This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
This system discharges to a large activated sludge treatment plant at Cambérène. There is also a smaller sewerage network in Rufisque, discharging 2 860 m3


/day


of wastewater into a local lagoon-based plant. In 2004, it was estimated that only about 14 per cent of sewage was collected and treated (Hoang-Gia and others 2004), and the rest was discharged into the sea without treatment.


A report by the Senegalese sanitation authority (ONAS 2009) states that during the period 2005–2008, about 28 000 connections were made to the sewerage network in Dakar, and that a further 64 000 connections will be made before 2015. The cost for connection estimated at USD 215 is not affordable to many residents, and a subsidy programme enabled 10 000 new connections at a cost of USD 30 per household


PRO-POOR SEWER SOLUTIONS


Given the high cost of sewer connections, a pro-poor sewerage programme was piloted in Dakar. The World Bank-funded Programme d’amélioration de l’assainissement des quartiers périurbains de Dakar (PAQPUD) serving peri-urban districts of Dakar introduced low-cost sewerage technologies on a large scale (Norman 2009). The technologies apply various technical strategies such as smaller diameter pipes, local materials, shallower gradients, and less frequent inspection points. The project involved socio-organisational strategies, including community financing, community construction and community maintenance, with the overall goal to reduce investment costs (Mara 1996).


The low cost sewer system initially targeted 127 000 people. Unfortunately, the project suffered diverse problems including poor design and poor construction (Hoang-Gia and others 2004), and failed. In hindsight, the project clearly served as a very useful model for scaling up affordable technologies (Norman 2009).


LESSONS LEARNED


• Pro-poor sanitation solutions must not only be affordable but also sustainable.


• Community engagement is central to pro-poor sanitation solutions.


49


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