This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Most of the rapid expansion in urbanization is taking place not in megacities, but in small and medium sized cities with populations of less than 500 000 (UNFPA, 2007). Growth is often unplanned and attracting government and private investment to infrastructure development in areas that lack the economic clout of the megacities is difficult. In addition, an estimated one billion people currently live in urban slums without even the most basic services (UN-HABITAT, 2009). Because these informal settlements lack land tenure, provid-


Centralized or decentralized? Uganda. A study case


Centralized sewage and wastewater connection


US Dollars, 2006 Present Net Value


0 -200


-400 -600 -800 -1 000 -1 200 -1 400 -1 600


1 000


Financial NPV Economic NPV


200 300 400


100 0


Note: the Present Net Value (PNV) measures the resultant financial and economic benefit of goods or services when all costs and benefits are taken into consideration. A positive NPV indicates a net benefit and a negative NPV a net loss.


2 500 5 000 Population connected to the sewer Source: WSP, Study for Financial and Economic Analysis of Ecological Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006.


Figure 7: Looking at the costs and benefits, centralized systems may not be the answer in terms of best result for the investment. The chart on the left shows that the financial NPV does not change with increasing population size for centralized sewage and wastewater connection, however the economic NPV (which includes benefits to health and the environment) shows a positive trend with increas- ing populations. Centralized systems therefore generate a greater benefit as population increases, but show a significant loss with small community size. The chart on the right shows the situation where decentralized latrines have been installed, and where the excreta is reused for food production, and hence the overall benefits returned will depend on the current market price for food. With a good market, the reuse benefits of low-cost latrines can be realized by the households into a positive NPV, however those requiring greater investment, do not offer a return on the investment (WSP, 2006).


25 10 000


-100 -200 -300 -400 -500


-30 -20 -10 0 10 Change in food price, percentage 20 30 Decentralized latrines with excreta reuse


US Dollars, 2006 Economic Present Net Value


Using low price latrines Using high price latrines


ing water and sanitation services through investment in large infrastructure is extremely difficult.


Water and wastewater services are often controlled by multiple authorities operating at a local, regional or national level. The infrastructure may be state-owned or include private sector involvement. The reliance of traditional wastewater-treatment systems on large-scale infrastructure generally results in a natural monopoly and hence a lack of market competition.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88