.7 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.1 3.0 YesAfghanistan Qasabahousingcomplex(V) 1.7 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.1 3.0 YesAfghanistan BORDAoffice 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0Afghanistan Naeemhouse 2.4 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.3Afghanistan NouriHouse 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.0Afghanistan ShamsaChildrenvillage 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0Afghanistan NadirHouse 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.0Afghanistan FaisalHouse 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.2 2.5 2.3Afghanistan MukhlesHouse 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.0Afghanistan AbdullahIbneMasoudMosque 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.6 2.5 3.0 2.3Afghanistan ZainulabedinLaghmaniMosque 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0Afghanistan RasulHouse 2.2 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3Afghanistan Emalhouse 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.0Afghanistan ImamAzamMosque 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.0Afghanistan MukhtarHouse 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3Afghanistan IndiraGhandiinstituteofchildshealth(IGICH)Phase1 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0Afghanistan IndiraGhandiinstituteofchildshealth(IGICH)Phase2 2.8 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.7Cambodia KeoMonyPrimarySchool 1.8 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0Cambodia ThnoutKhpousPrimarySchool 1.0 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.0Cambodia TekhakPanhNhorPrimarySchool 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.0Cambodia BithMeasPrimarySchool 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.0

28


health

2.Improving

livingcond.

3.Projectspec.

impact

4.Functioning

technology

5.Functioning

maintenance

6.Sustaining

demand

7.Effective

management

8.Sustainable

financing

9.Planning,

design,constr.

Killer

Criterion(ia)

Cambodia SamakiPrimarySchool 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.0Cambodia 7MakaraPrimarySchool 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.6 3.0Cambodia 24Kanha1993 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0Cambodia Chrava 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0Cambodia Kosang 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.7 3.0India GoodEarthFootprints 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.7 YesIndia T.Chintalacherry 1.3 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.7India T.Mettupatty 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.7India Krishnampatty 1.7 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.7India Lakshminayakampatty 2.3 3.0India GoodEarthMalharMosaic 2.3 2.3India GoodEarth,Terraces 1.3 1.0 3.0 2.3 3.0India GoodEarth,Resonance 1.3 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.7India RajivNagar 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 YesIndia GoodEarthPalmGrove 2.7 2.9 2.2 1.0 YesIndia Vaikalpatty 2.6 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.7India Manikkapuram-ADColony 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.7India Ponnamalpatty 1.7 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.7India M.Subulapuram 2.6 2.5 3.0 1.7India T.Muthurengapuram 1.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.7 YesIndia Tekkampatty 2.4 2.5 2.6 1.7India Sathagally 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 YesIndia AnumaPrecisionTool 2.3 3.0 3.0 1.9 2.3India GokaldasImages 3.0 1.0 2.5 2.7 2.3India AcuprintPvt.Ltd., 1.6 3.0 1.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 1.7India GokuldasImages2 3.0 1.0 2.4 2.3India SatGuru 2.4 2.5 2.3India KalmeshwarWeeklyVegetableMarket 3.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.7India HarvestInternationalSchool 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.6 2.3India ResidenceofAnthyaMadith 2.0 1.7 1.0 2.6 2.3 YesIndia AssosciationofPeoplewithDisability(APD) 1.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7India AnneManeFarmHouse 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0 1.6India KamalSolarFactory 3.0 1.0 2.6 2.5 2.7 1.7India Mr.NarasingaRao'sresidence 1.3 3.0 1.0 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.3 1.7India AmmankulamHousingColony-Cluster1 1.7 2.4 1.0 2.5 3.0 Yes

29


health

2.Improving

livingcond.

3.Projectspec.

impact

4.Functioning

technology

5.Functioning

maintenance

6.Sustaining

demand

7.Effective

management

8.Sustainable

financing

9.Planning,

design,constr.

Killer

Criterion(ia)

India AmmankulamHousingColony-Cluster2 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.5 2.7 YesIndia AmmankulamHousingColony-Cluster3 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.0 2.7 YesIndia SilverOakSchool 2.7 3.0 1.0 2.3 2.7 2.3India PositiveLabels1 1.4 2.0 3.0 2.4 2.8 2.5India NurtureInternationalschool 1.3 2.6 1.0 2.5 1.7 YesIndia IITGandhinagar 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.0 3.0India PositiveLabels2 2.0 1.0 2.3 2.5India MoazariVillage.Part-1 2.3 2.1 1.7India MoazariVillagePart2 2.3 2.1 1.7India ShendolaVillage 2.3 2.1 1.0 1.7 YesIndia WarkhedVillage 2.4 1.0 2.5 1.7 YesIndia FlipKartWarehouse 1.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.7 YesIndia MarvelTechnology&ToolPvtLtd 2.3 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 1.9 2.0 1.7India GoodEarthOrchid 2.4 1.0 2.3 2.7Indonesia LempuyangwangiHospital 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.3Indonesia KSMBeriman 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3Indonesia KompanSehat 1.3 2.0 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.3Indonesia TegalSehat 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.3Indonesia KSMIkhlas 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.3Indonesia KSMMersudiWaras 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.3Indonesia MahesoKridho 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.3Indonesia PasebanManunggal 2.5 1.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.3Indonesia GebangMakmur 1.0 2.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.3Indonesia Miguno 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.3Indonesia Selancar 2.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.3Indonesia KaryaKrida 2.0 1.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.3Indonesia ManunggalingKarso 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.3Laos LuangphabangNightMarket 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.3Laos WorldBankofficeLaos 2.0 2.6 3.0 2.3Laos ParkhaotaiPrimarySchool 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.3Lesotho Setlolela 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 1.8 1.8Lesotho Putsoa 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.5 1.8 1.5Lesotho MaitumelengNtsihlele 3.0 2.4 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.7 YesLesotho LipholoMakhetha(oldCouple) 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.6Lesotho Lerotholi 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.5

30


health

2.Improving

livingcond.

3.Projectspec.

impact

4.Functioning

technology

5.Functioning

maintenance

6.Sustaining

demand

7.Effective

management

8.Sustainable

financing

9.Planning,

design,constr.

Killer

Criterion(ia)

Lesotho NapoSefali 1.8 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.8 YesLesotho BanaProject 2.4 1.8 1.3Lesotho MeMaiboiteloJobo 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.0Lesotho NonyaneAssociates 2.2 1.8 1.8Lesotho God'sLoveOrphanage 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.5Nepal DhulikhelHospital 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.7 1.7Nepal SushmaKoiralaHospital 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 YesNepal KathmanduUniversity 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 YesNepal ENPHOOffice 2.5 2.0 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.6 1.7Nepal MalpiInternationalSchool 3.0 1.0 2.3 3.0 1.7Nepal SungaCommunity 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.7 2.3 YesNepal Srikhandapur 1.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.3Nepal SanoKhokanacommunity 3.0 1.0 2.2 2.5 1.7Nepal Amaghar 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3Nepal ICIMOD,Khulmatar 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.3Philippines RosarioDistrictHospital 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.3Philippines CenterforCommunityTransformationMagdalenaCampus 2.3 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.3Philippines BagbagCommunity 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3Tanzania CCBRTextension_2 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 YesTanzania ISTHousingGreyWater_2 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.7Tanzania ISTHousingBlackWater_2 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7Tanzania Majaniyachaisec.School_2 1.5 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3Tanzania BORDA-SADCoffice_2 2.8 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.7Tanzania ShokonyPr.School_2 3.0 1.0 2.3 2.7Tanzania SchoolofSt.Jude_2 2.2 3.0 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.8 2.7Vietnam VuDinhThipig-farm 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 YesVietnam NguyenVanTuypig-farm 1.0 2.1 1.0 2.0 YesVietnam NguyenVanThinhpigfarm 2.6 2.0 1.0 2.3 YesVietnam FieldrestaurantHoiAnCity 1.0 2.4 2.2 YesVietnam VoThiSauschool 2.7 2.4 1.0 2.0 YesZambia PestalozziDEWATS 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.3Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG40digester 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG30digester 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG20marketdigester 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG20contraversial 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.7 3.0 1.7

31


health

2.Improving

livingcond.

3.Projectspec.

impact

4.Functioning

technology

5.Functioning

maintenance

6.Sustaining

demand

7.Effective

management

8.Sustainable

financing

9.Planning,

design,constr.

Killer

Criterion(ia)

Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG20Mr.Tembo 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG10marketdigester 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG20Guesthouse 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG10 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneLibuyu-BG20 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.6 3.0 1.7Zambia LivingstoneEEPSatelitedigester 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.7 YesZambia OldMacDonaldsfarm 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.7 1.9 1.8 2.3

Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS...Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS Global M&E Report...

Documents

Transcript of Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS...Monitoring & Evaluation of BORDA DEWATS Global M&E Report...