Speaker: Shirish Singh
Proper Faecal Sludge Management in Kigamboni remains a challenge due to limited service delivery in emptying, transport, treatment and safe disposal. FS emptying and transport service is provided by licensed private entrepreneurs and treatment provided by (i) private and (ii) public utility. Two financial flow models (i) Integrated collection and treatment and (ii) Discrete collection and treatment exist in Kigamboni. The integrated model is profitable which can be attributed to high emptying fees and subsidy in CAPEX. In discrete model, E&T is profitable without subsidy but treatment is in loss and cannot sustain financially without any budget support.
46% of the households in Kigamboni use traditional pits, 52% use pour flush toilets connected to septic tank and 2% don’t have toilets and average size of pit and septic tank are approximately 3m3 and 6m3 respectively (Masaninga, 2020). DAWASA is responsible for provision of Emptying and Transport (E&T) services and has licensed out to private sector, who pay operating licence fee of US$44 annually and discharge fee of US$2.2 for truck capacity <5m3 and US$4.4 for >5m3 per trip. There is also a private entrepreneur, operating Faecal Sludge Treatment Plant (FSTP), providing E&T through 1m3 vacutug, gulper and trash pump. For gulper and trash pump, emptying fee is US$13 per trip and for vacutug US$18-20 per trip. The FSTP has a capacity of 4m3/day, which produces approximately 1ton of bio solids annually sold at US$0.2 per kg (Duma, et al., 2015). The Kurasini Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) has a capacity to treat 3,845m3/day wastewater, which receives an additional 430m3/day FS (16-42 trucks a day of volume 4m3-25m3).
This study was conducted to analyse existing FSM practices and Financial Flow Models (FFM). To collect data/information, KIIs were conducted with concerned representatives from relevant sanitation stakeholders and FGDs with households and vacuum truck operators. Field observations were made at various FSM service chains, which supported to verify and triangulate data/information obtained from the KIIs and FGDs.
Integrated collection and treatment (FFM1) manged by a private entrepreneur and Discrete collection and treatment (FFM2) where E&T service is provided by private entrepreneurs and treatment by public authority are currently practiced in Kigamboni. The financial data was fed into the Financial Flow Simulator (FFS) and were analysed separately.
The CAPEX for emptying, transport and treatment is US$41,668 representing 2%, 56% and 46% respectively, OPEX is US$14,751 contributing 19%, 60% and 21% respectively and annual revenue is US$25,370. Considering depreciation of 15 years for E&T, 20 for treatment and 14% cost of capital, the FFM1 generates a net profit of US$6,395.
For E&T, a private entrepreneur with two trucks of 4 m3 capacity was analysed and adopted (each truck makes three trips per day). The CAPEX is US$49,998 and annual OPEX is US$67,728. For revenue, prevailing market rate of emptying fee of US$10 per m3 has been used. With depreciation of 15 years, the entrepreneur makes an annual net profit of US$6,395, which is similar to the annual net profit for small sized business in Africa (Chowdry and Kone, 2012). For treatment, CAPEX was assumed US$1,730,250, annual OPEX is calculated as US$1,624 and an annual revenue of US$39,238. Considering a depreciation period of 20 years and 14% cost of capital, it is in annual loss of US$291,134.
Despite the guidelines for construction of containment and regular inspection, proper construction and use of containment isn’t practiced. While emptying, it was prevalent that only liquid portion is emptied as the sludge portion couldn’t be pumped out and the household required to pay additional fees, which in most cases were done manually. Some households preferred manual emptying as this could remove all sludge, resulting in longer desludging duration. The manual emptying either bury the FS in nearby pit or indiscreetly release FS to the environment, which pose public and environmental health risks. It was observed that the WWTP was overloaded and the treatment is not adequate.
The FFM1 is profitable which can be attributed to high emptying fees and subsidy in CAPEX. This model reduces risk of illegal dumping, however, high emptying fees can be passed on to the households due to monopoly. In FFM2, the E&T component is profitable without any subsidy but the treatment is in loss and cannot sustain financially without any budget support. The FFS tool support in analysing the viability of financial flow models and could be further used in developing viable FFMs.
S. and Kone
D.D. (2012). Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge Management: Emptying and Transportation Services in Africa and Asia. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
J. and Schmidt
A. (2015). Establishing a local business model for the collection and decentralized treatment of Faecal Sludge in Dar es Salaam
Tanzania. Poster presented at IWA South African Young Water Professionals
M. B. (2020). Development of a sustainable business model for faecal sludge management - A case of Kigamboni District
Dar es Salaam. MSc thesis
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education