This article was downloaded by: [41.206.37.

141] On: 20 August 2013, At: 09:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Water International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20

Efficiency indicators for waste-based business models: fostering privatesector participation in wastewater and faecal-sludge management
Ashley Murray , Olufunke Cofie & Pay Drechsel
a a b c

Waste Enterprisers Ltd. and International Water Management Institute-Ghana, Accra, Ghana
b c

International Water Management Institute, Accra, Ghana

International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka Published online: 10 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Ashley Murray , Olufunke Cofie & Pay Drechsel (2011) Efficiency indicators for waste-based business models: fostering private-sector participation in wastewater and faecalsludge management, Water International, 36:4, 505-521, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2011.594983 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.594983

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Water International Vol. 36, No. 4, July 2011, 505521

Efciency indicators for waste-based business models: fostering private-sector participation in wastewater and faecal-sludge management
Ashley Murraya *, Olufunke Coeb and Pay Drechselc
Waste Enterprisers Ltd. and International Water Management Institute-Ghana, Accra, Ghana; International Water Management Institute, Accra, Ghana; c International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
b a

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Opportunities for publicprivate partnerships based on cost recovery from the reuse of human waste remain unexplored. In this paper, the authors present four potential business models involving aquaculture, biogas recovery, compost production and the use of faecal sludge as an industrial fuel, and describe their associated nancial ows. The business models are based on efciency indicators that can provide decision support to local authorities and entrepreneurs in choosing options that are best suited to local conditions and needs. The ultimate target should be that a portion of revenues from reuse can help nance less-protable sections of the sanitation service chain. Keywords: reuse; urban sanitation; Ghana; decision support; resource recovery; cost recovery

Introduction The private sector has an important role to play in improving wastewater and faecalsludge (FS) handling in emerging urban areas. Small-scale independent providers (SSIPs) are already quite active in many developing cities, lling protable and critical niches such as cesspit and latrine emptying, and providing pay-to-use toilet blocks (Schaub-Jones 2010). In Latin America and Africa, it is estimated that 5085% of urban residents rely on SSIPs for sanitation services, although this does not necessarily equate to having access to adequate sanitation (Davis 2005). Developing-country governments are increasingly looking to boost private participation in the sector (Haarmeyer 1997, UN Millennium Project 2005). For example, Ghanas National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan (NESSAP) puts forward the targets of 100% privately operated desludging (that is, of household and community septic tanks and latrines) and fully franchised management of all government-built treatment plants by 2015 (MLGRD and EHSD 2010). The private sector entered the water and sanitation scene towards the end of the International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade of the 1980s. However, poor progress toward water and sanitation for all, in combination with a shift toward neoliberal (freemarket) economic policies among development agencies and other international actors, led to an upsurge in private participation (Budds and McGranahan 2003). Private-sector participation (PSP) has been carried out through a variety of arrangements (leases, concessions,

Corresponding author. Email: ashley@waste-enterprisers.com

ISSN 0250-8060 print/ISSN 1941-1707 online 2011 International Water Resources Association DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2011.594983 http://www.informaworld.com

506

A. Murray et al.

build-operate-transfer), all of which involve investment in sanitation infrastructure with the goal of improving the performance and efciency of sanitation services by having a direct role in their provision (for example, billing, maintenance and plant management) (Davis 2005). Far from achieving the envisioned scale or impact, private-sector investment and commercial bank lending to the sanitation sector has been in decline since peaking in the late 1990s (Budds and McGranahan 2003, Hall and Lobina 2008). In particular, lowand middle-income countries have had difculty attracting private investment due to the low probability of cost recovery (Budds and McGranahan 2003, Davis 2005). The fee-forsanitation-service model that has governed PSP in sanitation has constrained private actors to serving only communities and households that have the ability to pay for the full cost of those services. Cross-subsidization is impossible, since the minority of those who could pay a higher charge is far too small to subsidize the large majority who are unable to meet the required fee. Instead of giving up on PSP in sanitation, it is time to think more creatively about modes of engagement. We argue that there are untapped opportunities for developing novel publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) that hinge on resource recovery from human waste. These partnerships could help incentivize and even co-nance the sanitation sector while simultaneously promoting small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs (Kone 2010). In this article, we put forth four waste-based business models that have potential to simultaneously generate a prot for entrepreneurs and businesses, and help nance a sanitation value chain that adequately protects public and environmental health. We arrived at these business models through developing and applying efciency indicators, which depict the physical and nancial costs and benets of reusing wastewater and FS generated by a standardized population size. Comparing the nancial, logistical and market proles of an array of reuse options enables us to assess the suitability of different waste-based businesses in different contexts. The business models presented here are not only a departure from disposal-oriented waste management, but also from reuse scenarios that do not allocate revenues back to the collection and/or treatment of waste. Our intent is to push the limits of conventional thinking on wastewater/FS management and sanitation nancing. The examples we give are far from exhaustive, and could be modied and extended in various ways to match local conditions. In the Ghana case presented here, the efciency indicators were intended to facilitate a quick and quantitative comparison of the merits and requirements of an array of possible wastewater and excreta reuse options, including agricultural (for example, use of urine and faecal sludge for fertilizer, wastewater-fed aquaculture), domestic (biogas generation from faecal matter and use as cooking fuel) and industrial (use of FS as a fuel in cement kilns or furnaces). To understand which option is the most appropriate, the indicators shed light on the nancial ows associated with reuse, as well as the physical land or other form of production factors, resources or capacities that are required of the end users to productively reuse the waste generated by a given population size. While we contend that reuse has substantial benets, we recognize that some reuses are more costly, while some may not be applicable. By revealing the allocation of nancial costs and benets linked to different reuse value chains, the indicators are instrumental in identifying business models and PPPs that have potential to achieve and to nance, at least partially, the safe and adequate collection, treatment and disposal or reuse of human waste while providing prots to entrepreneurs.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Water International Methods1

507

The concept of the efciency indicators emerged as a result of a study aimed at compiling a compendium of reuse cases for wastewater and FS (Murray and Coe 2010). The study shed light on the limited utility of such case studies for decision support because there was not a standardized means of comparing each reuse option, and evaluating their transferability to a given area or population size. The efciency indicators are intended to ll that void and are informed by the vast literature on the design and use of indicators as decisionmaking tools (Lundin et al. 1999, Sahely et al. 2005, Murray et al. 2009). We present a set of ve efciency indicators: r r r r r required (waste product) receiving capacity of end user; marginal production gain through reuse; market value of marginal production gain; capital cost linked to additional waste reuse; and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs linked to additional waste reuse.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Data for the efciency indicators were collected from reuse-oriented sanitation systems in Africa and Southeast Asia. The indicators are evaluated for 10 potential waste mediums and ve unique reuse options, each characterized according to the point at which the nancial and resource value is recovered: directly without any formal treatment; in situ, occurring during or simultaneously with treatment; and post-treatment (Table 1). The nancial data were normalized to Ghanaian prices (but reported in US$) so they could be accurately compared. The results of the efciency indicators are presented in terms of 100,000 personequivalents (pe) of waste producers. We chose this size because it is representative of a small peri-urban settlement or the population of a district within a larger city, and because it is a large enough number to give readers a sense of the scalability of different reuse options in different urban settings. The spreadsheet model we developed for calculating the indicators can be used for any population size, and nancial data can be easily customized to reect local costs. Most of the reuse options we present have been proven on a variety of scales and in different locations. One exception is the use of dewatered FS as a fuel (for incineration in boilers or furnaces), which was included because it appears to be a promising and emerging option for urban settings. The use of conventional sewage sludge (from activated sludge systems) as a fuel in industry is a recent trend, accounting for about 2% of fuel substitution by the global cement industry alone (Fytili and Zabaniotou 2008). Descriptions and data inputs and assumptions associated with the ve indicators are described below and further detailed in the supplementary information (SI) (Tables SI.1 and SI.2). Required receiving capacity of end user Perhaps the most critical condition for implementing a given reuse is the availability of end users who can absorb the supply of the waste (product). Assuming 100,000 pe (waste producers), the capacity requirement indicator quanties the land-area or daily-fuel demand that would be required to absorb waste in different forms from that population. Agricultural capacity requirements are based on best available information from eld trials and observations of selected waste applications, and generally assume that the water or nutrient application is the minimum requirement for plant growth, given health and environmental

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

508

Table 1. Description of each human-waste medium, its embodied resource of primary value (input), its productive use (output) and quantity of input generated per person-equivalent (pe) per year. Resource (input) of primary value Productive use/output fertilizer/crops fertilizer and soil conditioner/crops irrigation/crops household biogas/fuel community biogas/fuel aquaculture/sh Qty input/pe/yr 2 kg N(Langergraber and Muellegger 2005) 0.34 m3 (assumes one part public toilet at 100 g/TS-cap-d and two part septic sludge at 20 g TS/cap-d) 26 m3 (assumes 85 L/p.e./d and 85% return as wastewater) 0.73 m3 (EAWAG/SANDEC 1998) 0.73 m3 (EAWAG/SANDEC 1998), 70% captured 26 m3 (assumes 85 L/p.e./d and 85% return as wastewater) N N, org. carbon

A. Murray et al.

Medium

Direct (untreated) use Urine Raw faecal sludge

Untreated wastewater carbon carbon water, N, P

Water, nutrients if undiluted

In-situ use Faecal sludge Faecal sludge Wastewater (in nal maturation ponds of a waste-stabilization pond system) org. carbon solid fuel/industrial products

Post-treatment use Dewatered faecal sludge

Dewatered faecal sludge org. carbon water

org. carbon

soil conditioner/crops soil conditioner/crops irrigation/crops

Co-composted faecal sludge Treated wastewater

260 MJ (assumes one part public toilet at 100 g/TS/p.e./d and two part septic sludge at 20 g TS/p.e./d; Assumes 15 MJ/kg DS (Fytili and Zabaniotou 2008)) 100 kg (at 70% dry solids) (EAWAG/SANDEC 1998) 69 kg mature compost (Coe and Kone 2009) 26 m3 (assumes 85 L/p.e./d, 85% return as wastewater)

Note: N = nitrogen; TS = total solids; cap = capita; P = phosphorus; MJ = megajoule; DS = dry solids.

Water International

509

considerations. For in situ reuses, such as biogas recovery and aquaculture, this efciency indicator is not applicable. Table SI.2 details the assumptions used to quantify this indicator for each waste stream. Incremental production gain through reuse and associated market value An important indicator of the nancial viability and potential end-user demand for different reuse options is the incremental production gain that is achieved, and the associated net benet. For agricultural reuses, this indicator captures the incremental yield change compared to the most likely conditions farmers face without waste reuse. Thus, for land application of urine, incremental yields could be calculated compared to yields that are expected from conventional (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium or urea) fertilizers, or no extra inputs, depending on local availability and common practices. Where wastewater allows irrigation, the incremental yields could be compared with rainfed agriculture as the baseline condition. The incremental yields from soil conditioners, such as co-compost from organic solid waste and FS, could be compared to cultivation without inputs or to other inputs relevant in the local context. The number of studies quantifying the yields achieved when applying excreta/ wastewater in various forms is small (Germer and Sauerborn 2006, Coe et al. 2008, Adamtey et al. 2010). We could not identify one crop that has been examined for different waste streams in the West African sub-region, where most of the cases were drawn from. Common cash crops usually vary between cereals and vegetables, depending on market forces and season. Lacking an obvious crop choice, we have chosen maize for our analysis of the land application of FS (fresh, dewatered, composted) and urine. For wastewater irrigation, we examine the cultivation of a mix of perishable (exotic) vegetables. Typical yields are taken from various regions of Ghana. Subsequently, the incremental yields and retail values from different reuses are not strictly comparable. However, in practice, different waste streams are applicable for different crops and climate zones. Assumptions behind the evaluation of this indicator for each reuse are shown in Table SI.2. Capital, operation and maintenance costs associated with reuse The costs attributed to this indicator include the capital and operating costs of co-requisite treatment technologies and any additional costs associated with preparing a waste stream for reuse. Transportation costs are neglected when they offset a transport cost that would otherwise occur. For example, the use of raw FS (within the city) could have zero costs linked to it if we assume that the transport costs to a farm are equivalent to those that would have been borne of transporting the sludge for disposal. The operating costs include assumptions about transportation distances (from the plant to point of use) and labour, based on conditions in Ghana. Assumptions made for costs linked to each reuse are shown in Table SI.2. Results Receiving capacity of end users Based on our assumptions about the thresholds for different agricultural end uses, there is a two order of magnitude difference in the land requirement for the reuse of different waste streams and waste-based products (Figure 1). Land application of urine requires the most land area. Wastewater-fed aquaculture and wastewater irrigation require the least land for

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

510

A. Murray et al.
1200

1000 Land area required (ha)

urine as fertilzer

800 co-compost as soil conditioner dewatered FS as soil conditioner (un) treated ww for irrigation ww-fed aquaculture 0
--------Direct reuse---------------------------------In situ-------Post-treatment---------------REUSE PHASE

600

400

raw FS as soil conditioner

200

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Figure 1. Land area required for agricultural reuse of different waste streams generated by 100,000 pe/yr. Land area for wastewater (ww) assumes three crop cycles/ha.yr; urine assumes two crop cycles/ha.yr; raw FS (faecal sludge), dewatered FS and co-compost assume one application/ha.yr. (See Table SI.2 for data and assumptions.)

making use of the entire volume of waste generated by 100,000 pe (Figure 1). However, there may be soils and crops where more nitrogen than we have assumed (100 kg N/ha with two applications per year) would be appropriate, which would reduce the required land area (Richert et al. 2010). For energy-related end uses, the minimum required receiving capacity of end users is dened as the fuel demand necessary to utilize all fuel/power made available by 100,000 pe of FS. In the case of household-level biogas recovery, cooking fuel demand must equate to at least 1.5 hours of cooking per day. For a centralized system serving a high density community, 860 households (hh), each cooking for at least two hours per day, would utilize all of the gas produced. A more realistic sales option might be commercial food vendors, who have much higher fuel demands. Alternatively, the biogas could be used to power a 125 KW generator (Table 2). Where FS is used as an industrial fuel, target industries must have a total daily fuel demand of at least 3.7x105 megajoules (MJ) to absorb all of the FS generated by 100,000 pe (Table 2).

Incremental value of reuse (product) Hypothetical market value of input Each waste medium, if dened as a resource, has a quantiable economic value as an input into further production (producing crops or sh, cooking food or powering industry). For each of the FS-borne agricultural inputs, we have estimated the theoretical value of the waste product and its added (incremental) value, compared to a scenario without the waste product, using the most appropriate method. In the case of Ghana, the method was not

Water International

511

Table 2. Comparison of required end-user receiving capacity for fuel-based end points for faecal sludge (FS). Medium and reuse FS for household (hh) biogas recovery FS for high-density community biogas recovery Dried FS for fuel Receiving capacity of end user 1.2 m3 biogas demand/d 1200 m3 fuel demand/d or 125 KW electricity demand/d 3.7105 MJ/d fuel demand Production equivalent 1.5 hr cooking on gas burner (Jha year unknown) 860 hh cooking for 2 hr; or 50 street lanterns of 40-watt-bulb-eq burning eight hours) (Jha year unknown) 90 tons clinkera -eq (Murray and Price 2008)

Notes: a Clinker is a mixture of limestone, clay and oxides which is pyroprocessed with gypsum in kilns to produce cement.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

always the same, thus limiting somewhat the comparability of the values we have derived. However, in our theoretical example, we depict the range of methods that could be applied (Drechsel et al. 2004). In most cases, we used the replacement cost approach (RCA). For example, we compared the nutrient content of the FS with that of a fertilizer with known price (Table 3). Similarly, we used the RCA to value FS as a fuel input by comparing the expected energy output (in biogas, electricity, steam) to the cost of traditional sources (Table 3). In the case of FS co-compost, we used data describing farmers willingness to pay, as those data were available for Ghana. Untreated and partially treated wastewater for irrigation and aquaculture, respectively, are typically considered free resources in Ghana, and thus we did not put a value on them (Table 3). The applicability of each method of value estimation, and the resulting estimates, will vary regionally. Dewatered FS, as a fuel and co-compost, has high potential market values $335,000 and $518,000, respectively and is perhaps the most marketable product. Household-level biogas recovery sums to the greatest value, at nearly $5 million (Table 3). However, to attain this value, livestock waste must be added as a supplement during household-level biogas generation. This greatly increases the energy content of the waste, in comparison to community-level biogas systems, which we assume receive human waste only. Incremental benet The value of reuse can be estimated also by quantifying the incremental benet. Accordingly, we quantied the additional yield (value) farmers can achieve when wastewater is available. When we applied the productivity change approach (PCA) to each of the agricultural endpoints, we faced different baselines (for example, no inputs versus conventional fertilizers; see Table 3). Furthermore, crop yields, the number of crop cycles, and the market prices of crops can vary substantially between locations and across seasons. In addition, crop yields are subject to notable stochastic inuences, which we do not account for in our study. Thus, our goal in this portion of our analysis is to demonstrate the pertinence of examining incremental values, while not placing too much emphasis on our empirical results. Using co-compost on maize elds generates the greatest incremental value of the alternatives we consider. The estimated value of $880,000 per year reects the higher maize yields achieved by using the co-compost. Direct reuse of urine also generates a large return,

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

512

Table 3. Handling costs and revenue potential associated with different productive reuse options for waste streams generated by 100,000 pe/yr. Capital costs assume a one-time outlay; all other costs and revenues are on an annual basis. The PCA data are only partially comparable as they use different baselines. O&M costs linked to reuse ($) 660,000 0 110,000 0 NA NA 220,000 43,000 47,000 150,000 (WSP) + 54,000 (aq-specic) NA 12,000 11,000 335,000 73,000 4,811,000 ($200/hh.yr) 193,000 76,000 326,000 NA 458,000 559,000 240,000 600,000 Hypothetical market value of input ($) Incremental benet ($) Sources for input data (Germer and Sauerborn 2006; Fall 2009; Schroder 2010) (Adamtey 2011) (Danso et al. 2006; Seidu and Drechsel 2010)

Medium

Capital costs linked to reuse ($)

A. Murray et al.

Direct (untreated) use Urine

Raw faecal sludge On-farm treated wastewater

3,750,000 ($150/hh for UDDT) + 6,000 (urine storage) 0 75,000

In-situ use Household (hh) biogas recovery

8,750,000 ($350/hh)

Centralized biogas recovery (gas 983,000 1,045,000 and electricity, respectively) Aquaculture 14,000,000 (WSP) + 1000 (aq-specic) 65,000 65,000

(DevPart-Nepal 2001; Winrock International 2004) Private Ghanaian contracting rm; Ghana Energy Foundation (von Sperling and Augusto de Lemos Chernicharo 2005; Murray 2010) NA 472,000

Post-treatment use Dewatered faecal sludge (as fuel)

Dewatered faecal sludge (as soil conditioner) 93,000 150,000 168,000

Co-composted faecal sludge

518,000 52,000

880,000 559,000

Treated wastewater

14,000,000 (WSP) + conveyance costs

(Fytili and Zabaniotou 2008; Coe and Kone 2009; Zurbrugg et al. Unpublished manuscript) (Fytili and Zabaniotou 2008; Coe and Kone 2009; Adamtey 2011; Zurbrugg et al. Unpublished manuscript) (Coe and Kone 2009; MLGRD and EHSD 2010; Adamtey 2011) (Danso et al. 2006; Bahri 2009)

Note: UDDT = urine-diverting dry toilet.

Water International

513

even when compared with industrial fertilizer. However, as stated above, much more land is required when applying urine, than is needed when using other waste streams to generate incremental value. The other uses of wastewater and faecal sludge as agricultural inputs generate incremental values ranging from $460,000 to $560,000. This indicator does not apply to fuel endpoints. Capital, operation and maintenance costs of reuse The estimated capital costs associated with different reuse options include $0 for direct reuse of FS, $65,000 for the use of dewatered FS for agriculture or industrial fuel, $1 million and $8.75 million for community- and household-level biogas systems, and $14 million for wastewater-fed aquaculture (in a waste stabilization pond [WSP]) and irrigation with efuent from a WSP. This wide range of capital and O&M costs can be slightly misleading, as some of the associated costs, such as those for a WSP system, must be paid regardless of reuse, and would not necessarily be the nancial responsibility of an entrepreneur. For example, the incremental cost of adding aquaculture or irrigation to a WSP is trivial, and those activities can provide ways to recover capital and operating costs of the facility. If a WSP does not exist or has not been built, the capital and O&M costs for wastewater irrigation are greatly reduced when utilizing on-farm treatment methods. Such a strategy is consistent with the World Health Organizations (WHO) multi-barrier approach, when properly implemented (WHO 2006a). While at the population scale, biogas recovery appears very expensive, when priced per installation the systems are $350 per household, a cost that can be recovered in fuel savings in less than two years. The O&M costs associated with reuse also vary widely, ranging from $0 to about $660,000 for urine recovery as fertilizer. Discussion Although the approach requires further ne-tuning and more input data, the application of different efciency indicators offers clear decision support for determining appropriate reuse options, given common constraints, such as the land area or the amount of capital available. The indicators also offer interesting insights regarding the potential to achieve closed-loop concepts at scale. In other words, different reuse options support different stakeholder or decision-maker objectives, such as minimizing land use, maximizing the amount of agricultural land served, minimizing capital or operating costs, or fostering the most viable business/private sector opportunities. Our primary goal is to present the indicators as a possible tool to identify opportunities for business-oriented reuse systems that can help nance and incentivize adequate sanitation. Based on the outcomes of our efciency indicators, we map potential business arrangements and nancial ow models that could be developed involving public and private stakeholders (Boxes 1 and 2). Some reuse options including wastewater-fed aquaculture, biogas recovery and (co)-compost production, appear most easily taken to scale and sustained, if catalyzed by the participation of third-party private actors, whose roles include adding value to raw or partially treated waste streams before selling their products on the market (Box 1). Other reuse options, such as wastewater for irrigation, land application of raw FS, and use of dewatered FS as an industrial fuel, may be amenable to direct partnerships involving treatment facilities, FS conveyance companies, and end users. The model for the latter is presented in Box 2.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

514

A. Murray et al.

Box 1 Wastewater-fed aquaculture

Fish fish Private wastewater-fed aquaculture business $191,000 $19,000 Operating expenses: e.g. fingerlings, labour Consumers

Waste stabilization pond (WSP) (e.g. government run) $ for WSP O&M

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

In the proposed wastewater-fed aquaculture business arrangement, a third-party private actor would own and operate a commercial sh farm in the maturation ponds of a WSP system. As compensation for use of the existing infrastructure (i.e. pond(s)) and nutrient-rich water, which would partially or fully offset feeding requirements, the farmer would give a portion of his or her revenue to the WSP toward its ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. This model is currently being piloted by Waste Enterprisers Ltd. at a community-scale WSP in Ghana (Murray 2010) and will be further evaluated through a project funded in 2011 by the African Water Facility. Community-based biogas recovery
CO2 offset CERs (i.e. carbon credits) to international market

Community toilet blocks

FS Private biogas plant

$/ton CO2 biogas Consumer $962,000

$/m3 OF, FS Organic food (OF) waste

OF

$124,000 + debt financin Operating expenses: e.g. labor, electricity

In the proposed community-based biogas business model, a private entrepreneur would build a biogas plant for receiving faecal sludge (FS) from multiple community/public toilets in the vicinity. Additionally, the system could be designed to accept organic food waste, which would enhance biogas yields. The biogas entrepreneurs monetary demand for FS would incentivize and make nancially possible the ongoing maintenance and timely extraction of FS from toilet blocks.

Water International Box 1 (Cont).

515

This reverse tipping fee would be afforded through revenues from sales of the gas. Based on the local market demand for natural gas products, end uses could include bagging the fuel in transportable biogas pillows for use as a cooking fuel; conversion to electricity using a biogas-fed generator; or purication and compression for use as a transport fuel. To use biogas as a transport fuel it is puried and bottled under high pressure at which point it is compatible with condensed natural gas vehicles (Kapdi et al. 2005, Vijay 2007). Thus, based on the demand, additional infrastructure may be needed to produce a marketable produce an expense that is not captured in Table SI.2. Co-composted faecal sludge as soil conditioner

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

CO2 offset

CERs (i.e. carbon credits) to international marketa

$/ton CO2

FS treatment plant (TP1) (e.g. govt. operated)

1 unit dewatered FS

Solid waste (SW) tipping point (TP2) (e.g. govt. operated)

$ for TP1,2 O&M

Private composting facility (windrows, sorting, storage)

$690,000

mature compost

Consumers: farmers, plantations, fertilizer companies, real estate developers, etc.

3 unit organic SW

$147,000 + debt financing

Operating expenses: SW sorting, turning, bagging, transport

The co-composting business model is similar to the aquaculture and biogas models: a third-party entrepreneur is the recipient of the waste streams, adds value to them, and goes on to sell to consumers. Like the aquaculture business, we assume the compost entrepreneur would partner with a FS treatment plant and as rent would pay a portion of their revenues to the treatment plant operator to help cover on-going O&M costs. However, even in the absence of a cash transaction from the composting business to the treatment plant, the formers demand for dewatered faecal sludge and organic waste would reduce costs and/or storage burdens on the treatment plant. Waste Concern in Bangladesh, through a joint venture with World Wide Recycling, established the rst carbon-trading-based composting facility (Waste Concern 2010).
a

516

A. Murray et al.

Box 2. Dewatered faecal sludge as fuel one example of a reuse option that appears well suited for direct relationships between FS treatment plants (with drying beds) and receiving industries. Dewatered faecal sludge (DFS) as fuel
Fuel Fecal sludge treatment plant Industry $ for O&M $ $$/MJ

Transportation

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Using dewatered FS as an industrial fuel may best be realized through direct partnerships between treatment plants and the recipient industry. As the FS does not require treatment or handling beyond the treatment plants normal processes (that is, drying in open-air beds) to harness its fuel value, there may be less need for a thirdparty entrepreneur to catalyze the reuse. However, there may be a role for a private transporter if neither party has the means to take responsibility. The price would be set based on the net fuel value of the FS; after covering the cost of transportation, excess revenues could be put toward o-going O&M costs at the FS treatment plant.

Of note, each of the business arrangements proposed in Boxes 1 and 2 include a monetary ow that helps to offset the costs of waste collection and conveyance or the O&M expense at sanitation facilities. The details of the publicprivate partnerships we propose serve best to illustrate a wider array of arrangements that could be implemented. For example, in the aquaculture model (Box 1), instead of the sh farmer giving a portion of his prots to the treatment plant for its O&M costs, the farmer could purchase efuent from the treatment plant. Alternatively, an aquaculture company could take ownership and assume responsibility for the treatment plant and the sh farm.

Risks, challenges and sensitivity analyses associated with proposed business models According to the outcomes of the efciency indicators, and keeping in mind the limitations, we have identied what we believe to be promising waste-based business models. However, each of these options has potentially signicant risks and challenges associated with them that must be mitigated prior to implementing any form of business.

Aquaculture Market and consumer acceptance of sh grown in partially treated wastewater is critical (Abdul-Rahaman 2007), as the willingness to pay for the sh is the parameter with the greatest impact on prot margins, according to our sensitivity analysis. All else being

Water International

517

equal, a retail price of 25% of original estimates is the breakeven point. Indeed, wastewaterfed aquaculture is widely practised in the world, particularly in Asia (Nandeesha 2002, Kunong 2007, Marcussen 2007), and it is sanctioned by the WHO, provided that waterquality and sh esh quality standards are met (WHO 2006b). Assuming there is a market for sh grown in partially treated wastewater which could include animal feed producers one strength of the aquaculture business model is that once the WSP is in place, the additional start-up and operating costs are small. The business is fairly sensitive to sh survival, although based on our sensitivity analysis, revenues are positive with only 16% surviving to harvest. Even doubling the operating costs does not endanger solvency of the business. Biogas The initial capital investment required for biogas recovery and upgrading for sales is likely to be a major barrier to entry for small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs. Further, the capital cost is particularly sensitive to the required retention time of the FS. If the 12 days assumed in this study are not sufcient to achieve the projected biogas yields, capital costs will increase about linearly with increases in retention time. One way to overcome the initial cost barrier is for sanitation practitioners and policy advocates to engage with micronance and other lending institutions to gain their condence in such business ventures, and to use them for identifying and recruiting new entrepreneurs to the sector. If the biogas plant is of sufcient scale, the sale of carbon credits on the international market may be another nancing option (Aziz and Chowdhury 2009). A nancial model considering carbon credits could also be applied to other reuse options, such as co-composting, FS as industrial fuel, or wastewater irrigation for crops, fodder or forest plantations. Assuming the biogas production plant can be nanced, one risk to the success of the business is consumer demand for the biogas. Given the challenges of transport and storage, there should be demand for the gas in the immediate vicinity, if it is used as a cooking fuel. However, consumers may be reluctant to use biogas sourced from faecal waste for cooking (as found in Ghana and Nepal) (pers. comm. between E. Kwoe of the biogas plant at Koforidua Polytechnic Koforidua, Ghana, and A. Murray, Lohri et al. 2010). However, with the appropriate marketing and education, these concerns can often be resolved. If biogas is produced in sufcient volumes, another endpoint option is conversion to electricity. This would increase the capital and operating costs, and the process has a conversion efciency of less than 30%. However, conversion to electricity might create a more marketable product and thus support a more protable business. Co-compost Evaluating actual market demand may be the most crucial step before launching a compostproduction business. According to our analysis, among capital costs, operating costs and willingness to pay, business viability is most sensitive to willingness to pay. All else being equal, if the retail price drops below 29% of our assumed rate, the business will become insolvent. Similarly, if less than 32% of the compost produced is sold, revenues will be negative. While ensuring the presence of customers may seem obvious, early instances of municipal waste composting typically emphasized technical aspects. These projects often neglected to conduct a market analysis, which should consider not only demand but also competing products that might jeopardize the viability of the waste composting (Coe et al. 2008).

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

518

A. Murray et al.

We have assumed in our study the use of manual windrows as the composting infrastructure, which, all else being equal, has a simple payback period of a quarter of a year. The capital cost of a mechanized system of the same scale would be approximately 15 times greater and the O&M costs would increase by 150% (MLGRD and EHSD 2010). This would extend the simple payback period to about ve years. Dewatered FS as fuel The use of dewatered FS as an industrial fuel is less likely to generate the consumer discomfort that can challenge the success of wastewater-fed aquaculture and biogas businesses. Rather, the biggest challenge is that this end use is still an unproven technology. Prior to establishing operable business models, pilot-scale demonstration projects are needed to verify the concept, to dene operating standards, such as optimal substitution rates and dry solids content, and to ensure that burning faecal sludge does not cause stack emissions to exceed air quality standards. For FS treatment plants and recipient industrial plants to establish successful partnerships, some external support may be required to provide the necessary training and capacity building for the system design and for ongoing quality control and monitoring. Conclusions and recommendations Historically, reuse has been an afterthought in sanitation planning, included largely for environmental reasons (for example, resource recovery, closed-loop concepts and greenhouse gas mitigation) (Lazarova et al. 2003, Jenkins and Sugden 2006). While those benets are numerous, they are not monetized, so many reuse projects remain at the pilot scale, unless they are subsidized. Our analysis demonstrates that different types of reuse can serve different situations and publicprivate partnerships. The data show great potential to channel a portion of revenues back into less protable parts of the sanitation service chain. Thus, reuse has signicant value to offer to the sanitation sector if strategically employed. There is a critical need for new nancial models in the sanitation sector and for expanding the role of private actors, to promote more rapid and sustained expansion of improved waste management. We hope the efciency indicators and waste-based business models presented here will inspire a new cadre of entrepreneurs and decision makers to initiate a new cycle of innovation in sanitation. Full-scale waste-based businesses would not only benet sanitation locally, but provide important data for rening the efciency indicators and strengthening their reliability for future decision support. Mainstreaming waste-based businesses will require up-scaling and testing of existing and emerging reuse options, full-scale operation and marketing of various inputs and outputs of reuse, and the incorporation of the lessons learned into future waste-based businesses. Local governments and decision makers also have important roles to play in the innovation process. They must foster an enabling environment for private actors and promote consumer adoption of waste-based products by providing appropriate pricing and regulatory incentives, and other supportive programmes. Note
1. Supporting information on the methodology is available with the online version of this article, and can be viewed under the supplementary les tab. Please visit the article page on the publishers website for further information, at www.tandfonline.com/rwin. A copy of the material may also be obtained directly from the corresponding author.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Water International References

519

Abdul-Rahaman, I., 2007. Assessment of vital environmental and socio-cultural parameters for the promotion of tilapia in ponds derived from Tamale Metro Waste Treatment Plant. MSc thesis. Environmental Science Department, University of Ghana, Legon. Adamtey, N., 2011. Nitrogen enrichment of recycled organic waste for peri-urban maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation and its effects on the soil environment. Thesis (PhD thesis). University of Ghana, Legon. Adamtey, N., et al. 2010. Effect of N-enriched co-compost on transpiration efciency and water-use efciency of maize (Zea mays L.) under controlled irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 9951005. Aziz, S. and Chowdhury, S.A., eds. Carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism: an opportunity for Bangladesh. Developments in Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET), 1719 December 2009 Dhaka, 16. Bahri, A., 2009. Managing the other side of the water cycle: making wastewater an asset. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership Technical Committee. Budds, J. and McGranahan, G., 2003. Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Environment and Urbanization, 15 (2), 87114. Coe, O., et al., 2008. Recycling human excreta for urban and peri-urban agriculture in Ghana. In: l. Parrot, et al., eds. Agricultures et dveloppement urbain en Afrique subsaharienne. Environnement et enjeux sanitaires. Paris: LHarmattan, 191200. Coe, O. and Kone, D., 2009. Co-composting of faecal sludge & organic solid waste: Kumasi, Ghana. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. Danso, G., et al., 2006. Income generated by farming systems in and around Kumasi. In: R. van Veenhuizen, ed. Cities farming for the future: urban agriculture for green and productive cities. Silang, Philippines: International Development Research Centre and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, 205207. Davis, J., 2005. Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 145183. DevPart-Nepal, 2001. Research study on optional biogas plant size. Daily consumption pattern and conventional fuel saving. Kathmandu: Biogas Support Programme. EAWAG/SANDEC, 1998. Solids separation and pond systems for the treatment of faecal sludged in the tropics: lessons learnt and recommendations for preliminary design. Duebendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (Eawag)/Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC). Fall, A., 2009. Urban urine diversion dehydration toilets and reuse, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. Fytili, D. and Zabaniotou, A., 2008. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (1), 116140. Germer, J. and Sauerborn, J., 2006. Exploring the potential for recycling nutrients to enhance agricultural productivity. The example of Valley View University in Accra, Ghana (2006). City: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. Avaiable from: http://www.susana.org). Haarmeyer, D. and Mody, A., 1997. Tapping the private sector: approaches to managing risk in water and sanitation. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hall, D. and Lobina, E., 2008. Sewage works: public investment in sewers saves lives. London: Unison and Public Services International Research Unit. Jenkins, M. and Sugden, S., 2006. Rethinking sanitation: lessons and innovation for sutainability and success in the new millennium. New York: United Nations Deveopment Programme (UNDP). Kapdi, S.S., et al., 2005. Biogas scrubbing, compression and storage: perspective and prospectus in Indian context. Renewable Energy, 30 (8), 11951202. Kone, D., 2010. Making urban excreta and wastewater management contribute to cities economic development: a paradigm shift. Water Policy, 12, 602610. Kuong, K., Leschen, W., and Little, D., 2007. Food, incomes and urban waste water treatment in Phenom Penh, Cambodia. Aquaculture News, 810. Langergraber, G. and Muellegger, E. 2005. Ecological sanitation. A way to solve global sanitation problems? Environment International, 31, 433444.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

520

A. Murray et al.

Lazarova, V., Hills, S., and Birks, R. 2003. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses: a review with particular reference to toilet ushing. Water Science and Technology, 3(4), 6977. Lohri, C., et al., eds. Evaluation of biogas sanitation systems in Nepalese prisons. IWA-DEWATS Conference 2010. Decentralized wastewater treatment solutions in developing countries, 2326 March 2010. Surabaya, Indonesia. Lundin, M., Molander, S., and Morrison, G., 1999. A set of indicators for the assessment of temporal variations in the sustainability of Sanitary Systems. Water Science and Technology, 39 (5), 235242. Marcussen, H., et al., 2007. Food safety aspects of toxic element accumulation in sh from wastewater-fed ponds in Hanoi, Vietnam. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 12 (2), 3439. MLGRD AND EHSD, 2010. National environmental sanitation strategy and action plan: materials in transition. Accra: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate, Government of Ghana. Murray, A., ed., 2010. Demanding reuse at wastewater treatment plants: a case of the private sector helping to pay for sanitation. World Water Week , 511 September 2010, Stockholm. Murray, A. and Coe, O., 2010. Reuse-oriented sanitation systems: a case study compendium of productive use options for improving cost recovery and the public health benets of sanitation services. Colombo: IWMI. Murray, A. and Price, L., 2008. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture: analysis of fuel characteristics and feasibility for use in the chinese cement sector. Berkeley, CA: China Energy Group, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US Department of Energy. Murray, A., Ray, I., and Nelson, K. 2009. An innovative sustainability assessment for urban wastewater infrastructure and its application in Chengdu, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (11), 35533560. Nandeesha, M.C., 2002. Sewage fed aquaculture systems of Kolkata a century old innovation of farmers. Aquaculture in Asia, 7, 2832. Richert, A., et al., 2010. Practical guidance on the use of urine in crop production. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). 69 pp. Available from: http://www.susana.org/docs_ccbk/susana_download/2-757-5-ecosan-urine-in-crops-100824web1.pdf Sahely, H., Kennedy, C., and Adams, B., 2005. Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systems. Canada Journal of Civil Engineering, 32, 7285. Schaub-Jones, D., 2010. Should we view sanitation as just another business? The crucial role of sanitation entrepreneurship and the need for outside engagement. Enterprise Development and Micronance, 21, 185204. Schroder, E., 2010. Marketing human excreta: a study of possible ways to dispose of urine and faeces from slum settlements in Kampala, Uganda. Eschborn: GTZ. Seidu, R. and Drechsel, P., 2010. Cost effectiveness analysis of interventions for diarrhoea disease reduction among consumers of wastewater-irrigated lettuce in Ghana. In: P. Drechsel, et al., eds. Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. London: Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. SNV, 2009. Building viable domestic biogas programmes: success factors in sector development. The Hague: The Netherlands Development Organisation. UN Millennium Project, 2005. Health, dignity, and development: what will it take? London: United Nations (UN) Task Force on Water and Sanitation. Vijay, V., ed., 2007. Biogas rening for production of bio-methane and its bottling for automotive applications and holistic development. International Symposium on Eco Topia Science, 2335 November 2007. Von Sperling, M. and Augusto de Lemos Chernicharo, C., 2005. Biological wastewater treatment in warm climate regions. London: IWA Publications. Waste Concern, 2010. Key facts on worlds rst carbon trading based composting project from organic waste of Dhaka City [online]. Dhaka: Waste Concern. Available from: http://www.wasteconcern.org/publication.html [Accessed 25 August 2010]. WHO, 2006a. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. Volume 4: wastewater and excreata use in agriculture. Geneva: WHO.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013

Water International

521

WHO, 2006b. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. Volume 3: wastewater and excreata use in aquaculture. Geneva: WHO. Winrock International, 2004. Financing biogas: a reference for micronance institutions in Nepal. Kathmandu: Winrock International, Alternative Energy Promotion Center, Biogas Sector Partnership-Nepal. Zurbrugg, C., et al. Co-treatment of faecal sludge and organic municipal solid waste by composting: an economic appraisal. Unpublished manuscript.

Downloaded by [41.206.37.141] at 09:50 20 August 2013