Water and Sanitation Services for Informal Settlements in Honiara, Solomon Islands Regina Souter and Pablo Orams AUGUST 2019 © 2019 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover design: Jean Franz, Franz & Company, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Assistance to complete this assessment was provided by a range of people and organisations. Solomon Islands National University provided assistance with community consultations in informal settlements in and around Honiara. The staff of Solomon Water provided critical inputs to the feasibility of different water and sanitation service options. Representatives from local and national government provided important inputs to the feasibility and possibilities to improve water and sanitation in settlements. These included Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology, Honiara City Council. Resident of several settlements in Honiara (Burns Creek, Fulisango, Ohiola, Namoliki, RenLau) providing critical inputs to the demand, acceptability and feasibility of water and sanitation service approaches. The Community Access and Urban Services Enhancement Project (CAUSE) program, a partnership between Solomon Islands government and World Bank, provided valuable GIS information about Honiara’s settlements, Jose Fernandez (MIWM, IWC) provided critical capabilities to undertake GIS analyses. Page 2 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 1 CONTENTS 1 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Purpose and approach ................................................................................................................................................... 22 4 Characterisation of informal settlements ...................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Increasing urbanization of Honiara ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Informally Settled Areas of Honiara ..................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 ‘Informal settlements’ used for this study ........................................................................................................... 31 4.4 Honiara informal settler population estimates .................................................................................................... 37 4.5 Engaging with informal settlements - Communities and leadership.................................................................... 38 4.6 Water supplies ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 4.7 Sanitation practices .............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.8 Land tenure .......................................................................................................................................................... 42 4.9 Socio-economic situations .................................................................................................................................... 43 4.10 Willingness to pay for water ................................................................................................................................. 44 4.11 Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 45 4.12 Access (road, pedestrian) ..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.13 Distance to sewer and water mains ..................................................................................................................... 47 5 Service delivery options ................................................................................................................................................. 49 5.1 Shortlisting water and sanitation service delivery options .................................................................................. 49 5.2 Considerations for operationalising the shortlisted service delivery options in Honiara..................................... 56 5.3 Priority water service delivery options ................................................................................................................. 57 Individual private household water connections using Cash Water (pre-payment) meters ......................................... 57 Shared private water connections using Cash Water .................................................................................................... 65 Water kiosks (connected to utility reticulated water systems) ..................................................................................... 70 Automated (e.g. Water ATM, token-taps) in central public places................................................................................ 83 5.4 Priority sanitation options .................................................................................................................................... 84 Types of sanitation for Honiara’s informal settlements................................................................................................. 86 Community simplified sewers, community septic/ABR, with offsite effluent and sludge disposal ............................... 87 On-site sanitation options .............................................................................................................................................. 96 6 Alignment of service delivery options with key characteristics of Honiara’s informal settlements .............................. 97 6.1 Key characteristics influencing service delivery options ...................................................................................... 97 6.2 Decision-support trees for water and sanitation service delivery options – inked to Honiara settlement characteristics .................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Water service delivery decision tree - to support planning for Honiara’s informal settlements................................... 98 Page 3 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Sanitation service delivery - decision tree to support planning for Honiara’s informal settlements ............................ 99 7 Recommendations for ways forward ........................................................................................................................... 100 8 References.................................................................................................................................................................... 105 9 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................... 107 9.1 Water service delivery models considered......................................................................................................... 108 9.2 Sanitation service delivery models considered .................................................................................................. 109 9.3 Consultations on service delivery models: workshop with Solomon Water ...................................................... 114 9.4 Consultations on service delivery models: informal settlers .............................................................................. 120 9.5 On-Site Sanitation Options ................................................................................................................................. 144 Guidance note: City-Wide Sanitation Plans ................................................................................................................. 164 Page 4 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to inform Solomon Islands Water Authority (Solomon Water) of potential service delivery models for the expansion of water and sanitation services in informal settlements in Honiara. Currently, a range of water service delivery models are in use by residents of settlements, comprising both formal and informal methods by which people access water for their domestic needs. As described below, many of these water access or service delivery models do not result in safe and affordable drinking and domestic water. Similarly, a range of sanitation practices are in use, most are not likely to result in safe containment of human waste. Solomon Water, and the Solomon Islands government have both acknowledged the need to improve water and saniation in information settlements. The 2012 Solomon Islands National Infrastructure Investment Plan states: “Access to improved water and sanitation sources in Solomon Islands is generally low relative to the average for PICs. Urban water systems exist in Honiara and a few provincial centres but are generally ineffectively managed and maintained. Inadequate service has led to a lack of political and community support for water regulations and charges which has further hastened the decline of services. Urban sanitation is also a major concern. There is no centralised sewerage system in Honiara and other provincial centres. The widespread use of septic tanks is a problem due to poor construction and limited resources to monitor and enforce construction and operating standards. As the town grows, the current system will be increasingly deficient and may adversely affect public health and urban amenity. Poor hygiene, lack of on-site waste treatment, and poor access to sewerage are the main issues affecting the sanitation sector, particularly in rural areas.” Solomon Water has acknowledged this problem and adopted the following corporate objectives (identified in it’s 30 year Strategic Plan): - 5-year objective: Seek SIG direction on appropriate supply options for informal settlements / peri-urban - Areas, and Contribute to UN Sustainable Development Goals improved water supply targets - 30-year objective: Contribute to UN Sustainable Development Goals improved water supply targets The Strategic Plan doesn’t identify specific objectives relating to sanitation in informal settlements but does identify that cconnection to the Solomon Water’s wastewater system is unlikely to be achieved for the majority of urban users during the life of this Strategic Plan. The priority is to service those residents with unimproved (unsafe) sanitation or practicing open defecation. Solomon Water is currently expanding and improving its water and sanitation services in Honiara, and other provincial capitals. As a part of this improvement and expansion agenda, there is the opportunity to improve the water and sanitation services available to residents of informal settlements. This also aligns with the Greater Honiara Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan which has identified the need to improve urban services including water and sanitation (MLHS & ADB, 2018) In recognition of the diversity of environmental, social and economic diversity amongst urban residents in Honiara’s informal settlements, a range of water and sanitation service delivery models may need to be offered. This assessment identifies the range of possible water and sanitation service models, and, with input from Solomon Water, informal settlement residents and other stakeholders, together with analytical information and lessons about service delivery models used elsewhere, makes recommendations about the water and sanitation service options best suited to informal Honiara’s settlements. Page 5 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2.1 APPROACH To generate evidence about possible effective water and sanitation service delivery models for Solomon Islands urban informal settlements, the following approach was used. 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF HONIARA’S INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS Existing data and information describing environmental, social and economic features of informal settlements was collated. The objective was to describe Honiara’s settlements with regard to features such as range of location and size of settlements, land tenure, socio-economic parameters, access and use of existing urban services, vulnerability to flooding and disasters. The project aimed to provide a general description of the types of settlement characteristics that exist. In addition to describing conditions in settlements, sufficient GIS information was collated to provide further spatial identification of settlements and conditions. 2. DESK-BASED IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE MODELS WITH SHORTLISTING BASED ON STAKEHOLDER INPUT. A desk review of water and sanitation options was conducted to prepare an initial list, with critical information, about the possible options. This was used to elicit feedback from Solomon Water about service options considered of interest and for further assessment. The options included water and sanitation (wastewater) service delivery models currently provided by Solomon Water, in the case of sanitation this included options implemented by other organisations in Solomon Islands. In addition, water and sanitation options that are not currently used in Solomon Islands were included, by drawing on information and lessons from elsewhere. A summary of technical and experience-based information describing the operational and user aspects of each of the remaining water and sanitation service options was prepared, for further consultation. This information about operational and user aspects of the water and sanitation options was discussed during a workshop with a cross-section of Solomon Water staff from Customer relations, water operations, wastewater operations, and executive. The workshop discussions discussed the potential suitability or unsuitability of different options, particularly regarding feasibility for Solomon Water to implement. Only a small number of water service delivery options were removed at this time. Whilst it is likely that more than one service delivery model will be required to expand services to many/all informal settlements in Honiara, consideration was also given to inefficiencies associated with maintaining many different service delivery models across the city. The shortlisted options were shared with residents of informal settlements through consultations in 5 settlements, with the assistance of local facilitators (independent consultants and recent graduates from Solomon Islands National University). Eight group discussions were conducted eliciting feedback on the attitudes about different options, including opinions on potential challenges and how these could be overcome. Consultation insights were shared with Solomon Water staff during a second workshop, and final decisions made about the service delivery models to provide further information (Step 3). 3. DESCRIBE SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS WITH POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY TO URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN SOLOMON ISLANDS A summary of operational and user information on the final shortlisted water and sanitation options, with a focus on information relevant to the context of Solomon Islands, was prepared through review of literature. This included analysis Page 6 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 and evaluations of models from elsewhere, as well as case study documentation, to identify critical lessons to be considered before progressing further with piloting unfamiliar models in Solomon Islands. 4. IDENTIFY WHICH WATER AND SANITATION OPTIONS SUIT DIFFERENT INFORMAL SETTLEMENT SITUATIONS This step integrated the information from Steps 1, 2 and 3 to develop a decision-tree to guide identification of suitable water and sanitation service models for settlements based on key criteria relevant to the suitability of water and sanitation options. Honiara’s Informal settlers – a growing population with diverse characteristics Existing definitions of ‘informal settlement’, such as UNHabitat’s definition 1, focus on household-scale criteria, including land tenure status at the time of assessment. However, this study required a definition that could be used to identify settlements and households, at scales appropriate for planning purposes, that need improved water and sanitation services as a result of their unplanned settlement processes. As such, the operational definition of informal settlements adopted in this study is: a spatially-defined area which has been settled over time through informal and unplanned processes, but which now comprises multiple households that may or may not have formal approval to occupy land, and, which lacks access to safe water and safe sanitation services. There are no recent accurate counts of people considered to be informal settlers. The 2019 census may provide data that can be used to provide an up-to-date estimate (this may require GIS analysis overlay to confirm households in settlements). The most recent estimates, based on extrapolations from the 2009 census, indicate that in Honiara, around 28,000 of Honiara’s total population of around 70,000 live in around 4000 households in informal settlements1. The Greater Honiara area, which includes peri urban areas to the east and west of the Honiara town boundary, in Guadalcanal Province, includes an additional estimated 7,000 people1. This total number of approximately 35,000 informal settlers in Greater Honiara is likely an underestimate; the forthcoming census should provide more accurate population numbers. Urban population growth in Honiara is significant, but evidence indicates it is even higher in informal settlements. Urban growth in Honiara has generally been the most rapid at the fringes of the city, e.g. Tandai and Malango wards in Guadalcanal Province grew at an average rate of 16.4% per annum across 1999–20091. Urban migration from rural villagers is characterised by a strong preference to settle near kinship groups, and as a consequence the population density in some settlements is extremely high and growth is likely to continue despite land shortage. For example, Ontong Java / Lord Howe Settlement has a population density of 218 people per hectare 2. Most settlements are not temporary, some have been settled for many decades. Most settlements inside Honiara town boundary are located on government-owned land, with a smaller number on privately-owned land. Outside the town boundary, settlements are either on privately-owned land or customary land of Guadalcanal Province customary land holders. Inside Honiara boundary, some informal settlements have been designated as ‘informal settlement zones’ by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey (MLHS) for administrative purposes; most of these zones are undergoing a formalisation process that will provide land tenure security. But many other settlements do not appear to be administratively recognised yet, including some on smaller land areas such as roadsides, or on land set aside for public services or utilities. 1 W Honiara UNHabitat (2016). AT E R & AT I ON Settlement SA N I TInformal City-Wide S – HOA S ER VI C EAnalysis: I AR A prepared Nreport ’ S I NF ORM AL for the EM ENGovernment S E TT LIslands Solomon T S | AUGUST and 2019 Honiara City Council supported by UN-Habitat as part of the Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme. 2 UNHabitat & RMIT (2016) Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan. for Honiara City Council and the Solomon Islands Government. Page 7 Currently there is no consolidated and up-to-date map identifying informal settlements of Honiara or Greater Honiara. This study has collated and combined several disparate datasets to identify 90 potential informal settlements, as shown in Figure 1. The focus has been on Honiara municipal area, although where possible, informal settlements known in the peri-urban areas have been included. Most of these 90 settlements appear not to be formally recognised by MLHS yet, and some of those that are close together may represent smaller clusters of households or communities that exist within a larger contiguous settlement area. Eighty of these were identified by the CAUSE program (World Bank and Honiara City Council: Community Access and Urban Services Enhancement Project) which is engaging with poor and vulnerable populations in Honiara. This study reviewed existing data and reports to describe some of the key characteristics that vary amongst informal settlements, focusing on those relevant to water and sanitation services. Key sources of information included UNHabitat’s 2016 situation analysis of informal settlements of Honiara1, GIS information from the CAUSE program, Solomon Water including flood-mapping prepared by EGIS, MLHS and public datasets. The full report provides a more detailed account of characteristics that vary amongst informal settlers and settlements; the following is a brief overview: - Population size of individual settlements: varies significantly; at least one (of the 90 settlements) was reported as having less than 100 residents, 15 settlements had less than residents, and 68 settlements had greater than 300 residents (there are some much larger settlements, probably with several thousand residents, though no accurate data exists). - Access to water: based on case study data from 8 settlements in Greater Honiara, access to Solomon Water varied from 1-94% of households. Other sources included groundwater from springs, bores and shallow wells, rainwater tanks, and a small number relying for drinking water from bottled water and surface flows (rivers, streams) - Access to sanitation: all use on-site sanitation options, with the type being highly variable across 8 case study settlements; up to 50% households have a private household toilet, though most are basic water-based pits. It is likely that none have sanitation considered ‘safe’ by SDG 3 standards. - Land tenure: 3 settlements have been formalized by MLHS, 3 were identified as too hazardous for formalization, 38 were in ISZs undergoing formalization, and the status of the remainder is unknown. - Social cohesion: larger settlements are comprised of many ‘communities’, whereby a community represents a group of people that are socially-networked and with common characteristics, such as faith or ethnicity, and usually following some shared rules (formal, or informal norms). - Income: there is no recent reliable data specific to residents of informal settlements; estimates from case studies range from $1200-5500 SBD per month for household income. Anecdotally there appears to be significant variation amongst households within a settlement, with some households having much higher incomes than others; this affects the options for strategies to target or support low income households (a settlement is not necessarily comprised of only low income households). - Environmental hazards: at least 17 settlements were identified as being in flood or landslip zones, and although there is no settlement-specific data describing the depth to groundwater, many settlements are on the coastal floodplain where groundwater is shallow (less than 3m). - Accessibility: around 32 settlements had all-weather road access, though many households do not live roadside and access their houses using footpaths, sometimes through steep areas and across waterways; only a small number of pathways in settlements are easily accessible (concrete with steps). 3 W AT SDG: Sustainable E R & SA N Goal Development I T AT6: I ON safeSwater ER VI C E S sanitation and – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Page 8 FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF 90 ‘INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS’ IN HONIARA MUNICIPAL AREA, AND SOME FROM GREATER HONIARA. HONIARA TOWN BOUNDARY IS SHOWN IN GREY. SOLOMON WATER’S MAIN WATER AND SEWER PIPE ASSETS ARE SHOWN IN BLUE AND PINK Page 9 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 The need for safe and reliable water and sanitation in informal settlements Across all informal settlements, those recognised as informal settlements and those not, residents utilize a range of water and sanitation options, and few of these provide reliable and safe water and sanitation. The MLHS process to formalize informal settlements does not currently include provisions for installation or promotion of water of sanitation services. Although many residents of informal settlements can fairly easily arrange power services, arranging water services has been more difficult historically, and it is very difficult to arrange safe sanitation and they are not encouraged to do this during the process of acquiring an FTE or TOL. As indicated above, access to safe water amongst informal settlers varies at household and settlement scales, with many making use of local water sources, such as springs and shallow groundwater (wells). In some settlements, bores have been installed by organisations other than Solomon Water, including when a utility water main runs close by. Householders that rely on local water resources or carting of water in containers, and that have inadequate sanitation and irregular handwashing-with-soap practices, are at greater risk of consuming water contaminated with human pathogens. The urban population of Solomon Islands (nationally) that has access to basic sanitation = 68% (UNICEF Urban WASH Survey 2018). At present, 15% of houses in Honiara have access to piped sewerage; 85% of houses have on-site sanitation, such as septic tanks, or pit latrines, or they have no appropriate sanitation. Safe collection, treatment and disposal of septage sludge is not common practice. Many people use on-site sanitation that does not safely manage human waste, or open defecation. Human waste, containing many pathogens causing illness, is contaminating water and food and environments, and causing health problems. The most common health problem caused by inadequate sanitation is diarrhoea – this causes people to not work, not go to school, and limits their opportunity to participate in society. For young children, inadequate sanitation causes lifelong problems – in the Solomon Islands 33% of children are stunted 4; stunted children are less likely to be successful at school, and less likely to have good jobs when they are adults. Safe sanitation means toilets and waste systems that manage human waste so that it is treated and disposed safely and it cannot contaminate water, food or environments. Sanitation can no longer be a problem for each household to address by themselves. This is because - If even a small number of households don’t have good sanitation, the health of everyone in the community around them can be affected. - In urban areas, most households cannot properly dispose of toilet waste safely – they need access to services. 4 W AT E SIG (2017) Solomon R & SA Islands I ON S ER N I T ATNational Detailed VI C E S – HO Sustainable N I AR APlan, Sanitation ’ S I NF September S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 ORM AL 2017 Page 10 WATER SERVICES ASSESSMENT In addition to the technical and operational aspects of different water service delivery models, the following key points were identified: 1) Recognizing that the greatest health and wellbeing benefits are delivered only through internal household water connections, the objective is to provide this level of service where-ever possible. However, it is also recognised that this highest level of service is not suited to some settlements, primarily due to the preference of residents to not commit to household connections and to be able to purchase smaller volumes of water. In these cases, the preference is to provide a service that has the flexibility to be transitioned to individual household connections as demand and willingness to pay/commit changes. An alternative service that delivers affordable safe water may increase the demand for internal household connections, thus serving as a transitional service. 2) There is a current perception that secure land tenure, such as a Fixed Term Estate agreement, or Temporary Occupancy License, is required before an application for a domestic water connection would be approved by Solomon Water. This is not a formal regulation, and consultation with Solomon Water and MLHS, has determined this need not be required. Solomon Power, the electricity provider, no longer requires an FTE or TOL before an electricity connection is installed; lessons from their process of approval can be applied to Solomon Water’s processing of water connections. Relaxing the land tenure requirements would mean residents of most informal settlements are eligible for a household water connection. The exception would be for the small number of settlements that have been assessed by MLHS as being in highly hazardous environment. These settlements have been identified by MLHS as requiring relocation, and therefore installation of significant infrastructure such as individual household water connections would not be supported by SIG; an alternative water service delivery model must be implemented for these settlements. 3) There appears to be a low awareness and/or attitudes about (i) the importance of safe drinking water (ii) the safety of water provided by Solomon Water. Well-strategized communication efforts are required to influence behaviours regarding the value of water from Solomon Water in comparison to other options (e.g. bottle water, free water from unsafe local sources). 4) Concerns about water theft are legitimate; past estimates were higher but there is currently ~15% of non-payment of water. Water theft can be reduced if (i) water services reach settlements and residents are more easily able to access water (ii) there is early and effective consultation and communications about the value of Solomon Water as a safe and accessible water supply (iii) most people in a settlement adopt Solomon Water connections (iv) engineering solutions are implemented to reduce tampering and theft, and (v) monitoring of non-revenue water at the settlement-scale (or finer resolution) is used to identify possible problems. 5) All service delivery models apart from private household water connections that include inside taps, involve consumers carrying and storing water in containers. Local and global evidence indicates significant risk of water quality contamination arises when water handling and storing in containers is required, especially when local sanitation and handwashing practices are weak. Strategies to educate and change behaviours will be required to ensure water service models that include container-based transport and storage of water do not increase water quality health problems due to contamination. 6) Regarding volumes of water to be supplied per person (to assist with calculations of cost), the WHO standard is (at least) 50 l/p/d, the SIG Rural WASH standards for design requires providing (at least) 50 l/p/d. The Solomon Water strategic plan considers an aspirational average water supply of 140 l/p/d. The actual consumption for residents in settlements is likely somewhere between the range of 50 to 140L/day, and as such these values have been used to estimate affordability of water services. Page 11 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 7) Strategies used elsewhere by water utilities to provide different support specifically targeting lowest-income households (Pro-poor strategies) were discussed as being difficult to implement in Honiara because (i) identifying and maintaining an accurate register of low-income households is not within the current capacity of government and likely not socially or politically acceptable(ii) targeting whole settlements, as an alternative to identifying individual low-income households, could mean inequitable access by wealthier households to pro-poor allowances – this is due to the high variability of wealth within settlements, and this appears to be a widely held believe amongst locals and stakeholders. The preferred approach is to ensure the lowest tariff level is affordable by the lowest income households; this is achieved by higher rates for larger-volume users who in effect subsidise the lowest tariff level. 8) Even inside the town boundary where it is clear Solomon Water have a lead role in managing water supplies, coordination of water supply systems needs improving. The history of limited access for informal settlers to utility water has meant other organisations, such as civil society organisations have installed alternative (local) water supplies, such as bore pumps, usually with limited or no consultation with the water utility. However these on-site water systems are not as cost-effective especially when many settlements are located near water main pipes, and potentially not as safe (wrt water quality) nor sustainable (wrt maintenance). With Solomon Water’s intention to expand services to better service informal settlements, communication and coordination with other actors would assist in avoiding installation of alternative water systems if utility water is a feasible option. Following desktop reviews and consultations and feedback from Solomon Water and residents of informal settlements, the following water service delivery models were determined as having potential applicability to Honiara’s informal settlements: Individual private household water As for the existing Cash Water service delivery model, which is a pre-paid and connections using Cash Water (pre- metered water connection. Additional considerations for increasing financial payment) meters accessibility through options to pay connection fees in installments or reductions to connection or monthly service fees. Shared private water connections using Private household water connections, as above, registered to an identified Cash Water householder, but shared with neighbouring householders through informal and self-determined arrangements. Access is usually to an outside tap, and households will carry smaller volumes of water to where it is needed. Some may use hoses to convey the water closer to each house (and potentially store in larger containers). Not formally promoted by Solomon Water, but not disallowed, and possibly further enabled (e.g. assessing tariff steps for shared connections to ensure cost-effectiveness for householders, and providing information on a range of methods for bill-splitting). Water store (kiosk) connected to A formal water retailer located within the settlement, selling pay-per-use water Solomon Water reticulated system by refilling containers provided by consumers (option to sell containers). Preferred by residents that don’t want to commit to ongoing water connection service fees or raise funds for connection fees. Store (locally-preferred language for a kiosk) design and operations are regulated, including the retail price of water. Options for management include owned and operated by Solomon Water, or a delegated management model; fully private water stores are not recommended (unless highly regulated). In addition, it was recognised that additional water accessibility to informal residents as well as rural residents returning to villages after visiting Honiara could be provided by installing and operating pay-per-use automated water dispersers, such as Water ATMs, at key locations. Water ATM’s can provide larger quantities of water in containers than is currently purchasable from stores. In particular, the installation of Water ATMs at major public transport hubs could provide access to affordable and safe water in larger volumes close to transport (to reduce carrying distances). Other service models considered but not deemed suitable for informal settlements of Honiara included: Page 12 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 - Public shared tap-stands - Trucking of water to settlements (to individual or shared tanks, or to kiosks) - On-site water source supply, treatment and distribution (e.g. local bores with storage and distribution networks). The following characteristics of settlements were determined as critical in influencing the suitability of the different shortlisted service delivery models to different settlements, or residents within settlements. - Classification of settlement as hazardous by MLHS: large investments in water infrastructure, such as for individual household water connections are discouraged by SIG. Water kiosk may be a suitable alternative - Water connection history: previous experiences of high rates of non-payment of water bills, tampering or theft of water or water infrastructure and/or violence to utility personnel - Ability and willingness to pay for water: low ability and/or willingness to pay for water exists in some settlements. Access to safe and affordable water from shared water connections, or from a water store, may increase value and demand of utility water. A Water services decision tree was developed based on the above criteria, and preferred water service options (Figure 2). FIGURE 2: WATER SERVICES DECISION TREE FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, HONIARA. Improvements to water services in informal settlements will need to consider drainage and wastewater services, as increasing accessibility to water will likely increase water usage. Page 13 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 SANITATION SERVICES ASSESSMENT Improving sanitation will require three types of actions - Users adopt safe sanitation behaviours – this will require communications and behaviour change strategies to influence people’s motivation and commitment to using safe sanitation - Toilets that support safe sanitation practices are accessible at households, as well as schools, offices, health clinics, markets, to safely capture human waste - Infrastructure and service delivery models exist to collect, treat and dispose of human waste safely. Different sanitation technologies suit different environmental (natural and man-made), social, economic situations. Many of Honiara’s settlements are not suited to piped sewerage or septic tanks, which are currently the most common type of sanitation in the formal residential areas of Honiara. Based on the review of different sanitation technologies and their requirements/suitability, and the range of environmental, social and economic characteristics of and within Honiara’s settlements, the following factors were identified as critical to influencing which types of sanitation services could potentially work in different places. • Distance away from sewer line – Honiara’s sewer network currently covers small areas – it is not possible to join every house to the sewer network, but some may be close enough that they can be connected • Dense settlements – many informal settlements are dense with houses, and do not have sufficient space for proper on-site sanitation that treats and disposes of waste in the community, such as septic tanks • Road access to houses – many houses inside informal settlements are not close to the road – they are too far away for septage trucks to access their septic toilets or pits to empty them • Groundwater – some areas of Honiara have shallow groundwater, and in some of these areas, people use this groundwater for drinking and other household uses. Shallow groundwater can be easily contaminated by unsafe sanitation. In addition, it is difficult to construct inground pits in water-logged soil. • Flood vulnerability – areas that experience river, stream or coastal flooding are not suited to many inground sanitation options, because during floods, the human waste is carried around the community in flood waters, causing ill-health • Water availability – some houses don’t have access to a lot of water at their house (many are sharing water connections), and low-water using sanitation options may be required. For settlements with low availability, consideration should be given to the likelihood of improvements to water availability occurring in the near future (such as improved access to water services provided by Solomon Water). • Land tenure – some settlements have been identified as being in hazardous areas and will not be formalised. These areas require sanitation that is not too expensive, or that can be moved when people move • Settlement or area population size and social cohesion – the size of the population in an area and their ability to work together to maintain infrastructure affects the suitability of some community-wide sanitation system. • A range of socio-cultural factors also significantly influence the suitability of types of sanitation, including affordability, ability and willingness to pay for sanitation, and widespread social norms relating to current (unsafe) sanitation practices. A mix of sanitation services are required, to suit the range of conditions in Honiara. This is because the diversity of situations for informal settlement residents, as well as formal residents, across Honiara means there is no single sanitation service delivery option to suit the whole city’s population. Effective sanitation requires that everyone uses it all the time, everywhere. Even if only a few people aren’t using safe sanitation, the whole community is at risk (any unsafe sanitation leads to the spread of pathogens throughout the environment, and then even those people that do use safe sanitation can still be exposed and suffer ill-health). Page 14 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Based on a desktop assessment of different sanitation technologies, together with input from Solomon Water, and residents of informal settlements, the following sanitation options were shortlisted: • Flushing toilets with piped sewerage (operated by Solomon Water) or household septic tanks (with septage collection, treatment and disposal); water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency • Community simplified sewer and septic/ABR system: Flushing toilets with community simplified (small bore, shallow) sewers and community septic/ABR tanks (operated by Solomon Water) and with offsite effluent (via soild-free sewer to existing sewerage network) and sludge disposal (via sludge removal); water- saving cisterns can improve water efficiency. • Pour-flush (or water saving equivalents such as Sato-pan toilets) with pits (with pit emptying or burying) • Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) toilets (with pit emptying or burying) • Above ground-sanitation (container-based sanitation or composting toilets). Full reticulated sewerage was deemed unsuitable for informal settlements, due to the difficulty with installing conventional sewerage networks in unplanned housing areas, with no easements and likely difficulty to obtain and protect easements for future settlement. Regarding sanitation in their communities, informal settlers had a strong preference for household-based toilets, rather than public (pay-per-use) or shared private toilets (toilets owned and shared by a small number of households). Assessing the status of above factors influencing sanitation options for each settlement guides the identification of sanitation technologies for consideration by stakeholders, including resident informal settlers. The following Sanitation decision tree (Figure 3) combines the above factors to assist in identifying which sanitation technologies suit different situations. The flow chart is designed to be used early in planning processes including for use by planners and programmers about which options may be suitable for consideration by stakeholders and residents. It is not a decision-making tool in-itself, and early community engagement will be critical – discussion of options and pros and cons of each. Genuine community- participation will be critical for any service delivery model to work successfully. Additionally, for sanitation technologies common to those used in rural settings, there should be alignment (where appropriate) with RWASH technical advice for households on toilet types. Consideration should be given to whether water availability may change in settlements currently with low water availability, For example, if improved access to water services provided by Solomon Water are planned for the near- future, the options identified as suitable using the Sanitation decision-tree may be considered undesirable, particularly by consumers who may express a strong preference for water-based sanitation. The above sanitation options do not describe full sanitation service delivery models. A full sanitation service delivery model must also describe: - Service provision arrangements for toilet parts and construction services (where households cannot/prefer not to provide their own parts and construction) - Provision of technical support for householder construction (where appropriate), and maintenance (where appropriate) and use - Provision of behaviour change communication services (to ensure demand, knowledge and attitudes are supportive of adoption of sanitation services) - Service provision arrangements for safe collection of faecal sludge and effluent from toilet systems requiring emptying - Service provision arrangements for safe treatment and disposal of collected faecal sludge and effluent. - Regulation and monitoring of waste management services. Page 15 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 3: SANITATION DECISION TREE FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, HONIARA. FULL SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS NEED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SANITATION OPTION TO ENSURE SAFE MANAGEMENT OF FAECAL SLUDGE AND EFFLUENT. Page 16 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 RECOMMENDATIONS Improve provision and management of water and sanitation services to informal settlements through the following recommendations. 1. U T I L I Z E I N F O R M AT I O N AB O U T S E T T L E M E N T S T O G U I D E C O N S U L T AT I O N S AN D P L AN N I N G W I T H R E S I D E N T S AN D O T H E R S T AK E H O L D E R S AB O U T W AT E R AN D S AN I T AT I O N S E R V I C E S : 1.1 Work with MLHS, HCC, MoHMS and other organisations linked with informal settlements and urban planning, to identify and collate information and plans regarding settlements. In particular, links should be made with those implementing The Greater Honiara Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (GHUDSAP), to consolidate data relating to urban and peri-urban informal settlements and their development. The database (spreadsheet) developed during this study may be a useful starting point. 1.2 Improve existing information about settlements, in particular a) Census 2019 data should provide updated and more detailed information about: variability of wealth within settlements; population estimates for individual settlements; growth rates of individual settlements. Once available, which may be 1-2 years, this data should be assessed for suitability and incorporated to any settlement database/information store. b) MLHS data regarding land tenure status of different settlements. 1.3 Build on the newly collated GIS information to update and use GIS-linked information to inform planning of services. In particular, maintain and update as available settlement population and socio-economic data, with environmental data such as hazard mapping (coastal flooding, riverine flooding, flash flooding, landslips), and with utility asset data (water and sewerage assets). 2. I M P R O V E W AT E R S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y T O R E S I D E N T S O F I N F O R M AL S E T T L E M E N T S : 2.1 Provide internal household water connections where-ever possible, to maximise health and wellbeing benefits 2.2 Recognise that not all residents of all settlements will be able/want to access their own private household water connections, and that a mix of water service delivery options may be required. Identify potential service delivery options using the water decision-tree developed in this study (Figure 2 above) to guide identification of water service delivery models to be considered during planning and consultation activities. 2.3 Maintain the lowest tariff level at a rate that is affordable by the lowest income households (this may require regular reassessment). 2.4 Where internal household water connections are not being provided, provide a service that has the flexibility to be transitioned to individual household connections as demand and willingness to pay/commit changes, that is, consider these services as transitional services. This does not apply to settlements identified by MLHS as hazardous. 2.5 Accommodate a mix of water service delivery models in settlements with larger diversity of wealth and demand. For example, consider providing both water kiosks and household water connections in settlements with lowest income households and high wealth households. Census 2019 information can be used to identify these settlements. Page 17 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2.6 Improve the awareness and attitudes about safe drinking water in particular (i) the importance of safe drinking water (ii) the safety of water provided by Solomon Water using an evidence-based behaviour change communication strategy. 2.7 Mitigate water theft from water pipes by: a) Increasing the accessibility of household water services by planning for reticulation through settlements, and maintaining a lowest tariff rate that is affordable by low income households. b) early and effective consultation and communications about the value of water from Solomon Water and its cost to supply c) encourage uptake by majority of households d) utilize engineering solutions, such as resistant pipes and deeper installations, to reduce tampering and theft, e) monitoring of non-revenue water at the settlement-scale (or finer resolution) to identify possible problems. 2.8 Sharing of household connections amongst multiple households will not be actively promoted by Solomon Water due to difficulty of regulating on-selling and ensuring the quality of service (e.g. reliability and water quality). However, sharing of household water connections is common practice and is preferred amongst many residents of informal settlements, as a way to share the foxed costs of a connection. It is recommended that Solomon Water acknowledge this as one tactic to increase the accessibility to their water services and improve the effectiveness of shared household connections by a) reassessing the tariff (or other aspects of the cost) arrangements for these connections. This is because connections supplying water to multiple houses may use sufficient volumes to be charged a higher-use tariff – thus effectively paying more per litre than single-household connections. b) Making accessible information about different ways water use can be calculated (e.g. through community meetings or ‘water supply training’, which could include other aspects of demand management and water quality (containers & storage) c) Consider cluster metering to reduce connection costs (provided settlement residents agree to take responsibility for management of pipes and non-revenue water from the meter to the house). 2.9 Pilot water stores (kiosks) in one or two settlements to build experience and understanding of (i) operational requirements (ii) demand from residents of informal settlements. Specific recommendations relating to piloting of water stores: a) Pilot a delegated-management model and/or utility owned-and-operated model (rather than a private retailer), to ensure (i) retail price is regulated by the utility (and set at a level commensurate with affordability for likely consumers, including lowest income households and the level of service being provided); and (ii) minimum service standards are adhered to (e.g. opening hours, hygiene and maintenance of store equipment). An alternative would be to start with utility-owned-and-operated and transition to delegated management. b) Recognise the lower service standard that will be provided (compared with household water connections) and that this is likely a transitional service to create demand and willingness to pay by providing low cost water (this may require subsidizing the cost of the service, depending upon the potential market size). c) Design and locate the store considering: (i) vulnerability to vandalism (ii) personal safety of operators (ii) accessibility to residents carrying water containers (iii) hazardous locations (floods, landslips, proximity to rubbish piles) (iv) ability to maintain hygiene and to prevent contamination or supplies (e.g. through back- flows (v) some on-site storage to mitigate short-term mains water disruptions (vi) density of stores within larger settlements to balance cost-effectiveness with accessibility. Page 18 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2.10 Pilot the installation and operation of pay-per-use automated water dispensers, such as Water ATMs, at key locations such as major public transport hubs (large bus stops, the port). a) The location of the Water ATMs should consider (i) security of the ATM (ii) accessibility of the ATM with regard to hours/days it is accessible for both consumers and service operators (iii) proximity to transport departure locations to minimise carrying distances b) Retail cost of water should be regulated by the utility, and set at a level commensurate with affordability for likely consumers (including lowest income households) and the level of service being provided. 2.11 Recognising there will remain (for the near future) many residents that use service delivery models requiring them to carry and store water in containers (e.g. water kiosks/stores, shared HH connections), mitigate health risks from use of water containers: a) Mitigate the risk of contamination of water during handling and storing of water by consumers in containers (including drums, barrels, tanks) through education and behaviour-change strategies (which should also identify poor sanitation and hygiene (handwashing) and important factors increasing contamination of water in containers). b) Mitigate the health problems associated with carrying water in containers by encouraging local hardware stores to stock wheeled-water carriers or containers. c) Consider whether household water treatment options should be promoted (acknowledging the requirements for consistent and proper adherence to treatment procedures for these to be effective). 2.12 Adjust the land tenure requirements and the current perceptions regarding these requirements: a) adjust internal utility processes, and external communication messages regarding land tenure requirements to clarify that a Fixed Term Estate, or Temporary Occupancy License is not required for residents inside Honiara City Council boundary to apply for a private water connection. b) For residents living in settlements that have been assessed by MLHS as being in highly hazardous locations, individual private household water connections may not be supported, but that an alternative water service delivery model can be discussed with Solomon Water, such as a water kiosk. 2.13 Communicate and coordinate water supply service options with all organisations active in informal settlements, to ensure where feasible, utility water is provided, as the more cost-effective, safe and sustainable water supply system, rather than installation of on-site water supplies such as bore pumps which have minimal long-term maintenance support and may interact with Solomon Water’s water supplies and network. 3. I M P R O V E S AN I T AT I O N S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y AN D B E H AV I O U R S I N I N F O R M AL S E T T L E M E N T S : 3.1 Recognise that a mix of sanitation service options will be required to service Honiara’s urban and peri-urban populations. Achieving sanitation service provision for all people is required to ensure the health and wellbeing of all of Honiara’ s population, and to maximise resident’s participation in society, education and economic activities. 3.2 Identify sanitation options to suit different settlement characteristics, such as by using the sanitation decision- tree (Figure 3) to guide identification of the range of sanitation services that may be required and their suitability to different local situations. 3.3 The required mix of sanitation services cannot be provided by any one organisation, and a mix of sanitation service providers will be required. Coordination and cooperation is required to ensure that all people living in Honiara can access a sanitation service that will safely manage their human waste. Page 19 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 3.4 Promote amongst key stakeholders (Solomon Water, HCC and MoH) the critical need for a coordinated strategy to address sanitation across Honiara. A strategy or plan for Honiara’s sanitation could include information: o Identify which types of sanitation services should be made available in which parts of the city, including in identified hazardous areas, and specifying expected and acceptable service levels. 3.5 Identify which organisations should play a role in supporting or delivering each sanitation service (and whether additional capacity or capability is required) o Confirm there are no parts of the city that can’t access a safe sanitation service. o Describe agreed targets to encourage progress on sanitation and describe how these will be monitored. 3.6 The sanitation strategy or plan should also require coordinated communication to promote sanitation behaviours, and to improve the motivation and commitment of people to using safe sanitation. It is important that all organisations have the same types of messages about sanitation – the best way to achieve this is for stakeholders to develop a sanitation communication strategy, with communication resources, that many organisations can use. 3.7 Coordinate with MoH to improve awareness amongst residents of informal settlements about types of on-site sanitation options suitable in different informal settlements, in particular to unfamiliar sanitation options such as VIP dry pit latrines, and container-based or composting toilets. Coordinate with MoH on the communication of acceptable sanitation technologies. 3.8 Pilot the new service delivery model of “Community simplified sewer and septic/ABR system” which combines on- and off-site collection and treatment. o This model involves:  water-based (flushing) toilets with low-cost community simplified sewers (installed with assistance from residents, and oversight by Solomon Water). Water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency, although a minimum water flow will be required to ensure functionality of the community simplified sewers.  connections to community septic tanks (operated by Solomon Water). Multiple septic tanks may be required depending upon the scale and topography of the settlement.  conveyance of effluent from septic to mains sewer using low cost solids-free sewer systems  septage emptying from the septic tank. o Significant community engagement and consultation will be required before piloting such a model. Consider partnering with organisations already with established relationships and experience engaging with informal settlements o Use the sanitation decision-tree to assist in identifying a pilot settlement. An additional criteria would be to select settlements in which there has previously been promotion of sanitation. An example of a settlement that meets most of these criteria is Namoliki/Gwaimaoa. o Ensure there is capture of the processes, strengths and weaknesses of the pilot model to provide evidence for future service model assessments. 4. I M P R O V E C O O R D I N AT I O N AN D I N T E G R AT I O N O F W AT E R , S AN I T AT I O N AN D H Y G I E N E I N I N F O R M AL SETTLEM ENTS 4.1 Water, sanitation and hygiene are critically linked, both operationally and from a health perspective (e.g. the need and use of water to practice safe hygiene; the potential contamination of local water, and container-based water, through inadequate sanitation and hygiene; the increase consumption of water associated with water- based sanitation), these three areas of activity must be planned and operationalized in a coordinated way to Page 20 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 avoid ineffective communication or operations, which would prevent WASH-related health and wellbeing being achieved. o Engage with other WASH actors active in Solomon Islands to ensure coordinated approaches, similarly for sanitation above. Discuss communication approaches and resources using the same messages. Synergising urban and rural WASH communications and messages would provide benefits to both urban and rural WASH outcomes – this could be achieved through expansion of the rural WASH stakeholder group to include urban WASH actors. o Engage with other actors active in informal settlements, not necessarily focused on WASH, such as CAUSE and UNHabitat, to raise awareness of WASH-related approaches and activities being promoted by the government and Solomon Water. Page 21 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 3 PURPOSE AND APPROACH The objective of the study was to inform Solomon Water of potential service delivery models for the expansion of water and sewerage services in informal settlements in Honiara. Currently, a range of water service delivery models are in use by residents of settlements – not all of these result in safe and affordable drinking and domestic water. Similarly, a range of sanitation practices are in use, most not likely to result in safe containment of human waste. Solomon Water is currently expanding and improving its water and sanitation services in Honiara, and other provincial capitals. As a part of this improvement and expansion agenda, there is the opportunity to improve the water and sanitation services used by residents of informal settlements. In recognition of the diversity of environmental, social and economic diversity amongst urban residents in Honiara’s informal settlement, a range of water and sanitation service delivery models may need to be offered. This assessment identifies the range of possible water and sanitation service models, and, with input from Solomon Water, informal settlement residents and other stakeholders, together with analytical information and lessons about service delivery models used elsewhere, makes recommendations about the water and sanitation service options best suited to informal Honiara’s settlements. 3.1 APPROACH To generate evidence about possible effective water and sanitation service delivery models for Solomon Islands urban informal settlements, the following approach was used. 1. C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N O F H O N I A R A ’ S I N F O R M A L S E T T L E M E N T S Existing data and information describing environmental, social and economic features of informal settlements was collated. The objective was to describe Honiara’s settlements with regard to features such as range of location and size of settlements, land tenure, socio-economic parameters including demographic dynamics and willingness to pay for water and sanitation, housing type, access and use of existing urban services, vulnerability to flooding and disasters. The intention was to develop descriptions about the range of situations existing across settlements, rather than describe every settlement. However, sufficient information was collated to allow a description of all settlements for some of these features, allowing a more settlement-specific description of situations. This more specific approach was made possible due to GIS data provided by the Community Access and Urban Services Enhancement Project (CAUSE) program (a partnership between Solomon Islands government and World Bank). This program provided the GIS location of many urban communities likely to represent informal settlements, together with some basic information about population, access and services. The GIS location of settlements provided a platform for additional GIS data describing environmental features, and water and sewerage services to be overlaid, so that the specific features of each settlement could be determined. The GIS information was supplemented by non-GIS information describing social, economic, environmental or other relevant features of specific settlements, or settlements generally. This information was collated by reviewing numerous previous studies and reports, including: • CAUSE Social assessment Report (World Bank, 2017) – based on secondary and primary data, an identification of key social, economic and environmental factors from vulnerable urban communities in Honiara (and Gizo and Auki) Page 22 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • Honiara City-Wide Informal Settlement Analysis 2016. UN Habitat with Honiara City Council and Ministry of Lands, Survey and Housing. • Slum Situational Analysis Based on Socio-Economic Survey for UNHabitat. 2015. Ministry of Lands, Survey and Housing (Richard Pauku). • Solomon Islands Urban Water Supply & Sanitation Sector Project - Household Survey Report. 2018. EGIS, for Solomon Water and ADB. • Spatial Analysis of Informal Settlement Growth and Disaster Management Preparedness: A Case Study in Honiara City, Solomon Islands. 2013. Reginald Reuben – Master thesis (USP). • Urban Development in Honiara - Harnessing Opportunities, Embracing Change. 2017. Meg Keen, Julien Barbara, Jessica Carpenter, Daniel Evans and Joseph Foukona. Australian National University. • Informal Land Systems Within Urban Settlements in Honiara and Port Moresby. 2008. Chand, S & Yala, C, in Wawrzonek, Fitzpatrick, Levantis, O'Connor (ed.), Making Land Work, vol 1, AusAID, pp. 85-107. • Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan. 2016. UNHabitat and RMIT for Honiara City Council and the Solomon Islands Government. • Solomon Islands Systematic Country Diagnostic. 2017. World Bank. • Solomon Islands Ecosystem and Socio-Economic Resilience Analysis and Mapping (ESRAM), Volume 3: Honiara. 2018. SPREP. The use of information from these reports, and others, is acknowledged where used in this report. 2. I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F P O S S I B L E W A T E R A N D S A N I T A T I O N S E R V I C E M O D E L S The approach to identify water and sanitation service delivery models that suit the situation of informal settlements in Honiara involved several steps: - An initial desktop review of water and sanitation options was conducted to prepare an initial list, with critical information, about the possible options. - An initial consultation with Solomon Water eliminated a small number of service delivery options deemed not feasible - A summary of technical and experience-based information describing each of the remaining water and sanitation service options was prepared, for further consultation. These summaries reviewed literature describing key components of the service chain for each option, as well as technological, operational, social, economic, service standards achievable and health and wellbeing benefits. - Workshop with Solomon Water elicited feedback to these service delivery model options and shortlist options for further consideration - Community consultations elicited feedback to the service delivery model options, including suggestions on alternatives and ways to overcome challenges - Workshop with Solomon Water to agree final shortlisted service delivery model options. Additional information about the shortlisted options, relevant to considering their implementation in the context of the Solomon Islands was compiled. 3. I D E N T I F Y I N G S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y M O D E L O P T I O N S T O S U I T H O N I A R A ’ S I N F O R M A L S E T T L E M E N T S The characterisations of Honiara’s formal settlements (Step 1 above) was integrated with information abut the shortlisted service delivery model options (Step 2) to develop a decision-support tree to identify service delivery options suited to specific conditions in informal settlements. Page 23 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 This was refined through a workshop with Solomon Water and their Development partners (World Bank, ADB), and for sanitation with input from other stakeholders with a key role in sanitation (Ministry Medical and Health Services, Ministry Environment, Honiara City Council, UNICEF, NGOs). The purposes of the decision-support trees are to (i) identify the range of options that may be required to ensure water and sanitation services can be accessible in all informal settlement situations. (ii) identify possible water and/or sanitation options for specific settlements, for further consideration and consultation with key stakeholder, including settlement residents. Page 24 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4 CHARACTERISATION OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS DEFINITION OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENT Informal settlement Several definitions of informal settlements exist. One that has been used in the Solomon Islands previously, is that of UNHabitat (UNHabitat 2016a): informal settlements of Honiara comprise households with informal settlers, where a household is a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area, who lack one or more of the following: - Durable housing (a permanent structure providing protection from extreme climatic conditions); - Sufficient living area (no more than three people sharing a room); - Access to improved water (water that is sufficient, affordable and can be obtained without - extreme effort); - Access to improved sanitation facilities (a private or public toilet shared with a reasonable - number of people); and - Secure tenure (de facto or de jure secure tenure status and protection against forced eviction). “Informal settlements” is terminology that is locally used to indicate spatially-defined areas within which reside informal settlers, though in practice by this definition, many informal settlements have formal residents (households that do meet all of the above criteria). The requirements of this study involve identifying informal settlements requiring improved access to water and sanitation services, and where some settlement-scale planning and community engagement will be beneficial. This means that areas relevant to this study are more defined by their history of planned/unplanned settlement, because this has a significant influence on the feasibility and accessibility of water and sanitation services, rather than the current status of individual households. Therefore, the working definition of Informal settlement, used in this study to identify communities and households to improve water and sanitation services is an informal settlement: • Is a spatially-defined area which has been settled over time through informal and unplanned processes, but which now comprises multiple households (which may or may not have formal approval to occupy land, durable housing, water connections, on-site sanitation, sufficient living area) • lacks settlement-scale access to improved water and sanitation. Informal Settlement Zone During the mid-2000s, in association with the Solomon Islands Institutional Strengthening of Land Administration Project (SIISLAP), a number of ‘Informal Settlement Zones’ (ISZ) were created largely for management purposes – in practice, these are formally recognised informal settlements within the Honiara municipal area (UNHabitat 2016a). Most ISZ’s are undergoing a process to become formalized, providing the option for land tenure security (through a fee for a Fixed Term Estate) for residents of the formalized settlement. Not all informal settlements inside Honiara municipal area have been designated as an Informal Settlement Zone. Page 25 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 DESCRIBING THE INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS OF HONIARA This study aimed to provide an overview of the range of environmental, social, economic and other situations that exist within Honiara’s informal settlements. However, sufficient information about individual settlements was collated to make a first attempt to identify all Honiara’s informal settlements, and describe some of their characteristics relevant to this study. Settlement-specific data will be very useful to inform sanitation options & plan for expansion of water services, and assess water, and sewerage (or other sanitation) accessibility for informal settlers. This more specific approach was made possible due to GIS data provided by the Community Access and Urban Services Enhancement Project (CAUSE) program (a partnership between Solomon Islands government and World Bank). This program provided the GIS location of many urban communities likely to represent informal settlements, together with some basic information about population, access and services. In addition, settlement names and locations were gleaned from previous studies and reports, as well as from MLHS map and list of informal settlement zones. The GIS location of settlements provided a platform for additional GIS data describing environmental features, and water and sewerage services to be overlaid, so that the specific features of each settlement could be determined. The GIS information was supplemented by non-GIS information describing social, economic, environmental or other relevant features of specific settlements, or settlements generally. This information was collated by reviewing numerous previous studies and reports – see those listed in section 3 (Purpose and Approach) and as cited throughout this section. The recent UNHabitat (2016a) assessment of settlements of Honiara provides the most up-to-date and comprehensive overview of informal settlements and their social and economic situations and was based upon synthesis of a diverse range of primary and secondary data sources. The CAUSE (2017) report also includes valuable primary and secondary information about the social and economic situation of Honiara’s informal settlements. The following summaries focus on those aspects relevant to considering water and sanitation services for informal settlements, and other sources such as the UNHabitat (2016a) and CAUSE (2017) reports should be consulted for a broader perspective of socio-economic situations of settlements. Page 26 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4.1 I N C RE A SI N G U RB A N I Z A T I ON O F H ON I A RA Honiara is the capital city of the Solomon Islands and is situated in its own province (Capital Province) located on the northern coast of Guadalcanal island, at the mouth of the Mataniko River. There are 12 administrative wards in Honiara but urbanization is creating peri-urban areas beyond the ward boundaries into the wider Guadalcanal province on all sides of the city (Figure 4, MLHS & ADB, 2018). FIGURE 4: HONIARA TOWN BOUNDARY (GREEN) AND GREATER HONIARA AREA (ORANGE); MLHS & ADB 2018. Compared with other areas of Solomon Islands, Honiara is experiencing rapid population growth with a greater proliferation of informal settlements, has a more diverse economy, higher incomes together with higher incidence of poverty, and higher unemployment (CAUSE, 2017). The growth of Honiara has occurred in advance of formal and planned growth; consequently community infrastructure and services are limited. Much of the growth occurred after the tensions as people sought economic opportunity in the urban areas in response to the comparative wealth in Honiara compared to the widespread basic needs poverty in other provinces (CAUSE, 2017). The Honiara Local Area Planning Scheme of 2015 states that the rapid population growth around Honiara is not met by provision of adequate infrastructure and that there is scarcity of land for housing developments (MLHS & HCC, 2015). The drivers of urbanization are the same as for other urban centres in the Solomon Islands: accessing employment, health and education, however there is also shorter-term movement to Honiara prompted by “seeking audiences with Members of Parliaments or their staff to access Constituency Development Funds (given most Members of Parliament live in Honiara, not in their constituencies), and dealing with natural resource development-related issues, particularly logging – in court, with government ministries or with private businesses (primarily a male pursuit)” (World Bank 2017) The Greater Honiara Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (GHUDSAP) was developed by the Solomon Islands Government, and outlines a series of plans in response to the rapid and unplanned urbanization of Honiara. Whilst recognizing much of the Greater Honiara Area lies in Guadalcanal Province, the plan identifies several strategies to support the vision of the city, including improving provision of basic urban services in the urban centres, and upgrading informal settlements. Page 27 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4.2 I N F O RM A LL Y S E T T LE D A RE A S OF HONIARA Informal settlements have been present in Honiara for many years – with some settlements settled as long ago as probably the 1960s (UNHabitat, 2016). Surveys conducted in 2015 as part of UNHabitat’s Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme shows that the average length of residence by households in the Aekafo area was 18.6 years – suggesting these communities are well-established. Reuben (2013), used GIS and aerial imagery to confirm that informal settlements have been growing in size rapidly over last 35 years, as well as expanding onto new locations, many of which are more vulnerable to natural and climate change related hazards. His study area included the area within Honiara town boundary, as well as some of the Greater Honiara Area. Figure 5 shows a ten-times growth in total area of informal settlements from 71 ha in 1984, to 721 ha in 2010 (Reuben, 2013). FIGURE 5: GROWTH IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE HONIARA MUNICIPAL AREA (REUBEN, 2013). Figure 6 shows the growth of informal settlements since 1984 (Reuben, 2013). Yellow indicates the areas taken up by informal settlements in 1984 while blue and red shows the areas taken up by informal settlements in 2003 and 2010 respectively. Established informal settlements continued to expand while new ones were seen in areas previously not settled (Reuben, 2013). In 1984, informal settlements were centered on the central and western parts of the city; by the year 2000, settlements were growing in the eastern part of the city (Reuben, 2013). UNHabitat (2016) indicates evidence that informal settlements have grown substantially since 2010. Page 28 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 6. LOCATIONS AND AREA OCCUPIED BY INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, 1984, 2003, 2010 (REUBEN, 2013). In West Honiara, which includes White River, Tandai, upper and lower Tasahe, Rifle Range, Nggosi and Rove, by 2010, the growth of informal settlements was generally expanding inland towards steep slope areas, as well as expanding east from the existing 1984 settlements (Figure 7; Reuben, 2013). FIGURE 7. EXPANSION OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENT AREAS IN WEST HONIARA CITY, 1984 – 2010 (REUBEN, 2013). The growth of informal settlements in Central Honiara, made up of areas from Mbumburu in the west to Panatina Ridge in the east, was similar to that observed in west Honiara; most existing settlements were growing towards steep slope areas inland (Figure 8). Lord Howe/Ontong Java settlement and Fishing Village, coastal settlements in central Honiara, were not expanding in area but increasing by the number of buildings. Many Informal settlements indicated rapid growth, including Kaibia, Kokomulevuha, Koa Hill, Aekafo, Cana Hill, Matariu, Ferakusia, Feralodoa, Fulisango, Green Valley, Mamulele, Kombito, Kofiloko, and areas surrounding Gilbert Camp. Page 29 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 8. EXPANSION OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENT AREAS IN CENTRAL HONIARA CITY, 1984 – 2010 (REUBEN, 2013). Apart from Lungga and Sun Valley informal settlements, most of the eastern parts of the Honiara City have been occupied more recently, following 2003, and there are settlements almost everywhere in this region (Figure 9). Many of these lie outside the Honiara town boundary. Informal settlements in east Honiara seem to be growing faster than in west Honiara (Reuben, 2013). In addition to existing settlements, new settlements continued to develop in other areas which has resulted in the scattered settlements shown in Figure 9. The Lungga River Delta comprises a large of east Honiara (in the Greater Honiara Area), and the growth of informal settlements expands onto the floodplain; most of these informal settlement areas are at risk of significant flooding (Reuben, 2013). FIGURE 9. EXPANSION OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENT AREAS IN EAST HONIARA CITY, INCLUDING EXTENDING BEYOND THE TOWN BOUNDARY, 1984 – 2010 (REUBEN, 2013). INDICATION OF MUNICIPAL TOWN BOUNDARY ADDED. Page 30 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Informal settlement zones (MLHS) As describe in the definitions above, ‘Informal Settlement Zones’ (ISZ) represent some of the informal settlements within the Honiara municipal area – those that have been formally recognised and assessed by the MLHS for their eligibility to become formalized settlements (UNHabitat 2016a). The formalization process, and how it affects land tenure are outlined in the section “Land Tenure” (below). The most recent available map showing MLHS informal settlement zones (Figure 10), and the accompanying list, identifies 36 administratively-recognised informal settlements. However, as noted above, and is clear from comparing the map of ISZs (Figure 10) with the map showing informally settled areas from 2010 (Figure 6), there are many informal settlements in addition to those identified as informal settlement zones. 4.3 ‘I N F O R M A L SE T T LE M E N T S ’ U SE D F O R TH I S S TU D Y There is no comprehensive and current list or map of informal settlements within Honiara municipal area or the Greater Honiara area. This study has collated disparate information and lists naming informal settlements into a single list, in an attempt to provide an insight to the scale of the number of settlements. These sources of named informal settlements includes: • 36 ISZs (with GIS location) named by MLHS ISZs – all within Honiara town boundary (MLHS, 2015) • 80 vulnerable urban communities (with GIS location), identified by the CAUSE Program (World Bank, HCC, 2018) (which targets households living below the Basic Needs Poverty Line) – all within Honiara town boundary • Several individual settlements named in various studies/reports or names by local stakeholders, most within Honiara town boundary but some located outside the town boundary in Greater Honiara Area. The process to consolidate these lists involved geographically locating each named settlement, using GIS, to identify a single list of distinct settlements. There are no distinct boundaries identified for settlements – they have been identified by a point location representing ‘some’ households that have identified themselves as an informal settlement. Many settlements are known by multiple names, in different sources of information. This process resulted in a list of 92 informal settlements being identified. However, it is important to note that this list of 92 informal settlements has not been ground-truthed – their names have not been validated, and their boundaries are not known. Based on the closeness of some settlements, as determined through the GIS, it is likely that many settlements identified as distinct may in fact represent several contiguous ‘settlements’. These contiguous settlements have not been combined for this study – the fact that residents of these settlements have identified themselves as being distinct (such as through the CAUSE program), indicates they may in effect represent distinct communities (socially-linked groups of people). This study is interested in several community- scale water and sanitation service delivery models and as such as, the identification of distinct communities is useful. Page 31 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 10: INFORMAL SETTLEMENT ZONES (ISZS) OF HONIARA (MLHS IN UNHABITAT 2016) Page 32 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 TABLE 1: LIST OF 92 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS STUDY, WITH OTHER KNOWN NAMES FOR SOME SETTLEMENTS (CAUSE: WORLD BANK, 208; UNH: UNHABITAT 2016; # Name Ward Community MLHS (ISZ) name MLHS ISZ no. Other names (consolidated name CAUSE working name) 1 Adaliua Vura Adaliua Adeliua 12 2 Aekafo Kola'a Aekafo/Cana Aekafo 23 (labelled 24 on Aekafo (Zone 24; Hill ISZ map) UNH) 3 Aekafo 2 Panatina Aekafo 2 Gilbert Aekafo 3 4 Antioch Kola'a Antioch Namoliki / 22 Gaimaoa 5 Bahai Kukum Bahai n/a n/a 6 Baranaba Panatina Baranaba n/a n/a 7 Burns Creek Panatina Burns Creek n/a n/a 8 Chinatown Mataniko Chinatown n/a n/a 9 Choviri Vavaea Choviri none (outside IS n/a Choviri) 10 East Kola Ridge Vura East Kola East Kola Ridge 36 (not on ISZ map) Ridge 11 Ferakusia Kola'a Ferakusia n/a 12 Feraladoa Kola'a Feraladoa Feraladoa (Talise 19 Feraladoa (Zone 19, Market side) Aefako Planning Area) 13 Fijian Quarter Vuhokesa Fijian Quarter n/a n/a 14 Fishing Village Naha Fishing Village n/a n/a 15 Forest Valley Ngossi Lower Tasahe Forest Valley 33 16 Fulisango Kola'a Fulisango Fulisango 16 17 Gegema Mataniko Gegema Gegema 17 18 Gilbert Camp Panatina Gilbert Camp Kwaio Valley / 5 (6 on map) Gilbert Camp 19 Green Valley Vura Green Valley Green Valley area 14 20 Gwaimaoa Kola'a Gwaimaoa Namoliki / 22 Gwaomaoa (Zone 22, Gaimaoa Aefako Planning Area; UNH) 21 Independence Ngossi Independence Independence 31 Valley Valley Valley 22 Jericho Kola'a Jericho Jericho / Matariu 21 23 Kaibia (West) Vavaea Kaibia Kaibia (West) 30 24 King George Panatina King George n/a n/a 25 Koa Hill Vavaea Koa Hill Koa Hill (Fiji 26 Quarters down) 26 Kofiloko Panatina Kofiloko Kofiloko 1 27 Kokomulevuha Mbumburu Kokomulevuha n/a (just west of n/a IZ30, maybe outside townboundary) 28 Kola'ale Kola'a Kola'ale n/a n/a 29 Kombito 1 Panatina Kombito 1 Kombito 1 7 (CAUSE location within zone 8 on ISZ map) 30 Kombito 2 Panatina Kombito 2 Kombito 2 8 (CAUSE location within zone 9 on ISZ map) Page 33 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 31 Kombito 3 Panatina Kombito 3 Kombito 3, 4 & 5 9 (CAUSE location within zone 8 on ISZ map) 32 Kombivatu Kola'a Kombivatu n/a n/a 33 Kukum Kukum Kukum n/a n/a 34 Kukum Campus Panatina Kukum n/a n/a Campus 35 Kukum Vura Kukum n/a n/a Community Community 36 Lau Valley Panatina Lau Valley New Valley / 6 (CAUSE located Kombito 1 in zone 5 on ISZ map) 37 Lawson Tama Kola'a Lawson Tama n/a n/a 38 Lengakiki Rove/Lengakiki Lengakiki n/a n/a 39 Lio Creek Panatina Jackson Ridge Lio Creek 2 40 Mamanawata Vuhokesa Mamanawata n/a n/a RenLau (SIWA) Settlement 41 Mamulele Panatina Mamulele Mamulele 11 42 Matafali Kola'a Matafali Ferasukia / 20 Matavale 43 Matariu Kola'a Matariu Jericho / Matariu 21 Matariu (Zone 20, Aefako Planning Area, UNH) 44 Mbokona Mbumburu Mbokona n/a n/a 45 Mbokonavera Vavaea Mbokonavera n/a n/a 46 Mbua Valley Kola'a Mbua Valley n/a n/a 47 Mbumburu Mbumburu Mbumburu n/a n/a 48 Naha Naha Naha n/a n/a 49 Naha Vura Naha n/a n/a Community Community 50 Namoliki Kola'a Namoliki Namoliki / 22 Namoliki (Zone 23, Gaimaoa Aefako Planning Area; UNH) 51 New Valley Panatina New Valley New Valley / 6 (labelled 5 on ISZ Kombito 1 map) 52 Ngossi Ngossi Ngossi n/a n/a 53 Number 3 Mataniko Number 3 n/a n/a 54 Ontong Java / Mataniko Lord Howe n/a n/a Lord Howe Settlement 55 Panatina Panatina Panatina n/a n/a Campus Campus 56 Panatina Ridge Panatina Panatina Ridge n/a n/a 57 Panatina Valley Panatina Panatina n/a n/a Valley 58 Panatina Village Panatina Panatina n/a n/a Village 59 Point Cruz Cruz Point Cruz n/a n/a 60 Ranadi Panatina Ranadi n/a n/a 61 Ranadi Panatina Ranadi n/a n/a Industrial Industrial 62 Rifle Range Ngossi Rifle Range n/a 31 (CAUSE located just outside boundary ISZ map) 63 Rove Rove/Lengakiki Rove n/a n/a 64 Skyline Vavaea Skyline Choviri 28 65 Tandai Ngossi Tandai n/a n/a Page 34 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 66 Tanuli Ridge Kola'a Tanuli Ridge n/a n/a 67 Tavioa Ridge Ngossi Tavioa Ridge n/a n/a 68 Tehamurina Vavaea Tehamurina n/a n/a 69 Tolo Panatina Tolo Gilbert Aekafo 3 70 Town Ground Rove/Lengakiki Town Ground n/a n/a 71 Tuvaruhu Mataniko Tuvaruhu n/a n/a 72 Upper Tasahe Ngossi Upper Tasahe n/a n/a 73 Vara Creek Mataniko Vara Creek Vara Creek 24 (CAUSE location may be in 23 on ISZ map) 74 Vavaea Ridge Vavaea Vavaea Ridge n/a n/a 75 Vuhokesa Vuhokesa Vuhokesa n/a n/a 76 Vura Vura Vura n/a n/a 77 White River Ngossi White River White River (02 35 bus stop) 78 Wind Valley Ngossi Wind Valley Wind Valley 34 79 Windy Valley Panatina Windy Valley Gilbert Aekafo 3 80 Koa Hill (US Vavaea Koa Hill Koa Hill (US 27 Memorial Memorial down) down) 81 Banana Valley n/a Banana Valley 32 82 Cana Hill Aekafo/Cana Aekafo 23 (labelled 24 on Cana Hill (Zone 25, Hill ISZ map) UNH) 83 Feraladoa Kola'a n/a Feraladoa (Pakoe 18 Feraladoa (Zone 19, (Pakoe Lodge Lodge side) Aefako Planning side) Area; UNH) 84 Green Valley Green Valley Green Valley 13 (SIWA) (SIWA area) 85 Kaibia (East) Kaibia Kaibia (East) 29 86 Kaibia Heights Kaibia Kaibia Heights listed but not numbered (ref to zones 29/30) 87 Kukum Fishing n/a n/a n/a Kukum Fishing Village Village, UNH 88 Kwaio Valley n/a Kwaio Valley 4 89 Marble Street n/a Marble Street 25 90 Master Liu n/a Master Liu 10 91 Ohiola GCNL province n/a n/a n/a 92 Zion n/a Zion 15 Page 35 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 11. LOCATION OF 92 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, WITHIN HONIARA TOWN BOUNDARY, AND SOME IN GREATER HONIARA Page 36 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4.4 H O N I A R A I N FO R M A L SE T T LE R P OP U LA TI O N E ST I M A TE S The total urban population of Honiara is well-described in UNHabitat (2016); an extract is included here. The 2009 Census showed that Solomon Islands had an urban population of 102,030 – representing 19.7% of the total national population. The Greater Honiara area (comprised of the 12 wards within the Honiara town boundary and the contiguous wards of Tandai and Malango in Guadalcanal Province) represented close to 80% of the total urban population in 2009. Across 1999–2009 annual urban growth was high at 4% per annum (compared to national population growth of 2.3% per annum) – representing a doubling time of 15 years. From a population of less than 20,000 at Independence in 1978 Honiara has grown rapidly – particularly since the country’s recovery from the ethnic conflict period in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Honiara’s municipal population was estimated to be about 87,000 in 2015 – and with the peri-urban populations of Tandai and Malango wards added the urban population of the Greater Honiara area is now likely to be over 100,000 people. The informal settler population is not accurately represented in the existing population data, but the following estimates were found (UNHabitat 2016): 2015 population estimates: 3567 household in the identified Informal Settlement Zones without FTE land tenure, ~400 households with FTE, and ~400 HH outside ISZs This gives an estimate of 4,370 households, or (assuming ~ 7 people per household) around 30,000 people. This represents around 30% of Honiara’s population. This quote by Evans (2016) in UNHabitat describes the difficulty in determing an accurate number of informal settlers: “[d]etermining the number of people residing within settlements – both within Honiara and outside – as well as their ethnic composition is now a highly problematic task. This is due to the definitional problem[s]…., the fluidity of the population, the rapid growth of these areas, and poor and irregular data collection. Population figures that have been suggested are not based on any discernible methodology with dated figures being recycled.” (Evans, 2016 in UNHabitat 2016) The population size of individual settlements is not known, but is observed to vary significantly. Combining the CAUSE (2017) survey of self-reported settlement populations with mentions of population estimates of specific settlements in various sources, Table 2 provides an estimate of the population size of the 92 settlements included in this study. TABLE 2: ESTIMATED POPULATION SIZE OF THE 92 SETTLEMENTS OF THIS STUDY Estimated population size range No. settlements Less than 100 (<15 households) 1 100-299 (15-42 households) 12 300 and greater (>42 households) 68 Unknown 11 A more detailed and accurate indication of the size of individual settlements would prove helpful for planning purposes. Analysis of the 2019 Census data, using GIS of informal settlements, could provide such data. Urban migration is continuing and because of the strong pull for new arrivals to settle near their kinship groups, some settlements are likely to experience continued growth, despite very high density. New urban arrivals typically rely on kin for housing and subsistence (CAUSE, 2017), while they are temporarily in Honiara before returning the rural homes, or Page 37 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 temporarily until they establish their own residence. Typically new residences are located close to those of kin, where wantok systems can more easily continue to provide a social safety net (CAUSE, 2017). However the lack of regulation on land use activities and placement of structures leads to disorganized development and in some cases serious conflicts within settlements (CAUSE, 2017). Settlement size is important not only to estimate demand and market size for services, and cost-effectiveness of different options, but also because it is probably corelated with ethnic and religious diversity (with larger settlements comprising more diversity). Higher social and cultural diversity may indicate that social cohesion is stronger at the level of these social groups rather than the whole settlement; this should inform engagement strategies with larger settlements. Household size The CAUSE (2017) reported an average household size of 6.5 for households it surveyed in Honiara. The EGIS survey of informal settlements in Honiara reported a range of household sizes from 5.6 to 9.2, with an average of 7.7 (Table 3). TABLE 3: HOUSEHOLD SIZE OF SOME INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS (EGIS, 2018). 4.5 E N G A G I N G W I T H I N FO R M A L SE T T LE M E N T S - C O M M U N I TI E S A N D LE A D E R SH I P The processes of community engagement usually entail seeking discussions and sometime collective action amongst a group of ‘connected’ people. This purpose is more achievable when the ‘community’ has existing social cohesion. Social is usually taken to mean the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper, and is beneficial to a wide variety of social outcomes such as health and economic prosperity. A community is a group of people (often in the same location), socially-networked and connected via a common characteristic (such as those listed below) with commonalities, usually following some shared rules (formal, informal). Communities are not necessarily, and often rarely, defined only by their sharing a geographic location. In Solomon Islands, formal leadership is often associated with communities, or social groupings, including: • Kinship and ethnic networks (within and between settlements) • Faith-based / church groups • Formal government: Ward Committees It is therefore important to recognise that a settlement, particularly larger settlements, are not comprised of a single, socially-cohesive community. Community engagement is therefore likely to be more effective at the level of communities within a settlement, and potentially amongst several types of communities within a settlement. Page 38 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 The CAUSE (2017) Situation analysis of informal settlements describes that: “the social fabric of communities can be complex and loyalties can change depending on the context and situation”. Their consultations with ‘communities’ indicated a preference that there be active and appropriate community liaison officers to ensure that proper consultation occurs. All of the above types of communities have been utilised effectively for community engagement within settlements in Honiara, e.g. development projects (WASH - Live and Learn & World Vision), rehousing during disaster response (e.g. April 2014 floods; UNHabitat 2016). 4.6 W A TE R SU P P L I E S Access and sources used In 2018 UNICEF commissioned a survey to identify broadscale access to WASH in the urban areas of Solomon Islands (UNICEF and UNC, 2018), however at this stage it is difficult to extract access data specifically for informal settlers. An indication of the current types of water supplies being used by informal settlers in Honiara, and the proportion of populations using them, exist in a small number of case study surveys (Tables 4 and 5). Better estimates of connections to Solomon Water could be determined using GIS, overlaying informal settlement areas with the geographically-located connection data. Use of Solomon Water varies widely between individual settlements – this is more likely to reflect current perceptions on eligibility for connections and difficulty in accessing connections, rather than indicating a low demand for connections. These surveys indicate a large range of sources beyond Solomon Water. Local water resources, such as springs and shallow groundwater are heavily used in some settlements. Given the low rates of access to safe sanitation, there is significant risk of these sources being contaminated with faecal-oral pathogens, causing chronic and acute illnesses. TABLE 4: ESTIMATES OF WATER SERVICES BEING USED IN SOME INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS OF HONIARA (LIVE AND LEARN, 2015). TABLE 5: ESTIMATES OF WATER SERVICES BEING USED IN SOME INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS OF HONIARA (EGIS, 2018) Page 39 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Water quality Only one report of a small number of tests of microbiological quality of drinking water sources used in these settlements is known (Table 6), and indicate that many of the local resources used for drinking contained unsafe levels of E.Coli. TABLE 6: E. COLI LEVELS OF WATER SOURCES FROM TWO INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS (UNPUBLISHED, SOUTER, IWC). TNTC: TOO NUMEROUS TO COUNT Thermotolerant Year Settlement Source type & access Coliforms (CFU / 100ml) tested Henderson Groundwater (~6m), via Hand bore pump TNTC 2017 Shallow groundwater, via well (manual) TNTC 2017 Shallow groundwater, via well (manual) TNTC 2017 Groundwater, via Hand bore pump, depth unknown 0 2018 Shallow groundwater, via well (manual) 158 2018 Shallow groundwater, via well (manual) TNTC 2018 Namoliki Spring, via sealed and protected Spring box with pipe 500 2017 Spring, via Spring box with pipe TNTC 2017 Spring, via open channel 1450 2017 Surface spring (uphill) 28.5 2018 Surface spring (uphill) 0 2018 Surface spring (bottom of hill) 68 2018 Surface Spring 160 2019 Spring Box 70 2019 Spring 12 2019 Spring Box 0 2019 Spring 15 2019 Spring (bottom of the hill) 270 2019 Shared HH connections in informal settlements in Honiara The sharing of private household water connections is an existing widespread practice in informal settlements in Honiara, as well as elsewhere in Melanesia. From two to ten or more households (often in a kin-related hamlet) can share a single connection – this is not public tapstand but a connection registered to a single household, who has elected to share their connection. This is usually shared/accessed via an outside tap. The financial arrangements for shared taps varies between households: – Connection fee shared or paid by connection-owner – Monthly service fee shared or paid by connection-owner – Usage fees per connection can be higher than non-sharing connections, because total water volume used can be high enough to elevate to second or third tier or pricing structures Tension and conflicts between sharers is a common occurrence (globally, and Honiara), usually in relation to perceived fairness of payment calculations, or non-payment. The consequences of not paying an expected contribution to a water bill also varies, including disconnection by the utility (no service for several households), some households being excluded by the connection owner, or the paying households left to “subsidise” the non-paying (when both can be low income households, and greater further inequalities in access). Page 40 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4.7 S A N I T A T I ON P RA C T I C E S As for water, there are no city-wide estimates of access to, or use of different types of sanitation options; case studies can provide an insight to sanitation situations. All settlements are reliant upon onsite sanitation, with very low probability that these have safe facial sludge/waste management (Table 7, Figure 12). Rates of open defecation vary significantly between settlements , but is high in at least some settlements, including some in dense urban settings utilizing local shallow groundwater for drinking. TABLE 7: SANITATION ACCESS IN TWO INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS OF HONIARA (UNPUBLISHED LIVE AND LEARN, 2015), FIGURE 12: SANITATION PRACTICES OF RESIDENTS OF SIX INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN HONIARA (EGIS, 2018). Page 41 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 4.8 L A N D TE N U RE Most settlements inside Honiara City council area are on public land, with a small number on private land; in the Greater Honiara Area in Guadalcanal Province, most settlements are likely to be on customary land. UNHabitat (2016) reported that the Solomon Islands Government (SIG) through the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey (MLHS) “has been slowly upgrading informal settlement zones through subdivision planning and offers of Fixed Term Estate (FTE) to current informal settlers. This work remains ongoing, and plans are in place for the majority of informal settlement zones within Honiara city. Importantly, upgrading is already underway, and SIG has effectively accepted the permanence of many current informal settlement areas. Evictions from informal settlement areas are not occurring.” The formalisation process results in the MLHS providing permission for residents of the specified settlement to apply for a FTE – typically these apply to individual households, but in a small number of cases FTE’s cover a whole settlement and the grantee (applicant of the FTE) allows others to reside. The formalisation process involves land surveying, allocating plots and offering FTEs usually of ~75 years and requiring a fee paymet. The rate of uptake of FTE offers amongst residents of those settlements approved for formalisation appears to be variable, and may be limited by the fees and application process. There is an interim measure available to residetns who are awaiting for MLHSH to determine whether their settlement is to be formalized – this is the of Temporary Occupancy Licenses to individual HH. Keen et al. (2017) reported that many residents are unsure of their land tenure status. Of the 92 settlements identified in this study, using GIS locations of settlements with MLHS map of informal settlement zones (2015) it was determined that the land tenure of most of them is unclear (Table 8, Figure 13). TABLE 8: STATUS OF LAND TENURE OF THE 92 SETTLEMENTS OF THIS STUDY. Settlement Land status Total Formalised 3 No formalisation to occur (MLHS) 3 No ISZ status 47 SIWA FTE 1 Undergoing formalisation 38 Total 92 Regarding housing tenure, the EGIS household survey (2018) of informal settlers indicated that most own their homes, with less than <10% renting; however only ~35% had houses constructed with permanent housing materials (EGIS, 2018). Page 42 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 13: LOCATION OF 92 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS STUDY (BLUE MARKERS), WITH MLHSH INFORMAL SETTLEMENT ZONES (GREEN SHADED AREAS) 4.9 S O C I O - E C O N O M I C SI TU A TI ON S Household income data is only accessible for a small number of settlements, and from varying points in time (The 2019 Census may be able to provide more accurate data for informal settlers). A Solomon Island-specific “basic needs poverty line” is specified as the minimum expenditures needed to obtain basic food and non-food goods taking into account prevailing consumption patterns in the country (SIG, 2012). The cost of basic needs is calculated separately for food and non-food goods. The cost of non-food basic needs is taken as the average non-food expenditure of those households whose spending on food is just equal to the food poverty line (calculated as the minimum amount of money required to secure a daily energy intake of 2200 calories per day given prevailing dietary patterns of the poorer groups in Solomon Islands). This cost of basic non-food goods also varies by location. All households whose expenditures fall below the basic needs poverty line are deemed to be poor. Honiara had an overall rate of poverty of 15% of the population (living below the poverty line) (SIG, The basic needs poverty line for Honiara (2012), for food and non-food, was an annual income of approximately ~$10,000 SBD adult; (or $833/month) (SIG, 2012). The range of estimates for households’ incomes are summarised here. EGIS HHS (2018) (Table 9) • Av. Monthly income: $4100-5500/HH/month • Av. Monthly expenses: $3000-$3,800 • 20-50% households below the Poverty line Aekafo study area (2015 PSUP, in UNHabitat 2016) • Average income: $1294/month/HH; 80% HH with permanent income Maebuta & Maebuta (2009): 4 settlements (White River, Lunga, Mamanawata, Kabia) • 31% respondents’ main income was from full time job: average wage ~$750/month • 20% of respondents’ main income was from casual jobs Page 43 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • 36% of respondents’ main income was from informal activities (e.g. selling betel-nuts and cigarettes): average income: $50/day = $1500/month/HH TABLE 9: AVERAGE DISPOSAL INCOME AND POTENTIAL TARIFFS FOR HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED (EGIS, 2018) 4.10 W I L LI N GN E S S TO PAY FOR WATER The EGIS (2018) surveyed asked respondents about the amount of money they are willing to pay for water or9vided by Solomon Water. The results are highly variable between settlements. The lowest reported willingness to pay was reported for Burns Creek (Figure 14). The ability to pay is further assessed in Chapter 5 (water service delivery models), but to provide a basic comparison, the monthly cost to provide 137L/person/day to a household of 8 members is approximately $300 SBD (excluding the connection fee). The percentage of households reporting they would be willing to pay more than $250 SBD/ month varied from 20-55% households surveyed (Figure 14). FIGURE 14: PERCENTAGE OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS IN HONIARA’S INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS WILING TO PAY SPECIFIED MONTHLY FEES FOR WATER SUPPLY (EGIS, 2018). Page 44 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 An alternative indicator of the willingness to pay for new services is the amount that people currently pay for water (Heymans et al., 2014). Approximately 45% of surveyed households (Across all 6 settlements surveyed) buy bottled water, with approximately 30% spending >$300/month. This provides some validation to the reported willingness to pay amounts above (20-55% households wiling to pay >$250 SBD/ month). FIGURE 14: DAILY AMOUNT SPENT ON BOTTLED WATER PER HOUSEHOLD SURVEYED (EGIS, 2018). 4.11 E N V I R ON M E N TA L C O N D I TI ON S Environmental hazards Generally, informal settlements occupy lands more prone to hazards (Reuben, 2013), and their growth is continuing. Reuben (2013) noted that: • the area taken up by informal settlements on floodplains increased from 5 ha in 1984 to 131 ha in 2010, and the number of houses increased from 36 houses in 1984 to 834 houses in 2010 • the number of houses built on low-lying areas increased from 113 houses in 1984 to 1278 houses in 2010. • the growth of informal settlements onto weak sediments (recently deposited sediments) areas also increased from 67 ha in 1984 to 806 ha in 2010, and the number of houses has increased from 427 houses in 1984 to 3462 houses in 2010. This study aimed to provide a description of the range of environment conditions that exist in informal settlements, for those environmental variables that significantly influence water and sanitation services and options. (relating to water and sanitation service provision). These environmental conditions include: • Vulnerability to flooding, which can damage water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as spread apthogens from on-site sanitation options that are not flood-resistant. Flooding can occur as riverine flooding (usually on river flood plains), coastal flooding (usually as storm surges into coastal settlements/areas) • Vulnerability to landslips, which can cause similar effects to flooding The number of the 92 settlements of this study that are vulnerable to these environmental hazards was estimated by overlaying their location with various environmental hazards maps. An example is shown in Figure 15, and the results are summarised in Table 10. These results are likely to significantly underestimate the number of settlements vulnerable to Page 45 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 these environmental hazards – the analysis was limited to the lack of accurate data for both environmental hazards and settlement boundaries. TABLE 10: NUMBER OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS STUDY THAT APPEAR TO BE LOCATED IN AREAS PRONE TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS. NOTE THAT THE VULNERABILITY OF MANY SETTLEMENTS COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WITH THE DATA AVAILABLE. Type of vulnerability No. settlements Riverine 8 Riverine, Coastal 3 Flat low-lying land 18 Flat low lying, Coastal 2 Landslip 1 Uncertain 60 Total 92 FIGURE 15: LOCATION OF SETTLEMENTS OVER-LAIN WITH LOW-LYING LAND (LESS THAN 5 DEGREES SLOPE – SOURCE SOLOMON WATER AND EGIS) Groundwater The average depth to groundwater in Honiara is not precisely known, but it is expected to varying across the topography. An assessment by JICA (2005) indicated groundwater was typically as shallow as 3 meters below the surface. Shallow groundwater such as this presents two possible problems with regard to water and sanitation services: • Difficulty with constructing and operating in-ground sanitation such as pit latrines • Increasing the potential for contamination of local water resources from almost all onsite sanitation options Page 46 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 This study did not identify any settlement-specific data on depth to groundwater. The use of shallow groundwater sources as drinking water supplies was reported above and indicates the presence of shallow groundwater – as well as its use as a drinking source. The water quality test results reported earlier (Table 6) indicate that some shallow groundwater sources are not safe for drinking; this is likely to be related to their shallowness and vulnerability to contamination by unsafe sanitation. 4.12 A C C E S S ( RO A D , P E D E ST R I A N ) The nature of accessibility to settlements, and houses within settlements has a significant impact on the feasibility of different water and sanitation options. In particular sanitation, as many options require storage of faecal waste at the household for later disposal onsite in safe areas (which are very limited in many settlements), or disposal offsite via transport. As indicated by Rueben (2013), many settlements are located in top of ridgelines or on steep slopes. The CAUSE situation analysis summarised accessibility (Table 12) TABLE 12: ACCESSIBILITY ROAD, PEDESTRIAN – OF SETTLEMENTS (DATA SOURCES FROM CAUSE, 2017). Means of Access No. settlements All weather road 32 Rough road 43 Footpath 5 Unknown 12 4.13 D I STA N C E T O SE W E R A N D W A T E R M A I N S The cost and feasibility of reticulated water and sewerage is influenced by the distance to the nearest (existing) mains, and the elevation of the settlement. Integrating the location of informal settlements with the location of Solomon Water’s assets has provided useful insights to the distance of settlements to the nearest water and sewer mains (Figure 16). These distances are summarised in Table 13. Page 47 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FIGURE 16: INTEGRATION OF SEWER AND WATER MAINS ASSETS, WITH LOCATION OF 92 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS. TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF DISTANCES OF SETTLEMENTS TO WATER MAINS AND SEWER MAINS. Distance from sewer main No. settlements 0-50 m 10 50-100 m 4 100-500 m 38 500-1000 m 32 >1000 m 8 Distance from water main No. settlements 0-15 m 35 15-50 m 36 50-100 m 12 100-500 m 9 Page 48 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 5 SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS 5.1 S H O RT LI S TI N G W A TE R A N D SA N I T A T I ON SE RV I C E D E LI V E R Y O P TI O N S Appendices 9.1 and 9.2 shows the full list water and sanitation service delivery models (respectively) that were considered for suitability to informal settlements in Honiara. Following initial consultations with Solomon Water this list was shortened, with a small number of service delivery or technology options excluded because of obvious lack of suitability or feasibility. The options that remained, and were progressed for further assessment (desktop and consultative) were as follows Water Service Delivery Models Sanitation Service Delivery Models • Household and shared household connection • Simplified sewer pipes (to mains sewers) o Household / Piped water • Simplified sewer pipes to Packaged o Share household / Piped water wastewater treatment • Water kiosks • Septic/ABR systems (household, or shared, o Piped including Simplified sewer pipes to o Trucked community septic, with optional solids-free o Borehole piping of effluent to sewer mains) • Water ATMs and Token taps • Pour flush latrines (household, shared) o Piped • Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines o Trucked (household, shared) o Borehole • Composting toilets (household, shared) • Biogas system (household, shared) A review of the key features of the remaining options was undertaken, describing different aspects of the water or sanitation service chain for each service delivery option. The type of information reviewed included: • Technologies (infrastructure and hardware) • Environmental and physical considerations • Key Operational tasks • Key Maintenance tasks • Service providers, and roles of other actors including consumers and community • Cost rating • Regulatory considerations • Social considerations • Service standards achievable • Health and wellbeing considerations A range of resources were drawn on to generate these summaries of water and sanitation service options. For water service delivery models, a large number of case study reports were drawn from, however three key resources included: • WSUP 2014. “The Urban Water Supply Guide Service delivery options for low-income communities” • World Bank 2014. “Limits and Possibilities of Prepaid Water in Urban Africa: Lessons from the Field”. Chris Heymans, Kathy Eales and Richard Franceys • World Bank. 2017. “Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi- Country Review.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Page 49 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 In the case of sanitation, the key resource used was: • Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph. and Zurbrügg, C., 2014. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies”. 2nd Revised Edition. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). This review formed the basis of consultations with Solomon Water, and with informal settlers. This process was designed to further shortlist appropriate options for further review and consideration by Solomon Water and as the basis for consultations with informal settlers. Feedback gained during these consultations is included in Appendix 9.3 (Solomon Water, and Appendix 9.4 (informal settlers). Consultations with informal settlers Eleven focus Group Discussions were completed (5 with men only, 5 with women only, 1 with men and women) across 6 different locations in 5 different settlements. The six locations were: • Burns Creek (riverside) – no SW connections • Burns creek (middle)– no SW connections • Fulisango – most/all have SW connections • Ohiola most/all have SW connections • RenLau some/most have SW connections • Namoliki – some/few SW connections The notes from each group discussion are included in appendix 9.4. Any differences between groups are noted. C U R R E N T E X P E R I E N C E S A C C E S S I N G W A T E R (How do people get water to use for drinking? What do they think about it?) Settlements with no SW connections (1) • Shallow hand dug wells (not boiled – concern about safety was raised) • River for swimming and washing • Buy bottled water • Not happy with this situation, but don’t feel have other options Settlements with some/few SW connections (2) • SW – some “shared” taps (can be a single owner and payer but others use) • Many use spring water, some use an old bore, few tanks (some think SW causes diarrhea) but also concerned about safety of spring water Settlements with widespread SW connections: (2) • drinking from SW connections (CashWater) – typically 1 HH connection is shared amongst few HH or shared tapstands • Some rain tanks (for drinking) • Some with wells – used for everything when SW disrupted • Creeks for washing, swimming, and toilets • Seawater for bathing in some coastal settlements Attitudes about SW connection by those that have them • Happy to have “proper” water Page 50 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • Overcrowding at shared tap stands e.g. some have to collect water at 9 pm to 12 midnight when the tap is free • Large bills, from shared connections can be difficult to manage – difficulty splitting amongst users, difficulty raising large sums, accumulating interest on bills increases payment required DISCUSSION ON OTHER WAYS SOLOMON WATER COULD USE TO GIVE ACCESS TO WATER FOR PEOPLE IN SETTLEMENTS. This section aimed to discuss four alternatives to water access provision: (1) water kiosks, (2) automated taps / water ATMs, (3) private household connection and (4) shared household connection. Community members where asked if they thought these alternatives (i) were a good thing, if they saw any (ii) problems with such alternatives, and (iii) how to make these alternatives work. In the case of water kiosks, and additional discussion point was put forward to community participants: who do you think should run the water kiosk? SIWA? or someone from the community? A business operator? In addition to the open discussion, some FGDs conducted a voting activity, during which individual residents present during the discussion voted for their preferred water service delivery modelled. These results are summarized in the graph below. Preferences for water service delivery options 100 Percentage votes (each FGD) 80 60 40 20 0 Burns creek RS Burns creek Fulisango (men's Ohiola (men & (Men's FGD) (middle; womens FGD) women FGD) FGD) Water store (kiosk) ATM Private HH connections Private shared connections FIGURE 17: PREFERENCES OF RESIDENTS OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS FOR 4 DIFFERENT WATER SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS (DETERMINED THROUGH INDIVIDUAL VOTING). GROUP DISCUSSIO N SUMM ARIES W AT E R K I O S K S / S T O R E S : • In settlements with no SW connections residents responded water stores would be beneficial (though not as preferred as HH connections). In settlements with many SW connections, some settlements had the attitude water stores would be useful for those without HH connections and could work, while other settlements had the view they would not be successful. • There were different perspectives on whether the store should be operated and o/or owned by a resident of the settlement, or by Solomon Water (and these opinions were not aligned with existing access to SW connections, or gender, or other settlement characteristics). Page 51 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • Note, some residents have interpreted this option as to be similar to buying 1L bottles of water, perhaps due to the lack of familiarity with large water containers seems. The positive attitudes about water stores/kiosks included: • It will help those who have no water access • Opportunity for local employment/business • People can buy water at any time when is needed • Each person/family can spend only as much as they want on water • People will be more cautious in their water use (because of cost) • Reduce frustration when water is cut-off at HH connections (can go to store for water) • Doesn’t require technology such as ATM cards or tokens • Freshness of non-bottled water • Accessible by children • Avoids the disputes between family and friends relating to sharing bills or unequal water use (for shared connections) • Some like water store because users will be cautious about that water since water is life and it cost them money. A range of challenges or concerns were raised by residents, including: • security of the store and personnel (due to “lack of respect” for operators and infrastructure, and “drunken youths, men and public”) • carrying water is hard work and can be especially difficult for some people • can’t access water when store is closed (e.g. Sundays, at night) • price should not be high compared with bottled water sold in the shops (current assumption of residents is that it would be as high or higher than $5/L bottle), and some believe it must be cheaper than a Cash Water connection • Operators need to be carefully selected • Good community engagement was requested prior to installing such a store, to ensure everyone understands how the store will operate - there was concern about the ability of some residents in some settlements to properly interpret and understand information and a need to ensure good communication and engagement about such a new concept W AT E R AT M S • limited support generally across settlements. • The concerns and challenges raised included: o risk of damage to infrastructure, and suggestion to overcome this would require an operator to be present to protect it (note: this would then essentially be a store model) o unfamiliarity and lack of comfort with technology and concerns about it’s lack of appropriateness for Solomon Islands o burden of carrying of water longer distances, and difficult to carry enough water for all household members and needs o concern about reliability S H AR E D P R I V AT E C O N N E C T I O N • There was general support for this approach, and one settlement preferred it (women’s FGD, Burn’s creek, where there are currently no SW connections) • Some of the positive attitudes included: o Sharing of maintenance tasks and water bills. o It establishes friendship among community members who use shared pipes. Page 52 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 o It teaches community members to be responsible for what the community owns. • Some concerns and challenges raised included: o Arguments and dispute can happen amongst those sharing a connection. o Anyone can access to collect water when no one is around. • Recommendation from residents that the sharing be between family members or small numbers of nearby houses, so there are not too many people with little social cohesion • Advice and consultations about managing water use and bills was requested P R I V AT E HH C O N N E C T I O N S • in most settlement consultations, this was the preferred water service delivery model. • Many positive attitudes were raised, including: o Water will cost less (than other options) o Householders can control the use of the water and therefore bills “If you use the water wisely your bill will be less, but if you mismanage your water you will meet the high water bill” o Privacy in using water could be achieved o living in a settlement “life is not easy” but private taps would make life easier o allows individuals to make their own decisions about whether to have a connection or not (rather than requiring community collective decisions) o no crowding or waiting at shared taps • Some concerns, challenges raised: o Affordability and ability to pay bills (some may continue to prefer stream/spring water) o natural disasters damaging infrastructure o Good consultation should address land access issues, because there is a strong demand for water and residents would like a piped water solution Generally – some settlements have no opinions on how other settlements access water how they could address problems – it is the responsibility of each settlement. Others do have opinions on settlements close by – holding the view they are ready for connections (no damage to infrastructure likely to occur) SANITATION WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TOILETS THAT USE WATER COMPARED TO TOILETS THAT DON’T USE WATER? Generally, most residents of all settlements believed that toilets that use water are better than those that don’t, though some disadvantages of water-based toilets, and some advantages of dry-based toilets, were raised. There was little familiarity with VIP toilets, but once explained, significant interest. A T T I T U D E S AB O U T W AT E R - B AS E D T O I L E T S Positive points raised: Negative points raised: - Easier to keep clean and hygienic - Water is expensive - Smell better - Water based can be harmful, at times it can - Comfortable to use cause the linkage to water streams and affects - Not yucky to use kids playing around the streams - Safe for kids - Difficult to construct on-site water-based - Private toilets (e.g. septic) when water table is shallow - No flies Page 53 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 - Household (rather than shared) responsibility to maintain - Easy to remove waste when septic is full just hire trucks to pump the waste out - Good for the environment A T T I T U D E S AB O U T D R Y - B AS E D T O I L E T S ( G E N E R AL L Y ) Positive points raised: Negative points raised: - Less expensive to construct - Attracts flies - Require less cleaning up - unhealthy - Some residents responded there is nothing good - smelly about them - Unsafe for kids and animals - Can construct with local materials - - No expense to pay for water - Better for some locations (e.g. Burns creek) A T T I T U D E S AB O U T V I P T O I L E T S - Low familiarity with these toilets – most comments were in response to description of VIPs by facilitators Positive points raised: Negative points raised: - Less expensive to construct - though in some settlements some where - No water bill concerned about the smells and difficulty to - reduce the bad smell in the environment manage these) WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SHARING TOILETS WITH SOME OTHER HOUSES NEAR TO YOURS? In some settlements, many households already have their own “toilet”, and in these sharing was no viewed as necessary or beneficial. In settlements where there are few toilets, many concerns were raised: • More easy to spread diseases • Lack of privacy while using and when entering/leaving • only the owner of the toilet will do proper cleaning and maintenance • cultural norms about sharing with other genders or other family/non-family members (and associated concerns about accidentally causing problems requiring compensation), and other norms about cleaning other people’s messes • misunderstanding between shared members • ownership concerns • may need to wait to use the toilet if too more than a few households are sharing • Careless attitude by other users may result in disputes • Generally considered not to be better than using the beach W H A T A B O U T P U B L I C T O I L E T S T H A T Y O U P A Y T O U S E ? Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe separate men and women’s buildings? Who would keep these clean?) All settlement residents agreed the concept of Public Toilets is good for Honiara, but all believed this would not be a feasible solution within the settlements, because: Page 54 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • they would need to be maintained by someone, as a business. But most people would not pay to use the toilet when they can use the bush, beach or river for free • there would be some in the settlement that would not be supportive of the facility with the risk they would vandalize it or cause difficulty for users (making it not attractive to use). When encouraged to offer suggestions on how Public Toilets could work, some settlements indicated pay-per-use public toilets could possibly work if: • They were well designed to avoid any confusions or inappropriate encounters between men and women, and to ensure safety and privacy of women at all times (possibly separate men and women’s buildings) • In two settlements, the opinion was the toilets must be run by community members as a business – either a specific household, or some youths assigned to operate it as a Business – with men operating the men’s toilet and women operating the women’s toilet. And some assistance from Honiara City Council or other agency to operate and maintain it. The challenges of vandalism, harassment of users and unwillingness to pay would remain. W H A T D O Y O U T H I N K S H O U L D H A P P E N W I T H T H E W A S T E F R O M T H E T O I L E T S I N T H E S E T T L E M E N T ? (If taken away, who to do that and how?) Generally, there was little interest by resident to discuss waste management options. The interest in sanitation was focused on the latrine itself (the location of defecation) rather than much concern about safe sludge management. Some settlement FGDs were unwilling to discuss toilet waste management, particularly when their priority was to improve water access. Those that were willing to discuss waste management, responded: • Emptying of septics can be undertaken by HCC or private contractors (residents in two different settlements raised concerns about whether this waste is properly disposed to protect human health) • Some commented when tanks/pits are full, another is built to take more waste, or existing pit/tank is emptying by buckets to surrounding ground • Some commented it should be the responsibility of Solomon Water to remove waste, because they provide water. • Alternative options, such as reusing the waste were not raised. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT COMPOST TOILETS? • Most residents were not familiar with compost toilets; those settlements that offered responses based these upon descriptions given by facilitators or other residents that had familiarity • Some settlements expressed some interest because they are “cheap to build” and, and produces fertilizer, though others responded the fertilizer could not be used on food crops (or people would not buy/eat them) • Settlements with high density housing responded composting toilets wouldn’t be suitable H A S A N Y O N E A N Y E X P E R I E N C E / K N O W A B O U T S U P S U P B I O G A S T O I L E T S ? (What do you think about these? Do you think these could be the way to deal with the waste from toilets?) Only very few residents had any knowledge of biogas toilets. All expressed interest in the idea and requested more information and training. Page 55 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 5.2 C O N S I D E RA TI O N S F O R O P E R A T I O N A L I S I N G TH E S H O R TL I STE D SE RV I C E D E L I V E R Y O P TI O N S I N HONIARA Based on the assessments and consultations described above, the following service delivery model options were prioritized as though having the most applicability to Honiara’s informal settlements (Table 14 and 15) TABLE 14: PRIORITIZED WATER SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS FOR HONIARA’S INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS Individual private household As for the existing Cash Water service delivery model, which is a pre-paid and metered water connections using water connection. Additional considerations for increasing financial accessibility through Cash Water (pre-payment) options to pay connection fees in installments or reductions to connection or monthly meters service fees. Shared private water Private household water connections, as above, registered to an identified householder, connections using Cash but shared with neighbouring householders through informal and self-determined Water arrangements. Access is usually to an outside tap, and households will carry smaller volumes of water to where it is needed. Some may use hoses to convey the water closer to each house (and potentially store in larger containers). Not formally promoted by Solomon Water, but not disallowed, and possibly further enabled (e.g. assessing tariff steps for shared connections to ensure cost-effectiveness for householders, and providing information on a range of methods for bill-splitting). Water store (kiosk) A formal water retailer located within the settlement, selling pay-per-use water by refilling connected to utility containers provided by consumers (option to sell containers). Preferred by residents that reticulated water system don’t want to commit to ongoing water connection service fees or raise funds for connection fees. Store (locally-preferred language for a kiosk) design and operations are regulated, including the retail price of water. Options for management include owned and operated by Solomon Water, or a delegated management model; fully private water stores are not recommended (unless highly regulated). In addition, Water ATMs located where large numbers of commuters (buses, boats) depart from Honiara’s central market/business area may prove well-suited to providing an access point to safe water for any resident of the Solomon Islands currently doesn’t have reliable, affordable access to safe drinking water. This may include residents of informal settlements currently without utility water connections, as well as people returning or visiting rural villages. TABLE 15: PRIORITIZED SANITATION OPTIONS FOR HONIARA’S INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS (NOTE: NOT ALL OPTIONS ARE SUITABLE TO ALL INFORMAL SETTLEMENT SITUATIONS) Flushing toilets with piped sewerage (operated by Solomon Water) or household septic tanks (with septage or household septic tanks collection, treatment and disposal); water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency. Only applicable for conventional reticulated sewerage is physically possible and planned. Community simplified sewer and Flushing toilets with community simplified (small bore, shallow) sewers and septic/ABR system community septic tanks or ABR systems (operated by Solomon Water), from which effluent is connected via solid-free pipes to the conventional sewerage network, and slude is removed as needed from the septic/ABR. Water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency. Pour-flush to pits with pit emptying Water-based sanitation, with pour-flush slabs or raisers, including water saving service or burying equivalents such as Sato-pan toilets. Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) with pit Improved dry-based sanitation emptying service or burying Above ground-sanitation Container-based sanitation or composting toilets Page 56 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 5.3 P R I O RI TY W A TE R SE RV I C E D E L I V E RY O P T I ON S Individual private household water connections using Cash Water (pre- payment) meters Overview of this service delivery model Name of service delivery Household / Piped water connection (private – not shared; prepaid connection) model Service Delivery Chain Water Means of water conveyance to Water conveyance to Water use and (note: this model does not production settlement households storage at require settlement access household points separately from household access points) Technology As for existing • Piped from source to individual • Water reticulation from • Storage only water households (for either individual or settlement mains to HH required if production shared taps) connections service is not system • May require local storage tanks, to • Depth of burial of pipes 24/7 enable a gravity-fed system may be less than usual  • Usually in avoid heavy traffic areas containers or small tanks Environmental As for existing • Space availability is required to lay • Space availability is • Minimal and physical water out and protect pipes from the required to lay out and considerations production connection to existing water mains. protect pipes from the system • Topography will affect pressure connection to existing requirements during conveyance. water mains • Capacity of existing water mains might need to be increased to accommodate extra demand. Technical aspects • Energy may be required for the operation of the conveyance system (e.g. water pumps) Key operational As for existing • Monitoring of Water pipe pressure • Manage tasks water Water quality storage of production • Depending on the complexity of the water system system, the operation of Water (capture pumps and/or storage tanks, Valves water when available, store in hygienic conditions) Key As for existing • As for existing water reticulation • Repair or maintenance water system replace water tasks production access point system (i.e. taps) • Maintain temporary water storage if required Page 57 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service Delivery Chain Water Means of water conveyance to Water conveyance to Water use and storage production settlement households at household Water utility As for existing • As for existing water production • Provide technical • Promote water water system advice on water pipe conservation at production • Promote accurate cost maintenance (direct household scale system information to communities to householders or (recent HH survey residents via other actors, such estimated costs of $24 - $5000 as NGOs, HCC, per month government) Consumers As for existing • As for existing water reticulation • Maintain pipework • Pay for water water system from mains to HH (connection and use production connection fees) system • Store water safely if required. • Report problems in the water reticulation system utility Actors and their potential roles • Use water efficiently. Community As for existing • Community mobilisation for • Not vandalise others’ • promote improved water uptake of HH connection, connections water management production including promoting payment of • Fund-raising to practices at the system connection and use fees support reticulation household level, • Community cooperation to from mains to including water protect reticulation system individual households conservation • Other actors • Regulators: • Regulators: As for existing water • NGOs and Donors As for reticulation system. financial support for existing • NGOs: potential communication connection fees water conduit to settlements (for • E.g. NGOs have been production Solomon Water), especially funded by donors system regarding accurate costs and using output-based • NGOs and initial engagement on models to subsidise HCC community decision to support cost of water promote Sol Water connections connections (based protection on achievement of and other development maintenanc outcomes such as e of water installation of safe sources toilets, handwashing used for facilities with soap the etc) production of water Page 58 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service Delivery Chain • Water Means of water conveyance to Water conveyance to Water use (note: this model does not production settlement households and storage require settlement access at points separately from household household access points) O&M costs • If additional Maintenance of expanded reticulation Cost of water is minimal (to be (relative to water system confirmed: ~70 SBD/month for alternative production household of 8, using 50L/p/day) water service is required. Cost score: 2 chain options) Cost score: 3 Cost score: 1 (compared Costs with onsite production) Capital costs • Only if • Additional water mains and • Connection fee, and If required (cost score is increased pipework into settlements needed. reticulation to water main relative cost per production • Possible pumps and onsite storage Cost score: connection fee? Cost score: consumer) is required. Cost score: 3 1 Cost score: 2 Regulatory • As for • Regulations currently do not prevent • Land tenure status – current considerations existing utilities or other water providers perception that TOL is required water from extending their systems into before application for water production informal settlements. connection. TOL difficult to system • Potential significant financial obtain. And recent indications investment required; may be better are that utility can provide suited to settlements with planned connections if they assess settlement formalisation process appropriate. underway (MLHS list classification). Social considerations • Likely to be most successful if • Willingness to pay for water. communities (subcommittees within • Recent HH survey indicated settlements) agree to support access willingness to pay at most to the service Solomon Water is settlements: 80% respondents offering. Broader uptake of the willing to pay $100/month. service will mean less likely • Willingness to pay for vandalism (i.e. more people with connection fee is low (HH connections, less theft) survey: 57% unwilling to pay • Ownership status (e.g. customary anything). ownership, private ownership) of the • Agreement for pipes to land where pipes are to be traverse/run adjacent to other implemented needs to be HH plots considered. • Community cooperation to • Community cooperation to mitigate mitigate vandalism of vandalism of reticulation systems reticulation systems Water quantity • Best option for sufficient quantities to support health and wellbeing Service standards (at point of use, • And to support improved sanitation options (however see quality) Water quality • Best option for sufficient quantities to support health and wellbeing • High quality not required for water-based sanitation – which would increase use and cost to consumers inside households) (and to utility) significantly. Service • Potential for 24/7 water service reliability • Water production capacity could limit reliability • Reticulation systems may have constraints to maintain service delivery (e.g. affected by topography of the settlement) Accessibility • Very high (Best option and can be controlled by consumer in the house) Affordability • Water use fees are affordable • Willingness to pay for connection fee is low amongst informal settlements (cost of connection fee? Health/wellbeing • A household connection provides the greatest health and wellbeing benefits of all water service options considerations (due to more water available for hygiene, usually better water quality, no manual conveyance) Other • Might require significant communication campaign relating to accurate use costs, and benefits (health and psycho-social) of safe drinking water • Connection fees may be a barrier, unless alternative payment options are considered (e.g. post-payment in installments; subsidized connections (from other SW revenue or development partner/donor programs). Page 59 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Affordability Costs The following estimates of affordability are based on the following Cash Water water tariffs (current at the time of this study) Existing Tariffs (water) per kL (SBD) 0-15kL / month $5.89 16-30kl/month $8.87 >30kL/month $10.36 PLUS MONTHLY SERVICE FEE $50.60 Water consumption the volume of water consumed per person and household affects the total cost of water. Currently, estimates of average water consumption for residents of Honiara is around 160l/p/day. The Solomon Water Strategic Plan identifies a target of achieving 137l/p/day. WHO minimum requirement for water supply is 50l/p/day. The SIG National Policy for rural WASH identifies also a supply of 50l/p/day to be used for designing capacity of water systems. The number of residents in a house will affect the per person consumption – a household with a larger number of people will likely consume less than a house with fewer people, due to set amount being used for standard needs regardless of household size (such as cleaning the house). The actual water consumption by informal settlers, from a continuous supply to the house, in Honiara is difficult to predict, but likely to be in the range of 50-137l/p/day. The total monthly bill is not very price-sensitive to the metered water usage charges for this range of volumes, and as such water use in this range does not have a large effect on affordability. Monthly incomes In addition, the data describing monthly income of households in informal settlements is highly variable, and potentially not very accurate. The scenarios below use the EGIS household survey data (EGIS, 201For each scenario below, the median income for a settlement is applied, as well as a scenario using the 20% percentile (representing the lower income households in the settlement). Page 60 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Estimates of affordability Because of these uncertainties in water consumed and actual household income, the following estimates of affordability are indicative only. Monthly cost of private CashWater household water connections supplying 137l/p/day to a household of 8 people. Total water consumption per household per month = 32880L (8 people / household; 137l/p/day) Monthly cost (applying current water tariffs) $301.84, excluding the connection fee. Water cost as a % of HH income (for HH on the Water cost as a % of HH income (for Settlement 20th percentile of incomes) HH on the median income) Burns Creek 22% 12% Fulisango 22% 7% Lord Howe 56% 8% Lau Valley 28% 8% Ohiola 12% 8% Renlau 25% 11% If the global target of affordability of water is applied (water costs being not more than 5% of total household income), then this amount of consumption and costs would not be considered affordable in any of these settlements, for at least half of the residents of informal settlements (those earning less than the median income). Volume that is affordable at current prices (single HH connection, 8 people/HH) The following table estimates the volume of water that could supplied to maintain the cost of water at or less than 5% of household income. Household: 8 people Vol water supplied for 5% HH income for Vol water supplied for 5% HH income for Settlement HH earning 20 percentile income HH earning median income Burns Creek 14 58 Fulisango 14 102 Lord Howe -16 82 Lau Valley 3 82 Ohiola 55 91 Renlau 7 62 For lower income households, earning less than the 20th percentile of incomes in their settlement, none could likely afford to buy a sufficient volume of water to meet domestic water needs. Households earning at least the median incomes in some settlements (e.g. Fulisango, Ohiola) may afford sufficient water for domestic water needs. Page 61 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 A ffo r d ab i li ty o f wa ter s er v ic e s – k e y l es so n s an d str a te g ie s u s ed e l sew h er e to in c r ea se ac c e ss ib i l it y b y lo w in c o m e h o u seh o ld s As identified by WSUP (2014), the following a key features of low income populations accessing water services: • low-income consumers can pay commercially viable rates, and serving low-income communities is good business for utilities. • but some capital investment by governments and development partners is generally necessary to cover full lifecycle costs of water services provision; and • providing services to the very poor will often require some form of cross-subsidy from other consumers. • Increasing access for lower income households is achieved through different strategies in different places Water utilities can offer a different (lower) service option that costs the consumer less, to low income households, to increase the accessibility of people currently without household water utility connections. 1. Prepaid – more easy to link consumption with cost and manage payments in smaller, regular amounts (e.g. Solomon Water Cash Water) 2. Purchase of smaller volumes, regularly to better align with cash flows in low income households (What is the smallest volume via HH cxn that can been cost-effectively administered?) 3. Lower (subsidized) connection fee 4. Post-payment of connection fee in instalments (Cash Water allows for this) 5. Lower monthly service fees for low income households 6. Volume-limited free water designated to low-income household , or 7. Lower cost for lowest use tariff (e.g. lifeline tariff) – but usually benefits all customers, doesn’t target low income HH 8. Non-payment penalties do not lead to cutting off all water, but result in limited flow water 9. Enable shared connections (refer next section) Many of these strategies would require being able to identify low income households. The feasibility to identify low income households in Honiara is not high. Possible strategies to achieve this include: 1. Eligibility for Individual households: • Census data: but not very regular/current • Voluntary assessment of income status (by government?) • Costly to conduct household-scale assessments • Very difficult to maintain, and likely to be highly variable at different times of the year due to seasonal employment and seasonal migrations between urban and rural areas. 2. Eligibility for all households within a settlement or community-within-settlement • Settlement-scale criteria o Average (or other measure) of settlement incomes – however there is high income level diversity and the settlement ‘average’ will still exclude the poorest of the poor; expensive to determine and maintain o Location – based on list of recognised (not only formalising) Informal settlements (which could be administered by MLHS). • Proof HH belongs to an approved settlement: o Difficult to define boundaries o Proof of residence (such as used by Solomon Power – letters from neighbours) Page 62 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 The cost of ascertaining income classifications for individual households would be very high, with limited effectiveness. Targeting low income households using their location in an agreed list of lower-income settlements, or all informal settlements, had better potential to cost-effectively target lower income households. alternative has potential A third alternative is to follow Solomon Power’s example, and provide subsidies or lower cost options to everyone in Honiara who doesn’t yet have a connection. Lessons from the power utility in Honiara - Solomon Power Consultation with Solomon Power identified that although power and water are quite different resources, some lessons about providing services to lower income households can be learned from the power sector. Engagement with customers in informal settlements: • Household scale but also community-scale engagement • Expansion into new settlements is often in response to request from community (letter, evidence of community interest and demand) • Community-engagement first – community meetings, discuss access requirements. • Discuss location of easements (and removal of trees, structures etc) – sign MOU. Difficulties with easements usually only prior/during construction – not later (different to water services)  negotiate & renegotiate during construction • Feasibility assessment (number connections, easements) • Illegal connections and meter-bypassing – does happen. Audit team regularly monitoring – disconnect ‘shared’ connections (safety risks) • No problems with damage to infrastructure • CashPower well-accepted - despite few payment locations (don’t interfere with informally-arranged payment practices. Tariff changes monthly. Output-Based Aid (OBA) program Initial objective: Target low income households Revised objective (to achieve initial objective): increase number of connections (to improve cost-benefit of current system) This strategy improved access to power for everyone, but it was deemed suitable at this time because many middle-higher income houses already had connections, so this strategy is probably benefiting mostly lower income households, and without the administrative burden of needing to confirm they are low income. To increase number of connections: • Relaxed land tenure & permission requirements – essentially none required now (to qualify for a connection – minimal housing standard to ensure safety (leaf house can be ok), acceptance from neighbours/community (letters) • Don’t try to identify low income HH – anyone can apply for an OBA connection. OBA connection: • Very reduced connection fee ($200 SBD) 2 powerpoints, 3 lights, wiring – can be paid in instalments with future Cash Power payments • For first year: limited power (3 amps). Ampage limits removed • Focus on number of connections, use OBA to get connections installed Page 63 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Implications of extending Cash Water to Honiara’s informal settlements Extending this service to informal settlements would require expansion and some modifications of existing Cash Water service (it is not exactly the same service as the existing Cash Water service): 1. Use of existing prepaid systems: specific administration, infrastructural, operational, communication etc systems have already been developed) [confirm accessibility to payment system – mobile phone ownership is variable] 2. Different customer engagement  community and settlement-scale engagement to minimise tampering/ infrastructure damage 3. Extend reticulation system: expanded supply and treatment capacity is already planned. In addition: may need to consider modified reticulation systems because: absence of easements, tamper-minimisation 4. Review (revise) connection processes and requirements: SW can determine the requirements for eligibility for connections. Currently: proof of permission from land owner – Government – permission give if TOL or FTE on the plot. 5. Consider strategies for low income households Possible modifications to conventional reticulation system design • Tamper minimization strategies: o More resilient piping, and depth of mains o HH meters at mains. • Lack of easements & tamper minimisation  Meter clusters are situated on adjoining recognised roads or public lands, and households lay their own pipes to connect their homes to the more distant meters (Example: Fiji) o householder takes responsibility for the final few metres of pipe  utility charges lower connection fee as it has avoided part of the network extension cost o Water conveyed through pipes into houses o cost-effective way for utilities to extend piped access to the utility network o NRW responsibility of individual connection-owners o Limits opportunity for cost-effectiveness from shared piping (with individual HH meters Page 64 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Shared private water connections using Cash Water Overview of this service delivery model Name of service Shared household, Cash Water connection delivery model Service Delivery Chain Water production Means of water Settlement access Water conveyance Water use and conveyance to settlement point to households storage at (one household) household Technology As per current • Piped from source to • Usually outside • water containers • Containers utility water individual household house to transport water • Household water production tap, via local settlement • Storage only to households. treatment ‘water main’ required if Containers can technologies • May require local service is not include wheeled (HWT) could be storage tanks, to enable 24/7 containers to promoted or a gravity-fed system • Usually in carry larger provided to containers or volumes and reduce risk of small tanks minimise health consuming impacts of contaminated carrying. Non- water. wheeled containers are carried manually, or in wheelbarrows. • Distance is usually shorter than from a public kiosk, ATM, tapstand Environmental & As per current • Space availability is • Minimal physical factors utility water required to lay out and production protect pipes from the Technical aspects connection to existing water mains. • Topography will affect pressure requirements during conveyance. • Capacity of existing water mains might need to be increased to accommodate extra demand. • Energy may be required for the operation of the conveyance system (e.g. water pumps) Key operational As per current • Monitoring of Water • Manage storage • Use water from tasks utility water pipe pressure Water of water containers as production quality (capture water required. • Depending on the when available, • Protect water complexity of the store in hygienic container to avoid system, the operation conditions) water wastage, of Water pumps and/or theft, storage tanks, Valves contamination, etc. • Use of HWT, such as boiling, sand filters, if contamination is possible) Page 65 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Key maintenance As per current • As for existing water • Repair or • Clean conveyance • Clean storage tasks utility water reticulation system for replace water containers containers production water mains access point • Repair or replace • Householders: to (i.e. taps) damaged maintain local water • Maintain containers. connection from mains temporary • Maintain and to HH water storage if repair HWT (if required available) • Sanitize / disinfect area where water is stored. Water utility As per current • As for existing water • Provide • Promote water utility water production system technical advice conservation at production • Promote accurate cost on water pipe household scale information to maintenance communities (recent (direct to HH survey residents householders or estimated costs of $24 - via other actors, $5000 per month such as NGOs, • Provide technical advice HCC, on water pipe government maintenance (direct to householders or via other actors, such as NGOs, HCC, government) Consumers As per current • As for existing water • Maintain • Maintain hygienic • Use water utility water reticulation system pipework from conveyance efficiently. production mains to HH containers • Maintain hygienic connection and sufficient • Pay for water water storage (connection and Actors and their potential roles use fees) • Store water safely if required. • Report problems in the water reticulation system utility • Community As per current • Community • Not vandalise • Maintain plots • promote utility water mobilisation for uptake others’ and pathways to improved water production of HH connection, connections carry water management including promoting • Fund-raising to practices at the payment of connection support household level, and use fees reticulation including water • Community from mains to conservation cooperation to protect individual reticulation system households • Other actors • Regulators: As • Regulators: As for • NGOs and Donors financial support for connection fees for existing existing water E.g. NGOs have been funded by donors using output-based water reticulation system. models to subsidise cost of water connections (based on production • NGOs: potential achievement of other development outcomes such as system communication conduit installation of safe toilets, handwashing facilities with soap • NGOs and HCC to settlements (for etc) promote Solomon Water), protection and especially regarding maintenance of accurate costs and water sources initial engagement on used for the community decision to Page 66 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 production of support Sol Water water connections O&M costs • If additional water Maintenance of expanded Cost of water is Container hygiene Container hygiene (relative to production is reticulation system minimal (to be alternative water required. confirmed: ~$35 Cost score: 1 Cost score: 1 service chain Cost score: 2 SBD/month for options) Cost score: 3 household of 8, (compared with using 25L/p/day) onsite production) Cost score: 1 Capital costs • Only if • Additional water mains • Connection fee, • Capital cost will • Minimal (cost score is increased and pipework into and reticulation depend on necessary, as per relative cost per production is settlements needed. to water main whether each household Costs consumer) required. • Possible pumps and (?) consumers use preferences, onsite storage their own unless HWT are Cost score: 2 Cost score: containers, implemented. Cost score: 3 connection fee? containers from a swap-and-go model, or improved Cost score (no HWT): technologies such 1 as roller-based Cost score (with containers. HWT): 3 Cost score: 0 - 1 Regulatory • As for existing • Regulations need to • Land tenure • It is likely that considerations water allow for utilities or status – current women and production other water providers requirement for children will own system to extend their systems TOL, but these the role of into informal have been collecting water settlements. difficult to from shared taps • Potential reasonably obtain. and transporting significant financial • Alternative it to households. investment required for regulatory insecure land tenure. options need to Better suited to be explored – settlements with with MLHS? planned settlement Perhaps based formalisation process on zoning status underway (MLHS list of settlement classification). rather than individual households’ status Social considerations • Likely to be most • Small groups of households near to each other are likely to be successful if from same Wantok, and willing to share and support each communities other to use water. (subcommittees within • See affordability estimates below settlements) agree to • Connection fee to be shared. support access to the As for piped HH connections: service Sol Water is • Recent HH survey indicated willingness to pay at most offering. Broader settlements: 80% respondents willing to pay $100/month. uptake of the service • HH survey also indicated $70/month would be less than at will mean less likely least half households spend buying bottled water vandalism (i.e. more • Willingness to pay for connection fee is low (HH survey: 57% people with unwilling to pay anything). connections, less theft) • Agreement for pipes to traverse/run adjacent to other HH • Ownership status (e.g. plots customary ownership, Community cooperation to mitigate vandalism of reticulation private ownership) of systems the land where pipes Page 67 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 are to be implemented needs to be considered. • Community cooperation to mitigate vandalism of reticulation systems Water quantity • Second-best option for sufficient quantities to support health and wellbeing Service standards (at point of use, inside households) • And to support improved sanitation options (however see quality) Water quality • Second- option for sufficient quantities to support health and wellbeing • Can be compromised by poor container hygiene i.e. unsafe sanitation combined with inadequate personal hygiene (e.g. hand washing with soap) leads to contamination of drinking water containers with pathogens. • HWT would further reduce these risks. • High quality water not required for water-based sanitation – which would increase use and cost to consumers (and to utility) significantly. Service reliability • Potential for 24/7 water service • Water production capacity could limit reliability • Reticulation systems may have constraints to maintain service delivery (e.g. affected by topography of the settlement) Accessibility • Very high (Best option and can be controlled by consumer in the house) Affordability • Water use fees are affordable, especially if ~20 of fewer people sharing (~2.5 HH). Cost higher for say 5 HH, but still affordable • Willingness to pay for connection fee is low amongst informal settlements (cost of connection fee? • Usage likely to be higher than current, but still affordable (even if used for sanitation) Health/wellbeing • A household connection provides the greatest health and wellbeing benefits of all water service options (due to considerations more water available for hygiene, usually better water quality, no manual conveyance) Other • Might require significant communication campaign relating to accurate use costs, and benefits (health and psycho-social) of safe drinking water • Connection fees may be a barrier, unless can be supported by donor programs Affordability The following is an estimate of the cost of sharing a Cash Water connection between 5 households. Shared connection Total Litres for 100l/day, for 5 houses x 8 people, per month 120000L Monthly cost (5 houses) excluding connection fee $1,204 Monthly cost per HH $241 Single (individual household) connection Total Litres for 100l/p/day, for one house of 8 24000l Monthly cost per HH $219 The shared connection is higher than an individual connection, for the equivalent amount of water supplied. This is because the tiered structure of water tariffs means connections that use larger volumes of water are charged a higher rate per volume – to discourage very high water use. However, for shared water connections, where each household is not necessarily using high volumes, the total use for the connection is high enough that higher rates per volume would be paid. Shared connections are currently only cheaper than individual connections if usage is less than 51L/person/day. Page 68 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Improving the inclusiveness and affordability of shared water connections Sharing of water connections is not a formally-approved water service model by Solomon Water – this is primarily because of the difficulties in ensuring service standards beyond the end of the shared tap, and dealing with issues of accountability for the connection. However, this is a very common method of connecting to the utility’s service in Honiara and is currently how many residents do access water – it is an active service deli very model even though not necessarily promoted or encouraged by the utility. The registered connection holder is responsible for the connection and determining the ‘rules’ that it will use to ensure payment of bills and operation and security of the connection. The utility does not interfere with these arrangements, allowing socially and culturally-determined arrangements to exist. This aligns with the recommendations of Barrington et al., (2017) to allow multiple marketing-based systems to exist to maximize the inclusiveness of a WASH service. Without making this option a promoted service delivery option, some minor adjustments could be made improve overall inclusiveness and equity relating to water access: • Offer different tariff structure for those HH connections within informal settlements that are verified as shared, with an agreement not to profit (to balance allowing sharing but not allowing on-selling for profit), or • Offer different tariff structure for those living in informal settlements (this would need to link to improved administration of recognised informal settlements) – such as volume-limited free water allocation (requires HH meters), and • Make accessible information about different ways water use can be calculated (e.g. through community meetings or ‘water supply training’, which could include other aspects of demand management and water quality (containers & storage), and • Consider cluster metering to reduce connection costs. Page 69 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Water kiosks (connected to utility reticulated water systems) Key features • Formalised reselling/onward distribution of utility water (or other water) by small-scale vendors for domestic use, at a small shop (kiosk), fitted with water tap. • Common in urban areas, where water scarcity / lack of infrastructure limit access to drinking water at households. Can also be a useful transitional service – for communities/consumers uncertain about the value of utility water; kiosks allow consumers to gain firsthand experience with the quality and benefits of the water supplied, thus potentially increasing demand and commitment to household water connections. • Consumers use containers to transport the water to the household (often done by women/children) • Price (per litre) charged usually not more, often is less (e.g. half) that of usage tariff-equivalents – recognizing the lower service being paid for (Heymans et al., 2014) • Many utilities recognise prepaid vending is their best option for providing more equitable services in low-income areas, but acknowledge that kiosk income will not meet their own costs and cross-subsidies are in place (Heymans, et al., 2014). FIGURE 18: EXAMPLES OF WATER KIOSKS (IMAGE SOURCES: LEFT: JOANNEBEALE.WORDPRESS.COM/2013/07/15/NAKURU-KENYA/; RIGHT: WWW.WORLDWATERWEEK.ORG/EVENT/8526-INCLUDING-ALL-PARTICIPATORY-APPROACHES-IN-WATER-GOVERNANCE-AND-PROGRAMMES). So m e o f th e m a in b en ef it s For households • Possible transitional service delivery option for households not certain about committing to household water connections and the associated costs, but interested in accessing safer, more reliable and more cost-effective water services than currently available. • Can increase financial inclusiveness (support lower income households to access safe water services) by being prepaid and allowing for smaller volumes of water to be purchased. This allows for smaller and more regular payments, which can be more responsive to household cash flows, and potentially reduced costs (IF the cost is lower than water via household connections, and is regulated) • Potential livelihood opportunity for small number of residents (depending upon the business model adopted). For utilities • Supports transition to household connections – creates demand and norm for paying for water services • Excellent communication channel – for utilities with existing and potential customers, and community broadly • More easily expandable water service (compared with HH connections) Page 70 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • Infrastructure can be reused after transition to HH connections: reticulation infrastructure can be used & added to for HH connections; Kiosk can be relocated or repurposed (sold as shop). Society: • Opportunity for broader health promotion – communication channel, but also products (health & hygiene products) and services (e.g. container sanitisation). So m e o f th e m a in d is ad van ta ge s an d c h a l len ge s • Water is only accessible when the kiosk is manned. • Use of containers present significant risk to water quality, and present a physical challenge to consumers by having to carry water to home. • Need consumer protection to ensure service standards are maintained (e.g. quality of water) and to regulate pricing to minimise inequalities and marginalization. • Most customers are positive about prepayment (Heymans, et al., 2014, p20) but commonly identified three requirements for improvement: o Need to improved technical performance and reliability of service provided (including rapid response to payments, and to faults) o Need for more convenient vending (locations for purchase) o Better safeguards against inconvenience (difficult to access top-ups) and hardship (emergency water rations) --< HH cash flows • Water use is typically lower than for HH connections (Heymans et al., 2014), which is reflect in reduced health and wellbeing benefits (Evans et al., 2013), often because personal and domestic hygiene are reduced. Page 71 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Overview of this model Water kiosk / Piped Service Delivery Water Means of Settlement access point Water conveyance to Water storage at Chain production water households household conveyance to settlement Technology • As per current • Piped from • At kiosk, which is • Normally, consumers • Containers utility water source to accessible to the public. use water containers (either provided production kiosks Water is provided to transport water to by kiosk or through a water tap households. household controlled by the kiosk’s Containers can containers) operator. include wheeled • Multiple kiosks might be containers to carry • Household water needed depending on larger volumes and treatment settlement size, density minimise health technologies and topography. impacts of carrying. (HWT) could be Non-wheeled promoted or containers are carried provided to manually, or in reduce risk of wheelbarrows. consuming • Containers could be contaminated provided to water. consumers using a swap-and-go model, where the kiosk operator decontaminates the containers. This reduces risk of water contamination at both access point and Technical aspects household use point. • In some cases, water is transported by a middle man using a vehicle or carrier for several containers Environment • Depending on • Space • The kiosks need to be • Kiosk needs to be • Minimal. al and utilities current availability is protected and secured to strategically located physical and planned required to avoid water theft or to reduce conveyance consideratio systems. lay out and damage. distance to household ns protect the • Location of kiosks needs (i.e. allowing for no connection to consider both more than a 30- from existing accessibility by users and minute round-trip for water mains. distance to water main.* consumers) • Topography • More flexibility with • A flat topography is will affect locations than trucking ideal for conveyance. pressure water to kiosks (which is For example, a flat requirements limited by road access) terrain supports the during • Adequate drainage use of roller-based conveyance. around kiosk might be containers. • Capacity of required, including flood • Difficult topography existing water protection. will limit accessibility, mains might • *Note: To meet service especially for people need to be standards under SDG 6.1 with disabilities (e.g. increased to for basic services, the elderly, pregnant accommodat maximum time required women, etc.) e extra to collect and transport demand. water to household is 30 • Energy is minutes in total. likely to be Page 72 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 required for (https://unstats.un.org/sd the operation gs/report/2017/goal-06/) of the conveyance system (e.g. water pumps) Key • Depending on Monitoring • Water access point • Transport water • Use water from operational utilities current of: operation (i.e. fetch water containers containers as tasks and planned • Water pipe to consumers) • In some instances, required. systems. pressure • Kiosk management conveyance is done • Protect water • Water quality • Customer service by a middle man, and container to • Depending on (e.g. take payments may involve the use avoid water the from consumers) of a vehicle or carrier wastage, theft, complexity of • Book keeping for several contamination, the system, • Report to kiosk containers. Some etc. the operation owner, water utility, additional tasks may • Use of HWT, of: etc, as pe include charging such as boiling, • Water pumps ownership/managem consumers for the sand filters, if • Valves ent contractual conveyance service. contamination is arrangements. possible. • Ensure kiosk is secure • Maintaining premises clean • Recommended: clean containers for consumers (e.g. on a swap-and-go model) Key • Depending on • Regular • Repair or replace water • Maintenance of • Clean unused maintenance utilities current assessment of access point (i.e. tap). roads, walking trails, containers tasks and planned conveyance • Sanitize / disinfect kiosk staircases, etc. used • Repair or replace systems. system infrastructure and by consumers to damaged condition (i.e. immediate surroundings transport water containers. pipes, pumps, to reduce risk of water across the settlement • Maintain and valves, contamination. to their households. repair HWT (if structural • Maintain and repair kiosk available) integrity, etc.) structure as required. • Sanitize / • Repair or • Replacement of unusable disinfect area replace containers (if using a where water is deteriorated swap-on-go model). stored. or damaged • Spot checks of water system quality components. Water utility • O&M of utility’s • Implementati Depending on the • No role, unless • Promote water water on and O&M ownership / management involved in initiatives conservation at production of utility’s contractual arrangements, to build consumers household scale infrastructure. water pipes the utility may: capacity to better • Maintain or and systems transport water to • Potentially Actors and their potential roles enforce levels of conveying • Introduce the necessary households (e.g. use promote water service as per water to the measures, guidelines, of improved treatment (via current kiosk. procedures and sanctions technologies such as kiosk operators, regulation and • Maintain level to assure the proper roller-based HCC, kiosks system of service as functioning of the water containers), or reduce Government, or contractual/ma per current kiosks. risks associated with NGOs, or nagement regulation • Set water tariff the transportation of directly) . arrangement. and kiosks • Monitor water kiosk water (e.g. safety for • Community system operation. women and children, engagement contractual • Collect from kiosk water pollution risks, arrangement. operator the money paid etc.) by customers. • Contract kiosk operators (e.g. community members or private Page 73 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 sector), or operate the kiosk using own staff. • Remunerate kiosk operators. Note: It is recommended that utility at least builds the kiosks. Utility-operated or leased models are preferred. Consumers • If community • Oversee the • Pay for the provision of • The transportation of • Store water as engagement implementati water at kiosk, in water, unless this is best as possible mechanisms on of piped alignment with set tariffs done by a third party to avoid water exist, connection. and requirements from (e.g. water delivery losses, pollution, consumers can • Report kiosk operator (e.g. credit service to theft, etc. influence utility’ problems protocols). households). • Perform O&M water with the • Adequately use and • tasks as production connection maintain water indicated on management (e.g. containers to reduce risk relevant section and planning breakages) to of water contamination at above. decisions. connections’ water access point. • Use water as operator (e.g. • Report problems in the efficiently as utility or water access point to possible. water system operators, provider). including costumer service issues. Community • As above for As above for Depending on the • Community groups • Community consumers consumers ownership / management may have a role in groups may be contractual arrangements, facilitating favourable involved in the community may: conditions for promoting consumers improved water • Perform O&M tasks, transporting water management either as owners of a from kiosks to practices at the kiosk, or as contractors households (e.g. household level, for the system’s owner street security, including the (e.g. the utility). maintenance of adoption of • Broader community may walking tracks, etc.), HWT. be involved in deciding as well as who is recruited to participating in operate the kiosk campaigns to raise • Make additional profits awareness and build from using the kiosk a capacity of shop to sell other goods. community members. • May also provide Community-based assistance to those organisations may have a unable to carry their role in: own water (informal • Support the effective arrangements) implementation of kiosks (e.g. select kiosk locations) • Supporting campaigns to improve water use practices at kiosks, prevent vandalism, etc. Other actors • Regulators: • Regulators: NGOs: can have the • Government, NGOs • Government, oversee utilities’ oversee capacity to support and/or private sector NGOs and/or or other water utilities’ or community and water can promote the private sector providers’ other water providers (e.g. utility) in: update of improved can promote the compliance with providers’ • Deciding best locations to water carrying uptake of HWT. compliance implement kiosks. Page 74 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 stablished levels with • Providing capacity technologies and • Suppliers of of service. stablished building to manage and practices. HHWT and • NGOs: support levels of use the kiosks. HHWT utility, service. • Supporting campaigns to Private sector: construction government, • NGOs: improve water use • Water vendors: may training (e.g. community, etc support practices at kiosks, obtain water from the Youth With a in the utility, prevent vandalism, etc. kiosk and resell it to Mission, protection and government, consumers e.g. Honiara) maintenance of community, Regulators: delivering the water water sources etc. in the • may oversee the to households in used for the O&M, management and O&M of containers, possibly production of protection, kiosks, in alignment to using a vehicle. water. etc of piped relevant regulations (e.g. • Importers/manufactu • Private sector: connection to tariff setting). rers/Suppliers of may provide water access water containers support services point. Private sector: water utilities / • Private • May own, or be water providers, sector: may contracted to operate as necessary. provide kiosks. support • Water vendors: may services obtain water from the water utilities kiosk and resell it to / water consumers e.g. delivering providers, as the water to households necessary. in containers, possibly using a vehicle. O&M costs • If additional Cost score: 2 Manual operations cost Cost score: 1 Cost score: 1 (relative to water (compared greater than manless-ATM alternative production is with trucks, water required. and onsite Cost score: 4 service chain production) options) Cost score: 3 (depending upon scale of water production) Capital costs • Only if • Additional • Kiosk and all associated • Capital cost will • Minimal (cost score is increased water mains equipment (depending depend on whether necessary, as per Costs relative cost production is potentially operating model e.g. who consumers use their each household per required. needed. sets up the kiosk) own containers, preferences, consumer) • Reticulation containers from a unless HWT are to kiosks will swap-and-go model, implemented. require or improved piping, and Cost score: 3 technologies such as possible roller-based Cost score (no Cost score: 2 pumps and containers. HWT): 1 storages. Cost score (with Cost score: 0 - 1 HWT): 3 Cost score: 3 Regulatory and • Service delivery • Regulations • Depending on ownership • If consumers use financing standards need need to allow / management HWT, there may considerations to be in place an for utilities or contractual be a role for enforced. other water arrangements, regulatory providers to regulations may have a instruments that extend their role in ensuring the kiosk ensure quality systems into and the water access standards of the informal point are operated and treatment settlements. maintained adequately. technologies • Financing • A fit-for-context tariff made available mechanisms system needs to be to consumers. that support developed. This may utilities and involve the use of other service increasing block rates to Page 75 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 providers to ensure service provision extend their targets the poor (through systems may subsidisation), while be necessary supporting utilities / (e.g. a fund water providers in management covering O&M costs of instrument extending service that channels provision. donor • Financing mechanisms resources to that support utilities to finance implement kiosks should capital be considered (e.g. a fund expenditures) management instrument • Potential that channels donor reasonably resources to finance significant capital expenditures, and financial well as supporting investment sustainable management required for systems). insecure land • It is common that water tenure. Better vendors, who resell water suited to (e.g. obtained from a settlements kiosk), will operate with planned outside or at the margins settlement of legal frameworks. formalisation However, they are usually process tolerated by utilities. underway (MLHS list classification). Social • Utilities, service • Ownership • Service affordability (for • It is likely that women • Understanding considerations providers, status (e.g. low income consumers) and children will own water use regulators, etc, customary should be a priority. the role of collecting practices of to consider how ownership, • In communities with water from kiosks and consumers is communities’ private strong cultural diversity, transporting it to necessary to value water ownership) of conflict between different households. ensure service resources. This the land cultural groups may delivery model is should inform where pipes happen at the water adequately water resources are to be access point. designed and management implemented • Cultural perspectives on implemented and planning. needs to be the value of water may considered. make difficult the implementation of a tariff system to cover cost of access point O&M costs. • The location of kiosks needs to take into consideration the distribution of different cultural groups, as well as the distribution of disadvantaged people in the settlement. Water Consumers can only access small volumes, limited by container size and capacity to carry them and store (i.e. 20lt Service standards (at point of quantity containers, carried 2-3 times a day on 30-minute round-trips). Water • Often compromised by poor container hygiene i.e. unsafe sanitation combined with inadequate personal quality hygiene (e.g. hand washing with soap) leads to contamination of drinking water containers with pathogens. • A container decontamination service will reduce these risks. • HWT would further reduce these risks. Service • Water production capacity could limit reliability reliability • Reticulation systems may have constraints to maintain service delivery (e.g. affected by topography of the settlement) Page 76 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 • Kiosk is only accessible when manned by vendor (i.e. only available during work hours). Accessibility • Already reduced due to lack of access at households. • Affected by topography, and the spatial distribution of kiosks and households. • Further accessibility challenges for people with disabilities and older people. Affordability • If water tariffs at kiosks are regulated, affordability can be good. This is because people can purchase small water volumes as needed. • Consumers are unlikely to be able to pay for capital costs of new infrastructure (kiosk) Health/ wellbeing • The lack of a household connection means health benefits are reduced (due to lower volumes for hygiene, considerations compromised water quality, health and wellbeing impacts of transporting, which include opportunity costs for time and energy spent) • Usually, it is the women and the children who transport the water, impacting on their capacity to perform other activities (e.g. engage in economic activities, attend school, etc). • In models where community members operate the kiosk, there are opportunities to use the kiosk facilities for further economic activities (e.g. selling of other goods). Kiosks – business model options Three main business model options exist, though there are many variations possible. 1. Utility-operated and staffed 2. Delegated management model 3. Private water retailer (operator contractor OR franchise) • Utility – full control and full • Utility – some control and some • Utility – limited control over products responsibility over products and responsibility over products and through contract to provide bulk services, operations (SOPs), and all services, operation, through water costs including operator costs contractual arrangement (which can include performance requirements), franchised systems and service monitoring • Operator – limited responsibility – • Franchisee: – profit generation • Owner & operator – profit required. through staff performance required. • Full responsibility for operational management processes. • Full responsibility for operational and performance. • Salaried position (not revenue-linked) business performance inc NRW, bad • Shared responsibility for maintenance debts etc) • Shared responsibility for maintenance • Contracted operator – commission + extra sales; no maintenance, responsible NRW, required to meet service and performance standards. • Customers – requires trust of utility • Customers – requires trust of operator. and staff • Settlement residents – no added • Settlement residents – potential to be contractor, franchisee, own, or be employment opportunity employed by owner/franchisee • e.g. HCC lease Public toilet business (library) Page 77 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Fac t o r s in f lu en c in g c h o i c e o f k io sk b u s in e s s m o d el • Most appropriate model may not be the same for every settlement. Especially during piloting phase. Some settlements expressed preference for utility-operated, some for local business opportunity. • Consider balance between water supply as a public health service, and water as a commodity • Ability to control quality of service, and therefore influence reputation amongst a new market/population (absence of a strong positive relationship which improves tolerance for poor service) • Responsibility for NRW from street mains to kiosk. • Whether additional pro-poor strategies to be employed – free water allocation per HH probably more difficult to manage for non-utility owned kiosks In Heyman et al (2014), the benefits to utilities and benefits to customers of different models are compared (utility- owned & operated; Community operated; utility-contracted private operator; private operator; free-water allocation v Lifeline tariff), with the conclusion that utility-contracted operator, with free-water allocation, produces the best financial outcomes for the most stakeholders. Community or private operator: Often assumed that community associations will be motivated to provide a better level of service to the wider community, whereas a private operator is likely to have stronger capacity and business processes (WSUP, 2014) Comparative financial analysis from Africa (Ghana, WSUP, 2014) this option had capacity to generate revenue for the utility, but often at the expense of the low-income consumer. “The utility must remember that this option means it has not fulfilled its responsibility to deliver water directly to urban consumers (it is offering a reduced service) and the reduction in the utility’s distribution costs should therefore be reflected in reduced bulk water charges to the kiosk. This rarely happens in practice with the vendor/intermediary costs typically paid by the consumer, leading to the poorest consumers paying much more per volume used than higher-income consumers with individual household connections. We note that where there is a replacement of vendors by pre-paid meters, these even higher costs are absorbed within the overall costs of the utility – the same principle should be applied with the staffed standpost [kiosk] option (pg 19. WSUP, 2014). Page 78 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Considerations relating to implementing kiosks in Honiara’s informal settlements The following are additional factors to be considered when assessing the suitability of different kiosk business models to Honiara and Solomon Water. Solomon Water-operated and staffed kiosks Solomon Water – outsourcing models (Delegated, or fully privatised) • Is preferred by residents of some informal settlements (Honiara) • Preferred by some settlements (opportunity for • Operator is an employee of Solomon Water livelihoods)  Easier to develop and enforce Standard • National performance standards are Operating Procedures recommended (when multiple vendors) – for SI, • Need to consider performance expectations start with Honiara-wide standards for all of these staff vendors/contractors. Performance criteria could – Non-revenue water from street include: mains to kiosk? • Operating hours; Hygiene (of facilities and – Maintenance of kiosk equipment water distribution equipment  water quality – influence the amount of social- standards); Non-revenue water targets (street standing in settlement needed by the mains to kiosk loses); staff member, and risk to staff safety • Regulations on product & services offered: in enforcement • Price of water; Water that can be sold; • Payment systems – linked with Cash Water Approval of additional P&S e.g. containers, model/infrastructure? container sanitisation facility/service, • Standardised communication & marketing household water treatment materials including prices – cost-effective and • Standardised payment systems – accounts-system consistent is possible for delegated model, Privatised – no control • (Some) Standardised communication & marketing materials – delegated models yes, privatised – reduced • Supply chain considerations: • Repair/replacement of essential kiosk facilities • When price is regulated, allowing kiosks to provide other products and services can improve livelihood options (e.g. selling approved complementary products and services). Page 79 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 CASE STUDY – Za mbia : U ti lit y- owned, deleg a ted ma na g ement model of wa ter k ios k s (GIZ, 2009) • Utilities own kiosks and related infrastructure  fully responsible for operations and maintenance • Day-to-day operation – a contractor to the utility (often resident, female) Paid commission (30-40% sales) + profits from selling other approved products (restricted by utility – for hygiene and water safety reasons) Receive cash for water from customers. Pay utility monthly water bill based on meter. Utility pays commission. If non-payment of bill w/in 3 days, operator replaced. • Utility – ‘informal settlements unit’ manages kiosks and their operations, including: setting retail price managing kiosk operators revenue and commission payments training and support specifying and monitoring performance (e.g. operating hours, kiosk operations tasks) customer complaints maintenance of kiosks and infrastructure.  Need to visit every kiosk weekly/fortnightly • Community engaged prior to kiosk establishment Promotion of utility water service (social marketing to influence demand and willingness to pay) Identify kiosk zones (ensure sufficient revenue per kiosk, but also consider accessibility and ‘communities’) Kiosk locations within zone • Financing – some from government and donors – Access to water is a key strategy of the governments plan to overcome poverty  eligible for pro-poor activities such as kiosks Impacts: Customer satisfaction higher (than other water source options); consumption of safe water has increased (~20l/p/day) Some (difficult) challenges observed: • Maintaining hygienic conditions at kiosks  some customers not willing to pay • Maintaining livelihood through delegated model (to maintain operators) – microfinance support to purchase supplies, supply-chain facilitation Page 80 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 S it in g & fac i l it ie s in in f o r m a l s ett lem en ts in H o n iar a Kiosks are most likely to be: • cost-effective in larger settlements • socially acceptable and secure in settlement with distinct communities (which can host kiosks), in which case multiple kiosks may be appropriate to acknowledge the social and cultural diversity of communities within settlements • more attractive where there is a lack of interest in household water connections and existing connections rates are low. The specific location of should be influenced by (at least): • customer accessibility (SDG6.1 Basic water service requires <30 mins round trip to collect, but also need to consider topography and carting, and convenience. Householders with low and/or difficult accessibility will likely not see the cost-benefits to shift to this water service (from their existing water supplies, even iuf the latter are unsafe for drinking). Accessibility can be assisted by consideration of container designs (see below). • suitability of location - often the remaining available land spaces are less accessible, more vulnerable to environmental hazards (floods, land slips etc), or presently used for rubbish dumping/accumulation. The specific locations and numbers of kiosks will also need to be considered in light of the selected business model: • If Utility-owned, competition is not of concern (though cost-effectiveness to be considered) • If delegated or privatised, need to consider business impacts of multiple kiosks located nearby (controllable delegated model; less so privatised model). The design of facilities should allow for: • Protection from vandalism when attended and unattended • Operator security • Hygienic service (drainage, container hygiene and backflow) • Hose fill-up option – to fill up nearby larger (immobile) containers, such as larger storage drums or tanks at nearby households. Reticulation design considerations, in addition to the standard factors for design of reticulated systems should also consider: • Increased resistance to tampering (e.g. resilient materials, deeper installation of pipes underground) • future expansion of the system for households ready for their own connections. Containers and carrying water to households: Carrying water:  the burden of carrying water from the kiosks to the place of use (usually at home) can be significant. This burden typically borne most by women who are responsible for most domestic cleaning, cooking and childcare responsibilities requiring water, and by children. Page 81 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019  This burden can be improved by attention to accessibility of kiosks (as noted above in siting), as well as improvement of pathways to/from kiosks, especially grading to allow for wheeled containers (see example below, Figure 19) or wagons/bicycles/trailers to carry containers and improve the safety of carrying containers on paths.  Some consumers or households may not be able to collect their own water, for example older residents or those with disabilities and they will be reliant on others to carry water for them. Some water kiosk operators could consider optional service delivery. Container hygiene  Containers require adequate and regular cleaning. Poor container hygiene is a common cause of water pollution. This is more likely in populations with unsafe sanitation and inadequate hand hygiene practices – providing a pathway for faecal-oral pathogens to enter drinking water supplies.  This could be mitigated through multiple strategies to promote both container hygiene and household water treatment. FIGURE 19: EXAMPLES OF WATER CONTAINERS AND THEIR PRICE EQUIVALENT IN SOLOMON DOLLARS Piloting water kiosks (water stores) in Honiara The settlement consultations indicated a strong preference for kiosks to be referred to as water stores by residents, as this was more meaningful in the local context. In addition to the typology (suitability of different options for settlements, considering ability & willingness to pay, history of connections/disconnection, & violence against staff/infrastructure), general considerations for pilots (testing and improving the water kiosk model) include identifying settlements in which • There is limited existing demand for household water connections but an interest in safe water (preference or acceptance of kiosk as feasible solution; limited alternative affordable and safe sources) although communication on the benefits and value of utility (safe) water will be important • ‘community’ engagement is feasible, with recognised entry points and some social structures with whom to engage, as it will be necessary to create awareness, seek interest and support, discussion operations, negotiate easements. Page 82 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Automated (e.g. Water ATM, token-taps) in central public places Automated water dispensers could increase accessibility to Solomon Water’s water by improving access to safe water to those In unserved urban or rural areas, if located near to central transport hubs (via which containers of water could be transported). It is not uncommon to see very large numbers of small plastic bottles of water being loaded to buses and boats for transport to homes outside Honiara. Water ATMs operate similarly to kiosk, the only important difference being that they are not manned. They comprise an automatic water dispenser with an on-site payment mechanism, such as an ATM or a token-based system. Consumers pay using cash or tokens. More sophisticated systems use smart cards topped-up at a designated establishment or via mobile phone. FIGURE 20: EXAMPLES OF AUTOMATED WATER DISPENSERS Operational features Most of the operational, social, environmental and other factors summarized above for water kiosks apply to automated water dispensers. Some additional/alternative factors include: • Essential operational and maintenance: protecting and maintaining access point functionality and hygiene is critical and requires regularly attention (visits by maintenance contractor). The complexity of the payment technology will also influence maintenance requirements and roles and responsibilities. • Regulatory: Water tariff and ownership/management regulation is critical to ensure affordability of the service. • Locations: close to major public transport hubs, but needs to be securable (which will likely reduce accessibility). Possible optipns for Honiara include: • Inside existing stores • Inside secure compounds e.g. public (pay-per-use) toilets, government buildings/compunds/ Page 83 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 5.4 P R I O RI TY SA N I TA TI O N O P TI O N S Objective of sanitation: safe containment, treatment and disposal of human waste, in order to reduce the spread of pathogens and improve human health (diarrhoea, childhood stunting; worms, typhoid, etc), as well improving aspects of wellbeing including security, privacy and convenience. The ‘Best’ options are very influenced by local situation. Therefore a city that has safe sanitation everywhere most likely has a mix of sanitation options: different service delivery models, different organisations with different roles, supporting/ operating different types of sanitation). This report includes sanitation service delivery options that are not necessarily to be implemented by Solomon Water (but all could have possible roles). The complete service delivery models are less clear because they will involve actors not directly involved in the consultations of this study. A process to develop city-wide sanitation plan or strategy would be best to ensure there is (consistency in approaches promoted (ii) no gaps – everyone has access to a sanitation option (iii) sanitation services are complementary and synergies utilised (iv) responsibility can be assigned to different actors. In addition, those that are considered to be the ‘Best’ options now, will likely be different if/when access to water is improved because: • readily available water supply (e.g. piped to house) will increase the demand and opportunity for water-based sanitation (unwillingness to adopt water-less sanitation) • less reliance on local sources from drinking will lower risks from sanitation options that potentially cause groundwater contamination. Requirements common to all sanitation options • Superstructure (toilet house) – can be locally designed, constructed and maintained – few sanitation options with specific superstructure requirements • Need to promote sanitation (and promote hygiene – consider that handwashing with soap, safe menstrual hygiene will be promoted alongside toilet use  water use, technologies/design, use/misuse of toilet technologies e.g. clogging)  stakeholder cooperation will lead to more effective promotion of sanitation  encourage city-wide (or national urban) communication materials Costs, Affordability and Willingness to pay for sanitation Existing wastewater (sewerage) fees The fees associated with Solomon Water’s domestic waste water service are: Wastewater tariffs per kL (based upon water consumption ) 0-15kL / month $3.06 16-30kl/month $4.62 >30kL/month $5.40 Page 84 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 In addition, the consumer will need to pay for additional water used in the sanitation system (depending upon the type of sanitation adopted). For a system that requires 50l/day total water (such as the simplified sewer system), this equates to approximately an additional $9 SBD on top of an existing water connection usage and monthly fees. Costs Daudy (2018) compared the lifecycle costs of full sanitation chain systems in developing cities of Africa and Asia, examining the cost ratios between different sanitation systems. That study concluded that conventional sewer systems are in most cases the most expensive sanitation options, followed, in order of cost, by sanitation systems comprising septic tanks, ventilated, improved pit latrines (VIP), urine diversion dry toilets and pour-flush pit latrines. The cost of simplified sewer systems was found to be lower than both conventional sewer systems and septic tank- based systems, but lack of data prevented further comparisons with other types of sanitation solutions (Daudy, 2018). Manga et al (2019) compared the costs of two on-site options (VIPs and Urine-diverting toilets) with three versions of simplified sewerage: • System discharging in the existing conventional trunk sewer with treatment • Pump-based Simplified sewers with treatment plant • Gravity-based Simplified sewers with treatment. The Manga et al (2019) study determined that on-site options were only more economical when population densities were low (in their case study, below 112 people/hectare). At higher densities (above 172 people/hectare), simplified sewerage was cheaper than VIPs. At ‘medium’ densities, situational factors determined which was cheaper. This is because at high population densities, off-site sanitation systems achieve economies of scale that are not achievable with the onsite (per household) options. For Honiara, variable population densities have been reported, from 50 to 200 people per hectare (see Section 2 for details). Willingness of informal settlers to invest Willingness to invest in sanitation, can be indicated by the existing investment in sanitation. • Existing investment in types of sanitation – low (few proper septic tanks) • Consultations with residents of informal settlements indicated that these consumers are focused on the user interface (defecating experience) – the toilet house, the riser, etc), rather than considering the whole sanitation service chain, and as a consequence less interested in investing in those parts not related to the direct user experience. However, to date, there has been minimal promotion of sanitation beyond the interface and basics pits, and for residents without water this is their priority investment (water). As for water, capital investments required of informal settlers will likely be a financial barrier – the forms of simple, low cost sanitation options adopted in rural settings will not be appropriate in all informal settlement situations. An Output-based aid program, if secured, could present an opportunity to subsidise capital/connection costs for informal settlers. Note: The SIG rural WASH Policy states that there should be no subsidies for domestic rural sanitation. Adoption of, and communication regarding subsidies provided for urban sanitation will require careful consideration so as not to create confusion and apparent inequalities between urban and rural populations. Page 85 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Types of sanitation for Honiara’s informal settlements As indicated above, based on the assessments of technology options, service requirements and consultations with Solomon Water and informal settlements, a shortlist of sanitation options was identified (refer below). However, it is recommended a sanitation strategy or plan for Honiara be developed by the range of agencies and actors with a, existing or potential role in the city’s sanitation, to more fully examine the feasibility and capacity for these options. Priority sanitation options for Honiara: Flushing toilets with piped sewerage (operated by Solomon Water) or household septic tanks (with septage or household septic tanks collection, treatment and disposal); water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency. Only applicable for conventional reticulated sewerage is physically possible and planned. Community simplified sewer and Flushing toilets with community simplified (small bore, shallow) sewers and septic/ABR system community septic tanks or ABR systems (operated by Solomon Water), from which effluent is connected via solid-free pipes to the conventional sewerage network, and sludge is removed as needed from the septic/ABR. Water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency. Pour-flush to pits with pit emptying Water-based sanitation, with pour-flush slabs or raisers, including water saving service or burying equivalents such as Sato-pan toilets. Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) with pit Improved dry-based sanitation emptying service or burying Above ground-sanitation Container-based sanitation or composting toilets Page 86 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Community simplified sewers, community septic/ABR, with offsite effluent and sludge disposal Figure 21 below gives a conceptual diagram of this system. It is not commonly in use, and little information exists about this as a whole system. This is primarily because: - in most urban informal settlements where simplified sewers are considered appropriate, there is a sufficient conventional sewerage network nearby to receive the waste from the simplified sewer system. below represents - in other cases, there is some initial treatment (and sometimes disposal) or either effluent or sludge at the household level (rather than centralisation of all household toilet waste, for offsite treatment and disposal). FIGURE 21: CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF A COMMUNITY SIMPLIFIED SEWER AND SEPTIC/ABR SYSTEM FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN HONIARA, WITH OFFSITE SLUDGE AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL Page 87 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Overview of service delivery model Name Community Simplified sewer, Septic (or variation: Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR), Anaerobic Filter (AF), Aerobic treatment system (ATS)), offsite effluent and sludge disposal Service Access (site of use) User interface Waste storage Trans- Treatment & disposal technology Further transport, Delivery (none at the port treatment or Chain household) (onsite) disposal TECHNICAL ASPECTS Technology Access via • Sitting or • a sewerage network Treatment tank options (on-site) to Effluent: • shared private squatting slabs that is constructed provide initial treatment to effluent transported via household with pour flush using smaller diameter and sludge. All options involve solid-free (small toilets or cistern flush pipes laid at a effluent transported via solid-free bore, low gravity, • individual design – with a shallower depth and at sewer to conventional sewerage or pumped) pipes household water seal. a flatter gradient than network, and desludging of the tank to conventional toilets • Ready supply of Conventional Sewers. options. sewerage network. All options water allows for a more Septic: supported (containers for flexible design at lower • watertight chamber made of Sludge: simultaneously pour flush, or costs. concrete, fibreglass, PVC or • Sludge emptying piped to cistern) • installed where they plastic. With at least two and safe disposal • Superstructure • System needs are not subjected to chambers (separated by a baffle). (treatment) (housing) can be greywater to heavy traffic loads,  • Accessibility to all chambers required every 2- built with local operate can be laid at a (through access ports) is necessary 5 years ABR: 1-3 materials effectively shallow depth, little for maintenance. years) (handwashing excavation is required • should be vented for controlled • Requires trucks and showers, • PVC recommended, release of odorous and potentially or motorised kitchens etc) minimum 100 mm harmful gases. carts to de- • gradient of 0.5% is • Treatment: in chamber: Settling sludge tanks As for all toilets: usually sufficient and anaerobic processes reduce • Sludge disposal Also required: • each junction or solids and organics, but the and treatment • handwashing change in direction, treatment is only moderate (no facility offsite with soap facility simple inspection treatment of pathogens, unless (need water chambers (or chlorine dosing before discharge access) cleanouts) are of effluent) • bins for sufficient. Variation: ABR: menstrual • Inspection boxes are • is an improved with 3-6 baffles hygiene also used at each under which the wastewater is management and house connection forced to flow. infant faeces • Protect from • Larger capacity – suited to management stormwater inflows as multiple toilets (needs more much as possible regular flow of waste) and can take greywater Variation: AF • Similar ABR but with Biological filters (biofilm on gravel/rocks) incorporated to multiple chambers to improve treatment • Requires pre-settlement tank • Often combined with subsequent Aerobic treatment system (requiring constant pump aeration) ABR & AF treatment: • Similar process to septic but more effective at reducing BOD (but similarly ineffective for pathogens) AF: • Pathogens and nutrients not treated so effluent requires further treatment / careful disposal Page 88 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Environ- As for all sanitation • Water supply • Requires reasonably Septic (ABR or AF) • safe sludge mental and • Minimal and required for high-water use • Soak Pit or Leach Field require treatment/ physical flexible toilet flushing. • Pipes are usually laid significant land area – not suited disposal location factors • physical • Enough water within the property to many informal settlements. required accessibility needed to enable boundaries, through Preference to transport offsite during night – adequate flow of back or front yards, • On-site treatment & disposal not prefer location effluent through rather than beneath suited to shallow groundwater in/adjacent to treatment the central road, (especially if accessed for human house for safety processes allowing for fewer and use nearby) • need access to a shorter pipes • Need truck access (for desludging) water supply • Topography may suitable for, impact capacity to handwashing, transport wastewater cleaning and to sewer mains (e.g. toilet flushing. pressure in pipes). • Leakages pose a risk of wastewater exfiltration and groundwater infiltration and are difficult to identify Key As for all sanitation • Flush toilets when required - Ensure water • ABR: start-up time can be several operational • Adequate toilet availability for flushing. months (unless inoculated) tasks use practices • Ensure sufficient wastewater (grey or black) (e.g. flushing, is entering system cleaning, etc.) • Need care by users: e.g. harsh chemicals • Promotion of entering tank will decrease treatment sanitation use is significantly (and create odours), generally • Clogging is frequent when bulky cleansing required materials are used • Pour flush: Must use bucket/container of water to flush and maintain water seal Key As for all other As for other toilets • Inspect household • Accumulated sludge and scum • Sludge need to maintenance toilet types • Maintain user connections and must be periodically removed be safely tasks • Hygienic materials: anal junctions (septic: 2-5 years; ABR: 1-3 years) disposed (it is facilities (at least cleansing • Requires repairs and • check tank is water tight and not fully treated daily cleaning materials removals of blockages repair cracks (typically not – high depending on • Repairs to toilet more frequently than regularly undertaken by pathogenic load) level for use, interface (cracks a Conventional Gravity consumer, leading to leakage of maybe several etc) and Sewer untreated effluent) times per day) functional lid • Check pipework associated into • handwashing and from tank – clogs must be facility removed, pipes repaired). • bins • promotional materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housin g maintenance) Page 89 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Actors and their potential roles • As for all • Sale of risers & Construction: • Sludge removal Service sanitation: slabs • Supply of piped network materials services required providers • Sanitation • Local manufacturers of septic tanks (plastic and concrete) (trucks and promotion is • Requires expert design and construction skills. smaller required – city- • Installation of simplified sewer pipes potentially by motorised carts wide (or communities – with design and supervision by plumbers / for improved country-wide utility expertise. access) urban) Operation and maintenance • Sludge communication • Solomon Water O&M responsibility of communal treatment treatment & materials need systems (either from communal tank, or including simplified disposal to be developed; sewer depending on model adopted). facilities/services can be • Possibility for training and engagement of local residents for • implemented by minor maintenance inspections HCC, NGOs and • ABR, AF (with or without aerobic treatment system) requires SW1 expert maintenance • Superstructure • All require regular desludging by a licenced service provider construction (optional) Consumer • Superstructure construction (optional) • Potential involvement roles • Connection and/or service fee may be in installation of required simplified sewer pipes • Required to pay service fee Costs • Minimal (mostly • Minimal costs to • Most significant cost • No Electricity (except if Aerobic • Cost to operate O&M costs local materials repair (consumer to consumer is Treatment System added), but desludging can be used for able to cover) associated water several maintenance tasks – some services, and super structure) usage fees, and likely may require expert assistance (e.g. treatment & sewerage fee desludging) disposal Cost score: 1 Cost score: 1 locations Cost score: 2 Desludging of tanks Cost score: 4 Cost score: 3 Capital costs As for all sanitation • HCC sells low • Simplified sewer Community Septic/ABR/other tanks Potential expansion (relative • Low (but cost options network – low • Cost-efficiencies for larger capacity of sludge indication) variable) capital installation costs systems, but need to consider treatment costs depending (community labour an number of connections that can capabilities on materials option), cheaper pipe cooperate to operate properly and • Pour flush slabs materials than undertake minor maintenance (if and raisers conventional sewerage needed) available from • System can be easily HSS for expanded as purchase: $100 population size varies squat slab with Cost score: 1 Cost score: 3 water seal; $500 Cost score: 2 Cost score: 4 raised seat with water seal Cost score: 1 Regulatory As for all sanitation • Land ownership for • Regulation of sludge disposal and effluent disposal consider- • Superstructure: pipe access ations building regulations • Limitations on building on steep slopes Social • cooperation on use of simplified sewer pipes is required, especially to prevent and manage blockages consider- (As for all sanitation): ations • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets Page 90 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 FSM safety • Good if no pipe leakage Service standards (consumer Affordability • Settlement residents could possibly contribute/cover simplified sewer pipework costs • Service fee likely to be required (~$30-50/month (if equivalent to sewerage) plus water use fees ($10-50/month) perspective) Accessibility • Can be good if close to house and not difficult physical terrain to access at night and by children and people with disability • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred, SDG • Safely managed (highest) (potentially with some private sharing) Sanitation service level Health/ • Health (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation wellbeing required) consider- • Well-constructed facilities offer privacy and safety for women ations • In-house facilities offer BEST wellbeing outcomes for all (e.g. privacy and safety for women) • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) • No mosquito breeding compared with dry sanitation Other • Especially appropriate for dense urban areas where space for onsite technologies is limited. They should be considered as an option where there is a sufficient population density (about 150 people per hectare) and a reliable water supply that can be used for sanitation (at least 50 L/person/day). • Requires water use (not suited to households carting water unless an alternative source is available at the house) • Significant investment by consumer so better suited to settlements planned for formalisation Simplified sewers Extracted from Manga et al. (2019): “Simplified sewerage is a low-cost off-site sanitation technology designed mainly for collecting, and conveying all forms of unsettled wastewaters from household environment. It is basically a conventional sewerage system stripped down to its hydraulic design basics, so as to allow for the use of smaller-diameter pipes, shallower depths, flatter gradients and reduced manholes while maintaining sound physical design principles (Tilley et al., 2014; Mara, 1996; Sinnatamby, 1983; Türker, 2011).” “Simplified sewerage layout is very flexible in that it can be implemented in unplanned areas with less destruction and restoration costs since it uses both back yard and in-street layout versions in private land, unlike conventional sewerage where in most cases sewers are laid in the centre of the roads. The system also allows in some cases for community participation in the implementation, operation and maintenance of the system.” “However, it's important to note that although many studies report community participation as one of the key features associated with successful simplified sewerage system, in practice is not really the case as some communities do not actually enjoy participating in sanitation say performing simple operation and maintenance tasks such as unblocking sewers (Tilley et al., 2014). Therefore, in such situations, operation and maintenance works of the system may be delegated to small engineering companies or specialised group of persons trained in appropriate operation and maintenance procedures so as to identify problems early enough prior to them becoming severe hence reducing on the costly repairs (Sinnatamby et al., 1986; Tilley et al., 2014).” “All such system characteristics and modifications to the design features lead to reduced capital costs of the system, which enables the sanitation service providers to achieve a greater coverage of sanitation services to its citizens with the existing or available financial resources (Paterson et al., 2007).” Page 91 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Les so n s fr o m sem i -d ec e n tr a li sed se wer a g e in o th er p lac es • especially appropriate for dense urban areas where space for onsite technologies is limited. They should be considered as an option where there is a sufficient population density (about 150 people per hectare) and a reliable water supply (at least 50 L/person/day) (Tilley et al., 2014) • Sewers laid within property boundaries, allows for higher connection rates, fewer and shorter pipes, less excavation (pipes not subject to heavy traffic loads), but requires careful negotiation between stakeholders • Cost: typically 20 and 50% less expensive (capital) than conventional sewerage (Tilley et al., 2014) (also found to be cheaper than septic tank-based systems, when consider whole service chain (Daudy, 2018) • Sewerage becomes more sustainable and cost-effective when the local public sector or utility accepts co- management responsibility for monitoring facilities, ensuring repairs and maintenance, as well as ongoing technical support and sanitation promotion (Eales et al. 2012). • Potentially, households responsible for the maintenance of the simplified sewer part of the system. However, in practice this may not be feasible because users may not detect problems before they become severe and costly to repair. Alternatively, a private contractor or users committee can be hired to do the maintenance. (Tilley et al., 2014) Tech n ic al a sp ec ts o f s i m p l if i ed s ewer s Expert design is required because of the complexity of these systems. Mara et al. (2001) developed detailed guidelines for technical specifications. Some of the key technical aspects include: • Similar in concept to conventional gravity sewerage networks (operate using same principles, but designed differently) • Systems that connect direct to sewer usually require HH settling tanks and interceptor tanks (to settle additional solids) - but not in this case where communal septic is used (needs the solids), but maybe access to inspect/clear blockages • minimum peak flow should be 1.5 L/s and a minimum sewer diameter of 100 mm is required. A gradient of 0.5% is usually sufficient e.g. a 100 mm sewer laid at a gradient of 1 m in 200 m will serve around 2,800 users with a wastewater flow of 50 L/person/day  connect greywater from houses • PVC pipes are recommended. The depth at which they should be laid depends mainly on the amount of traffic. Below sidewalks, covers of 40 to 65 cm are typical. Often have multiple sub-systems connecting to a single large septic/sewerage system. Regarding the size of subsystems – capacity of 100mm pipes is the main limitation, but capacity is quite high (~200 HH)(Mara et al., 2001). This is bigger than many settlements in Honiara, Regarding maintenance (Mara et al., 2001) • If this is the responsibility of households sharing a subsystem, training will be required to ensure safety handling faecal waste • Occasional flushing of the pipes is recommended to insure against blockages (recommend scheduled flushing by community – flushing ‘day-of-the-week’). Blockages can usually be removed by forcing a rigid wire through the pipe. • Extra unplanned connections may lead to blockages of pipes. Additional connections need to be managed through community engagement, and training. Page 92 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Go o d c o m m u n i ty en ga g em en t i s e sse n t ia l Several aspects of this systemn will require effective and regular engagement between the operator (Solomon Water) and the residents. These include: • Location/boundaries/households within subsystems • Location of pipes • Space for pipes (move temporarily or permanently existing structures if needed) • Pipe laying capacity (and for pipes O&M): potential to involve community members. Possible short-term employment for youth (connect with CAUSE rapid employment program?). Volunteer/HH contribution also possible (but potential for reluctance to pay for sewerage services later) • Ongoing management of simple sewer system – engagement (training regarding the health risks associated with removing blockages) Communal Septic (or ABR) Some key factors relating to their use in Honiara (in addition to the overview table above) • There is currently high user acceptance for septic tanks (mostly at the household scale, but this indicates an acceptance of this technology) • These tanks can be installed underground (with accessibility to all chambers)- limited land are required, but required truck access • Effective all climates, but minimal removal nutrients and pathogens (effluent and sludge remain unsafe) (removes solids and lowers BOD) • Design needs to carefully consider capacity and plan for increased capacity with likely continued growth and increasing density of urban settlements • construction can be achieved with local resources Solids-free sewers These comprise a network of small-diameter pipes that transports pre-treated and solids-free wastewater (such as septic tank effluent) (Tilley et al., 2014). If well designed and maintained, there is little risk of clogging, thus there is no need of self-cleansing velocity. Critical design and maintenance considerations include (Tilley et al., 2014) • recommended pipe diameter is 75 to 100 mm • Shallow depths (at least 300mm) • Small or even inflective gradients • Fewer inspection points • Can follow topography more closely For operations, these sewers require a constant supply of water, although less water is needed compared to conventional sewers. Page 93 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 CASE STUDY: Hatdady Tai settlement, Low-income, unplanned urban village in centre of Vientiane, Laos (Luethi et al., 2009) Settlement characteristics: • 275 residents, av. HH size: 4.9p • Diverse socio-economic and socio-cultural • Land tenure: informal settlers. Formalisation process underway (2/3 formally recognized plots) • 1.4 hectares, flat terrain, shallow groundwater (0.5-1.0m below ground level), regular flooding, limited road access (no trucks) Water and sanitation: • HH connections to utility water service • High toilet ownership: 85% pour-flush pits, 10% septics  discharge/overflow/effluent to open ground & natural open drainage. No sludge emptying (no access by trucks). Manually emptying (hole in pit  drainINGg to open ground/drainage channels) • Cultural barriers to reuse • No solid waste management • Community engagement: occurred in response to request for assistance. • wastewater systems constructed: • 32 Households with simple sewers (265m) to 3 community septic tanks • Simple sewers depth 20-30cm, PVC: 100-150mm Budget: • $70,000US (inc. Training, stormwater drainage, solid waste management). Total planning & implementation: $263US/beneficiary (275 residents). • Residents made financial contribution via village committees (some used microfinance) to improve their HH sanitation infrastructure [required early negotiation and agreement] and non- financial (feeding workers etc) O&M costs minimal – residents pay monthly fee ($0.5/person/month) Page 94 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Piloting the Community simple sewer, septic/ABR and offsite disposal system Given there appear to be very few case studies describing the use of these systems including the advantages, disadvantages success factors and challenges, it is recommended the a pilot of this system be undertaken. This would provide critical evidence to assess the feasibility of this system. Not only for the urban settings of the Solomon Islands, but also for other urban centres of Pacific Island Countries, and globally. Regarding selection of possible settlements (or communities within) to pilot this system, the following criteria are useful to elect a pilot settlement: • No or limited other safe options for sanitation as these represent settlements with critical need for such a system (the decision tree for sanitation options can assist with identifying such settlements) A settlements that will require this (because very limited/no other safe options). • Within 100m sewer (~ 14 of the identified settlements) • With existing or increasing Solomon Water household or shared household water connections • Not identified as a settlement that is not to be formalised • Has had some past engagement on sanitation so that there is already some existing demand and/or awareness of sanitation. Very few settlements meet this criterion e.g. Namoliki, Henderson & Burns Creek, however, no settlements meet all of the above criteria) Best options for pilot settlements: • Kofiloko: being formalised, close to sewer and existing water connections) but no known prior engagement on sanitation • Namoliki: being formalised, has existing community interests in a sanitation (sanitation enterprise constructing pour-flush toilets) providing an existing entry point, but is 100-500m from sewer. Page 95 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 On-site sanitation options A range of on-site sanitation options have the potential to suit some informal settlements (or parts of these). The shortlisted on-sanitation options include: Although there is a preference for water-based sanitation, the promotion of dry-based sanitation options should be encouraged as a more water conservative option for those who choose it (which may also relate to lower costs to operate), and to give more consumer choice. Appendix 9.5 includes the sanitation technology overviews for each of these options. Comprehensive service delivery models cannot yet be defined without further engagement of possible service delivery organisations, and assessment of capacity. Regarding service delivery models, some additional considerations include: • Supply chains: • Parts: some on-site manufacturing/construction possible (reduced cost, potential livelihood opportunities, some parts more effectively purchased from hardware) • Installations: simple carpentry and plumbing skills – locals can install (design specifications from RWASH) • Demand creation: • in the rural populations, this is to be achieved using the CLTS approach as outlined in the National RWASH policy. This approach, which includes a no-subsidy policy, may be less appropriate in urban spaces and alternative options need to be considered. • There is also a need to consider creating demand for ‘beyond-the-user-interface’, as currently there appears limited interest in understanding and investing in effective faecal sludge management • Community-based enterprises that simultaneously address supply and demand have been attempted in Honiara’s informal settlements with limited success (Live and Learn’s program in a small number of settlements 2013-2018): significant challenges were encountered in creating and mobilizing action of community-owned enterprises (likely due to a lack of social cohesion), however privately (e.g. family-owned) enterprises may prove more successful. Page 96 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 6 ALIGNMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS WITH KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF HONIARA’S INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS 6.1 K E Y C H A R A C T E R I ST I C S I N FL U E N C I N G SE RV I C E D E LI V E RY OP TI ON S Based on characterisations of the informal settlements described in chapter 4, and the requirements and features of the different water and sanitation service delivery models described in chapter 5, the following are the key settlement characteristics that influence which of the service delivery options are best suited. For water, the following characteristics of settlements were determined as critical in influencing the suitability of the different shortlisted service delivery models to different settlements, or residents within settlements. • Classification of settlement as hazardous by MLHS: large investments in water infrastructure, such as for individual household water connections are discouraged by SIG. Water kiosk may be a suitable alternative • Water connection history: previous experiences of high rates of non-payment of water bills, tampering or theft of water or water infrastructure and/or violence to utility personnel • Ability and willingness to pay for water: low ability and/or willingness to pay for water exists in some settlements. Access to safe and affordable water from shared water connections, or from a water store, may increase value and demand of utility water. For sanitation, the critical characteristics of settlements (or communities within settlements) that influence the suitability of the prioritised sanitation options are • Distance away from sewer line – Honiara’s sewer network currently covers small areas – it is not possible to join every house to the sewer network, but some may be close enough that they can be connected • Dense settlements – many informal settlements are dense with houses, and do not have sufficient space for proper on-site sanitation that treats and disposes of waste in the community, such as septic tanks • Road access to houses – many houses inside informal settlements are not close to the road – they are too far away for septage trucks to access their septic toilets or pits to empty them • Groundwater – some areas of Honiara have shallow groundwater, and in some of these areas, people use this groundwater for drinking and other household uses. Shallow groundwater can be easily contaminated by unsafe sanitation. In addition, it is difficult to construct inground pits in water-logged soil. • Flood vulnerability – areas that experience river, stream or coastal flooding are not suited to many inground sanitation options, because during floods, the human waste is carried around the community in flood waters, causing ill-health • Water availability – some houses don’t have access to a lot of water at their house (many are sharing water connections), and low-water using sanitation options may be required. For settlements with low availability, consideration should be given to the likelihood of improvements to water availability occurring in the near future (such as improved access to water services provided by Solomon Water). • Land tenure – some settlements have been identified as being in hazardous areas and will not be formalised. These areas require sanitation that is not too expensive, or that can be moved when people move • Settlement or area population size and social cohesion – the size of the population in an area and their ability to work together to maintain infrastructure affects the suitability of some community-wide sanitation system. • A range of socio-cultural factors also significantly influence the suitability of types of sanitation, including affordability, ability and willingness to pay for sanitation, and widespread social norms relating to current (unsafe) sanitation practices. Page 97 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 6.2 D E C I SI O N - SU P P O R T T RE E S FO R W A TE R A N D SA N I TA T I ON SE RV IC E D E LI V E R Y OP TI ON S – I N KE D T O H ON I A RA SE T T LE M E N T C H A RA C TE R I ST I C S These decision trees have been developed to link the critical settlement (or community) characteristics with appropriate service delivery options. They have been designed for use by planners and programmers, to determine which options may be suitable to promote or further investigate. These decision trees have not been designed with use in community consultations. However early community engagement will be critical; discussion of options and pros and cons of each will be important to ensuring consumer interest and participation. Genuine community-participation will be critical for any service delivery model to work successfully. Water service delivery decision tree - to support planning for Honiara’s informal settlements FIGURE 22: WATER SERVICES DECISION TREE FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, HONIARA. Improvements to water services in informal settlements will need to consider drainage and wastewater services, as increasing accessibility to water will likely increase water usage. Page 98 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Sanitation service delivery - decision tree to support planning for Honiara’s informal settlements FIGURE 23: SANITATION SERVICES DECISION TREE FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS, HONIARA. Page 99 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WAYS FORWARD Improve provision and management of water and sanitation services to informal settlements through the following recommendations. 1. U T I L I Z E I N F O R M AT I O N AB O U T S E T T L E M E N T S T O G U I D E C O N S U L T AT I O N S AN D P L AN N I N G W I T H R E S I D E N T S AN D O T H E R S T AK E H O L D E R S AB O U T W AT E R AN D S AN I T AT I O N S E R V I C E S : 1.1 Work with MLHS, HCC, MoHMS and other organisations linked with informal settlements and urban planning, to identify and collate information and plans regarding settlements. In particular, links should be made with those implementing The Greater Honiara Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (GHUDSAP), to consolidate data relating to urban and peri-urban informal settlements and their development. The database (spreadsheet) developed during this study may be a useful starting point. 1.2 Improve existing information about settlements, in particular c) Census 2019 data should provide updated and more detailed information about: variability of wealth within settlements; population estimates for individual settlements; growth rates of individual settlements. Once available, which may be 1-2 years, this data should be assessed for suitability and incorporated to any settlement database/information store. d) MLHS data regarding land tenure status of different settlements. 1.3 Build on the newly collated GIS information to update and use GIS-linked information to inform planning of services. In particular, maintain and update as available settlement population and socio-economic data, with environmental data such as hazard mapping (coastal flooding, riverine flooding, flash flooding, landslips), and with utility asset data (water and sewerage assets). 2. I M P R O V E W AT E R S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y T O R E S I D E N T S O F I N F O R M AL S E T T L E M E N T S : 2.1 Provide internal household water connections where-ever possible, to maximise health and wellbeing benefits 2.2 Recognise that not all residents of all settlements will be able/want to access their own private household water connections, and that a mix of water service delivery options may be required. Identify potential service delivery options using the water decision-tree developed in this study (Figure 2 above) to guide identification of water service delivery models to be considered during planning and consultation activities. 2.3 Maintain the lowest tariff level at a rate that is affordable by the lowest income households (this may require regular reassessment). 2.4 Where internal household water connections are not being provided, provide a service that has the flexibility to be transitioned to individual household connections as demand and willingness to pay/commit changes, that is, consider these services as transitional services. This does not apply to settlements identified by MLHS as hazardous. 2.5 Accommodate a mix of water service delivery models in settlements with larger diversity of wealth and demand. For example, consider providing both water kiosks and household water connections in settlements with lowest income households and high wealth households. Census 2019 information can be used to identify these settlements. Page 100 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2.6 Improve the awareness and attitudes about safe drinking water in particular (i) the importance of safe drinking water (ii) the safety of water provided by Solomon Water using an evidence-based behaviour change communication strategy. 2.7 Mitigate water theft from water pipes by: f) Increasing the accessibility of household water services by planning for reticulation through settlements, and maintaining a lowest tariff rate that is affordable by low income households. g) early and effective consultation and communications about the value of water from Solomon Water and its cost to supply h) encourage uptake by majority of households i) utilize engineering solutions, such as resistant pipes and deeper installations, to reduce tampering and theft, j) monitoring of non-revenue water at the settlement-scale (or finer resolution) to identify possible problems. 2.8 Sharing of household connections amongst multiple households will not be actively promoted by Solomon Water due to difficulty of regulating on-selling and ensuring the quality of service (e.g. reliability and water quality). However, sharing of household water connections is common practice and is preferred amongst many residents of informal settlements, as a way to share the foxed costs of a connection. It is recommended that Solomon Water acknowledge this as one tactic to increase the accessibility to their water services and improve the effectiveness of shared household connections by d) reassessing the tariff (or other aspects of the cost) arrangements for these connections. This is because connections supplying water to multiple houses may use sufficient volumes to be charged a higher-use tariff – thus effectively paying more per litre than single-household connections. e) Making accessible information about different ways water use can be calculated (e.g. through community meetings or ‘water supply training’, which could include other aspects of demand management and water quality (containers & storage) f) Consider cluster metering to reduce connection costs (provided settlement residents agree to take responsibility for management of pipes and non-revenue water from the meter to the house). 2.9 Pilot water stores (kiosks) in one or two settlements to build experience and understanding of (i) operational requirements (ii) demand from residents of informal settlements. Specific recommendations relating to piloting of water stores: d) Pilot a delegated-management model and/or utility owned-and-operated model (rather than a private retailer), to ensure (i) retail price is regulated by the utility (and set at a level commensurate with affordability for likely consumers, including lowest income households and the level of service being provided); and (ii) minimum service standards are adhered to (e.g. opening hours, hygiene and maintenance of store equipment). An alternative would be to start with utility-owned-and-operated and transition to delegated management. e) Recognise the lower service standard that will be provided (compared with household water connections) and that this is likely a transitional service to create demand and willingness to pay by providing low cost water (this may require subsidizing the cost of the service, depending upon the potential market size). f) Design and locate the store considering: (i) vulnerability to vandalism (ii) personal safety of operators (ii) accessibility to residents carrying water containers (iii) hazardous locations (floods, landslips, proximity to rubbish piles) (iv) ability to maintain hygiene and to prevent contamination or supplies (e.g. through back- flows (v) some on-site storage to mitigate short-term mains water disruptions (vi) density of stores within larger settlements to balance cost-effectiveness with accessibility. Page 101 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 2.10 Pilot the installation and operation of pay-per-use automated water dispensers, such as Water ATMs, at key locations such as major public transport hubs (large bus stops, the port). c) The location of the Water ATMs should consider (i) security of the ATM (ii) accessibility of the ATM with regard to hours/days it is accessible for both consumers and service operators (iii) proximity to transport departure locations to minimise carrying distances d) Retail cost of water should be regulated by the utility, and set at a level commensurate with affordability for likely consumers (including lowest income households) and the level of service being provided. 2.11 Recognising there will remain (for the near future) many residents that use service delivery models requiring them to carry and store water in containers (e.g. water kiosks/stores, shared HH connections), mitigate health risks from use of water containers: d) Mitigate the risk of contamination of water during handling and storing of water by consumers in containers (including drums, barrels, tanks) through education and behaviour-change strategies (which should also identify poor sanitation and hygiene (handwashing) and important factors increasing contamination of water in containers). e) Mitigate the health problems associated with carrying water in containers by encouraging local hardware stores to stock wheeled-water carriers or containers. f) Consider whether household water treatment options should be promoted (acknowledging the requirements for consistent and proper adherence to treatment procedures for these to be effective). 2.12 Adjust the land tenure requirements and the current perceptions regarding these requirements: c) adjust internal utility processes, and external communication messages regarding land tenure requirements to clarify that a Fixed Term Estate, or Temporary Occupancy License is not required for residents inside Honiara City Council boundary to apply for a private water connection. d) For residents living in settlements that have been assessed by MLHS as being in highly hazardous locations, individual private household water connections may not be supported, but that an alternative water service delivery model can be discussed with Solomon Water, such as a water kiosk. 2.13 Communicate and coordinate water supply service options with all organisations active in informal settlements, to ensure where feasible, utility water is provided, as the more cost-effective, safe and sustainable water supply system, rather than installation of on-site water supplies such as bore pumps which have minimal long-term maintenance support and may interact with Solomon Water’s water supplies and network. 3. I M P R O V E S AN I T AT I O N S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y AN D B E H AV I O U R S I N I N F O R M AL S E T T L E M E N T S : 3.1 Recognise that a mix of sanitation service options will be required to service Honiara’s urban and peri-urban populations. Achieving sanitation service provision for all people is required to ensure the health and wellbeing of all of Honiara’ s population, and to maximise resident’s participation in society, education and economic activities. 3.2 Identify sanitation options to suit different settlement characteristics, such as by using the sanitation decision- tree (Figure 3) to guide identification of the range of sanitation services that may be required and their suitability to different local situations. 3.3 The required mix of sanitation services cannot be provided by any one organisation, and a mix of sanitation service providers will be required. Coordination and cooperation is required to ensure that all people living in Honiara can access a sanitation service that will safely manage their human waste. Page 102 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 3.4 Promote amongst key stakeholders (Solomon Water, HCC and MoH) the critical need for a coordinated strategy to address sanitation across Honiara. A strategy or plan for Honiara’s sanitation could include information: o Identify which types of sanitation services should be made available in which parts of the city, including in identified hazardous areas, and specifying expected and acceptable service levels. 3.5 Identify which organisations should play a role in supporting or delivering each sanitation service (and whether additional capacity or capability is required) o Confirm there are no parts of the city that can’t access a safe sanitation service. o Describe agreed targets to encourage progress on sanitation and describe how these will be monitored. 3.6 The sanitation strategy or plan should also require coordinated communication to promote sanitation behaviours, and to improve the motivation and commitment of people to using safe sanitation. It is important that all organisations have the same types of messages about sanitation – the best way to achieve this is for stakeholders to develop a sanitation communication strategy, with communication resources, that many organisations can use. 3.7 Coordinate with MoH to improve awareness amongst residents of informal settlements about types of on-site sanitation options suitable in different informal settlements, in particular to unfamiliar sanitation options such as VIP dry pit latrines, and container-based or composting toilets. Coordinate with MoH on the communication of acceptable sanitation technologies. 3.8 Pilot the new service delivery model of “Community simplified sewer and septic/ABR system” which combines on- and off-site collection and treatment. o This model involves:  water-based (flushing) toilets with low-cost community simplified sewers (installed with assistance from residents, and oversight by Solomon Water). Water-saving cisterns can improve water efficiency, although a minimum water flow will be required to ensure functionality of the community simplified sewers.  connections to community septic tanks (operated by Solomon Water). Multiple septic tanks may be required depending upon the scale and topography of the settlement.  conveyance of effluent from septic to mains sewer using low cost solids-free sewer systems  septage emptying from the septic tank. o Significant community engagement and consultation will be required before piloting such a model. Consider partnering with organisations already with established relationships and experience engaging with informal settlements o Use the sanitation decision-tree to assist in identifying a pilot settlement. An additional criteria would be to select settlements in which there has previously been promotion of sanitation. An example of a settlement that meets most of these criteria is Namoliki/Gwaimaoa. o Ensure there is capture of the processes, strengths and weaknesses of the pilot model to provide evidence for future service model assessments. 4. I M P R O V E C O O R D I N AT I O N AN D I N T E G R AT I O N O F W AT E R , S AN I T AT I O N AN D H Y G I E N E I N I N F O R M AL SETTLEM ENTS 4.1 Water, sanitation and hygiene are critically linked, both operationally and from a health perspective (e.g. the need and use of water to practice safe hygiene; the potential contamination of local water, and container-based water, through inadequate sanitation and hygiene; the increase consumption of water associated with water- based sanitation), these three areas of activity must be planned and operationalized in a coordinated way to Page 103 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 avoid ineffective communication or operations, which would prevent WASH-related health and wellbeing being achieved. o Engage with other WASH actors active in Solomon Islands to ensure coordinated approaches, similarly for sanitation above. Discuss communication approaches and resources using the same messages. Synergising urban and rural WASH communications and messages would provide benefits to both urban and rural WASH outcomes – this could be achieved through expansion of the rural WASH stakeholder group to include urban WASH actors. o Engage with other actors active in informal settlements, not necessarily focused on WASH, such as CAUSE and UNHabitat, to raise awareness of WASH-related approaches and activities being promoted by the government and Solomon Water. Page 104 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 8 REFERENCES Barrington, D.J., Sridharan, S., Souter, R.T., Saunders, S.G., Shields, K.F., Meo, S., Bartram, J. (2017). Programming Brief: Building on existing marketing exchanges in Melanesian informal settlements to improve WaSH. International WaterCentre: Brisbane, Australia https://watercentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/have-do-be-programmers- brief.pdf CAUSE-World Bank, 2017. Social Asssessment Report – based on secondary and primary data, an identification of key social, economic and environmental factors from vulnerable urban communities in Honiara (and Gizo and Auki) Chand, S & Yala, C. 2008. Informal Land Systems Within Urban Settlements in Honiara and Port Moresby. In Wawrzonek, Fitzpatrick, Levantis, O'Connor (ed.), Making Land Work, vol 1, AusAID, pp. 85-107. Daudey, L. 2018. Review Paper: The cost of urban sanitation solutions: a literature review. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 8(2): 176. EGIS. 2018. Solomon Islands Urban Water Supply & Sanitation Sector Project - Household Survey Report. 2018. For Solomon Water and ADB. GIZ. 2009. Case Study: Water Kiosks How the combination of low-cost technology, pro-poor financing and regulation leads to the scaling up of water supply service provision to the poor. Accessed: https://sswm.info/node/5048. JICA 2005. The Study for Rehabilitation and Improvement of Solomon Islands Water Authority’s Water Supply and Sewerage Systems: Geology. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11829363_02.pdf Keen, M., Barbara, J., Carpenter, J., Evans, D. and Foukona, J. Urban Development in Honiara - Harnessing Opportunities, Embracing Change. 2017. Australian National University. Leney, A. 2017. Compost Toilets and the potential for use in the Pacific Islands. Integre. https://integre.spc.int/images/telechargements/compost_toilets_and_the_potential_for_use_in_the_Pac_islands_- _ANG.pdf Manga, M., Bartram, J., and Evans, B. 2019. Economic cost analysis of low-cost sanitation technology options in informal settlement areas (case study: Soweto, Johannesburg). Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.06.012 Mara, D., Sleigh, A., and Tayler, K. 2001. PC-based Simplified Sewer Design. DFID and University of Leeds. Accessed: https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/pc-based-simplified-sewer-design MDPAC (Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination), 2012, Solomon Islands National Infrastructure Investment Plan. MLHS and ADB. 2018. Greater Honiara Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (Volume I). ADB: TA 49460-001 REG: Strengthening Urban Infrastructure Investment Planning in the Pacific -1. MLHS and HCC (2015). Shaping Honiara’s Future: Honiara Local Planning Scheme 2015. Reuben, R. 2013. Spatial Analysis of Informal Settlement Growth and Disaster Management Preparedness: A Case Study in Honiara City, Solomon Islands. 2013. Reginald Reuben – Master thesis (USP). Solomon Islands government (SIG) 2012. Solomon Islands Poverty Profile Based On The 2012/13 Household Income And Expenditure Survey: Summary of Findings. www.mof.gov.sb/Libraries/Homepage_quick_links/Solomon_Islands_Report_on_Poverty_2012- 13_HIES_FINAL.sflb.ashx Solomon Islands Water Authority. 2017. Solomon Water 5 Year Action Plan 2017 to 2022. Solomon Islands Water Authority. 2017. Solomon Water 30 Year Strategic Plan. Page 105 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 SPREP, 2018. Solomon Islands Ecosystem and Socio-Economic Resilience Analysis and Mapping (ESRAM), Volume 3: Honiara. Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph. and Zurbrügg, C., 2014. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. 2nd Revised Edition. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Dübendorf, Switzerland. UNHabitat 2015. Slum Situational Analysis Based on Socio-Economic Survey for UNHabitat. Ministry of Lands, Survey and Housing (Richard Pauku). UNHabitat 2016a Honiara City-Wide Informal Settlement Analysis 2016. UN Habitat with Honiara City Council and Ministry of Lands, Survey and Housing. UNHabitat and RMIT, 2016. Honiara Urban Resilience & Climate Action Plan. For Honiara City Council and the Solomon Islands Government. UNICEF & UNC, 2018. Solomon Islands Urban and Peri-Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Baseline - Draft Report. Provided by UNICEF. WSUP (Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor), 2014. The Urban Water Supply Guide: Service delivery options for low- income communities. https://www.wsup.com/insights/the-urban-water-supply-guide-service-delivery-options-for- low-income-communities/ World Bank. 2014. The Limits and Possibilities of Prepaid Water in Urban Africa: Lessons from the Field. Chris Heymans, Kathy Eales and Richard Franceys. World Bank. 2017. Solomon Islands Systematic Country Diagnostic - Priorities for Supporting Poverty Reduction & Promoting Shared Prosperity. World Bank. 2017. Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery Models: Findings of a Multi-Country Review. World Bank, Washington, DC. Page 106 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 9 APPENDICES Page 107 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 9.1 W A TE R SE RV I C E D E LI V E R Y M OD E L S C O N S I D E RE D System Code Means of water conveyance to settlement Settlement access Water conveyance to water Ongoing service providers roles' in this type of sanitation (i.e. apart shortname point households storage at from any role in installation) household Piped water - PH1 piped water to households direct to HH direct to HH na SW responsibilities as for existing services Households PH2 piped water to households - with on-selling neighbour's HH water containers to containers SW responsibilities to connection; allowed households - carried HH connection owner to determine access, conveyance, price etc by customers Kiosk (piped) PK piped to kiosk Kiosk accessible by water containers to containers Recommended SW roles: public households - carried - produce and convey water to kiosk/vendor by customers - set and monitor water service standards - regulate retail water prices Other roles to be determined: (SW or outsource or technical support to local operator) relating to - ownership of water supply infrastructure to kiosk - ownership of kiosk business (own & operate, lease or sell to individual or commuinty group/business) - responsibility for maintenance - supply and/or ownership of business service equipment e.g. containers, cleaning agents, water carts (own & operate, lease, sell) Delivery PV Piped to local vendor access point Vendor's access delivery via small containers as for PK above vendor tap (private not water carts to (piped) public) households (to containers or small tanks) ATM or token- PAT piped to ATM/token-tap stands Public ATM or water containers to containers SW or third-party to own and maintain infrastructure coin- tapstand households - carried For third-party operated/owned ATMs/Taps: SW to: tapstands (token/coin by customers - fix retail water prices (Piped) operated) - set service standards and monitor Option to supply containers to local stores for sale, community groups, of delivery vendors etc Private shared PPR piped to shared tap stands - groups of households shared (private) water containers to containers SW own and maintain infrastructure taps tap stands households - carried by customers Public taps PPU piped to public tap stands Public tapstand water containers to containers SW own and maintain infrastructure households - carried by customers Trucks to TK water trucks to kiosks/atms Kiosk or ATM Customer containers containers SW roles: vendors/ATM storage tanks to households; or local - produce water for trucks vendor delivery - delivery service: owned & operatored by utility, or leased or fee-for- service to third party (with appropriate service standards) - Kiosk & ATM - as for above (PV, PK, PAT) Trucks to HH TH HH rainwater capture, supplemented by water direct to HH direct to HH large tanks; SW roles: (piped+rain) trucks conveying utility water to households containers - produce water for trucks - delivery service: owned & operated by utility, or leased or fee-for- service to third party (with appropriate service standards) HH to install and maintain RW Tanks Consider a program to subsidise tank system purchasing for low-income HH? Groundwater B (and local boreholes to token-coin-tapstands / kiosks / As for respective As for respective containers SW roles: variations atms / shared private tapstands / public tapstands options above options above (piped): - ownership and maintenance of infrastructure (water extraction) within) (piped): PK, PV, PK, PV, PAT, PPR, PPU additional roles as per PK, PV, PAT, PPR above PAT, PPR, PPU Rainwater RW (and local large-scale rainwater tanks to token-coin- As for respective As for respective containers SW roles: variations tapstands / kiosks / atms / shared private options above options above (piped): - ownership and maintenance of infrastructure (rainwater harvesting within) tapstands / public tapstands (piped): PK, PV, PK, PV, PAT, PPR, PPU system) PAT, PPR, PPU additional roles as per PK, PV, PAT, PPR above 9.2 S A N I T A T I ON SE RV I C E D E LI V E R Y M O D E L S C O N SI D E RE D Key information based on a range of sources, in particular: System Code Access (point User Waste collection / Treatment & Ongoing Existing use in Advantages Disadvantages short name of use) interface storage disposal service Solomon technology providers roles' Islands, or in this type of Pacific Island sanitation countries Water-based technologies Note: There is (likely) a strong local preferences for water-based sanitation, which will likely increase when water access is improved Household HPS public toilets; piped-to- connect to wastewater maintenance of SI The water seal effectively prevents odours Requires a constant source of water Piped shared flush cistern conventional treatment plant all pipework (or The excreta of one user are flushed away (can be recycled water and/or local sewerage private - Low flush piped sewerage by service mains before the next user arrives non-drinking water source) household models are network provider pipework); Suitable for all types of users (sitters, Requires materials and skills for toilets; available O&M of squatters, wipers and washers) production that are not available individual treatment and Low capital costs; operating costs depend on everywhere household disposal the price of water Coarse dry cleansing materials may toilets (inside Ultra-low-flow flushing toilets, and pour-flush clog the water seal house toilets reduce water consumption and costs to Some ultra-low-flow models may possible) the consumer require flushing more than once to Easy to use and clean adequately clean the toilet bowl Household HPF public toilets; Vacuum- sewerage; wastewater maintenance of none known Large water savings - Low water use (0.5 to Relatively high investment cost Piped shared flush although high treatment plant all pipework (or in SI or PICs 1.5 litres per flush)) Depended on electric power supply sewerage private organic load so by service mains No deposits in the toilet, reduced use of Coarse materials can lead to blockage (vacuum) household best used with provider pipework); detergents of collection system toilets; separate O&M of Very hygienic House service connection and vacuum individual greywater and treatment and Flexible and convenient station have to be maintained household blackwater disposal No deposits in the pipes Need for a vacuum station (house-or toilets (inside treatment Odour-free community based) Page 109 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 house (aerobic digestion Facilitates reuse of urine and faeces Requires space for connection possible) treatment for Applicable in many different constructions Bulky material (i.e. sanitary napkins) biogas production can lead to clogging - see below) Household HPC public toilets; piped-to- Simplified wastewater maintenance of not SI, not PIC Can be built and repaired with locally Requires enough water for flushing Piped shared flush cistern sewerage (smaller treatment plant all pipework (or (to be available materials Multiple users: limited responsibility Simplified private - Low flush diameter pipes by service mains confirmed) Construction can provide short-term for operator misuse sewerage household models are laid at a shallower provider or pipework); employment to local labourers Need significant additional toilets; available depth and at a community O&M of Can be laid at a shallower depth and flatter investment in treatment facilities individual flatter gradient septic tank treatment and gradient than conventional sewers Requires repairs and removals of household than conventional disposal Lower capital costs than conventional sewers; blockages more frequently than a toilets - sewers) low operating costs conventional gravity sewer (inside house Can be extended as a community grows Requires expert design and possible) Greywater can be managed concurrently construction Does not require onsite primary treatment The interceptor tanks can overflow units when they have not been desludged in time Leakages pose a risk of wastewater exfiltration and groundwater infiltration and are difficult to identify Effluent and sludge (from interceptors) requires secondary treatment and/or appropriate discharge The need to desludge the interceptor tank regularly requires the involvement of a well-organised sewerage department Packaged HPW public toilets; piped-to- Packaged onsite maintenance of SI Locally-based treatment and discharge Requires electricity Wastewate shared flush cistern; Wastewater treatment and onsite (industrial/co (minimal reticulation requirements) Skilled maintenance required r private pour-flush Treatment Plant - disposal, or treatment mmercial); Mutliple users: limited responsibility Treatment household potentially via piped to plant, and pipes PICs (e.g. Fiji) for operator misuse Plant toilets; Simplified pipes disposal site, to plant (?) Suitable discharge location nearby individual managed by required household service provider Significant capital costs toilets (inside house possible) Communal CS public toilets; piped-to- communal-scale onsite maintenance SI (Honiara - Simple and robust technology Not suited to areas with shallow Septic shared flush cistern; septic tank treatment and inspections and see map in No electrical energy is required groundwater tanks private pour flush (various specific disposal of servicing; PRIF Low operating costs Low reduction in pathogens, solids household spetic wastewater septage sanitation Long service life and organics - depending upon toilets; technoilogicies,usi range of pumpout and review) Small land area required (can be built treatment technology individual ng aerobic and/or technologies disposal underground) Regular desludging must be ensured household anaerobic available Can be designed for flood-prone areas Effluent and sludge require further toilets (inside digestion) (anerobic, treatment and/or appropriate house baffled discharge possible) anaerobic, multiple users: limited responsibility Page 110 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 septic tanks, for operator misuse managed by Land for irrigation of wastewater 'community' or Land for disposal and further service provider treatment of sludge - if offsite, then offsite disposal transport required of septage required HH Septic HS individual piped-to- household-scale onsite maintenance common in SI Simple and robust technology Not suited to areas with shallow tanks household flush cistern; septic tank treatment and inspections and (though many No electrical energy is required groundwater toilets (inside pour flush (various specific disposal of servicing; are not proper Low operating costs Low reduction in pathogens, solids house spetic wastewater septage Septics - not Long service life and organics - depending upon possible) technoilogicies,usi range of pumpout and sealed storage Small land area required (can be built treatment technology ng aerobic and/or technologies disposal & treatment) underground) Regular desludging must be ensured anaerobic available Can be designed for flood-prone areas Effluent and sludge require further digestion) (anerobic, treatment and/or appropriate baffled discharge anaerobic, multiple users: limited responsibility septic tanks, for operator misuse managed by Land for irrigation of wastewater 'household' or Land for disposal and further service provider treatment of sludge - if offsite, then offsite disposal transport required of septage required HH pour- PP individual pour-flush twin-pits, used onsite - none use unknown? Because double pits are used alternately, their Not suitable for flood-prone areas or flush with household altternately to minimal: slow life is virtually unlimited where rocky soil or shallow pits toilets - full-point leaching into Excavation of humus is easier than faecal groundwater outside house ground sludge Manual removal of pit humus is only Potential for use of stored faecal material as required soil conditioner Clogging is frequent when bulky Flies and odours are significantly reduced cleansing materials are used (compared to pits without a water seal) Higher risk of groundwater Can be built and repaired with locally contamination due to more leachate available materials than with waterless systems - not Low (but variable) capital costs depending on suited areas with shallow materials; no or low operating costs if self- groundwater emptied Small land area required Dry-based Note: User desireability of dry-based sanitation, when water is accessible, is low. Attitudinal/behaviour change communciation campaigns may be required (e.g. technologi emphasizing water-cost-savings benefits) es Container- CBS individual sitting riser small container offsite regular (e.g. not known in Low-cost (monthly user fees, lease of 'toilet') user acceptability; based household (above ground, treatment and weekly, SI Minimal space requirements at household or low cultural acceptabilty for managing sanitation toilets - under toilet seat) disposal - which biweekly) Vanuatu (for within settlement waste/compost would require outside or for weekly could include collection of People with Odours less likely than copmosting due to outsourced servicing exterior wall storage; larger composting containers, Disabilities; regular emptying User training required to manage of house storage within requires storage Suitable for flood-prone areas odours Page 111 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 settlement prior transport of treatment and Humanitarian Manual removal of waste by service to sludge sludge offsite disposal by situations) provider (requires training, OH&S collection may be by ttrucks service provider equipment, and overcoming cultural required Or, transfer to taboos) onsite (settlement) shared treatment location Compostin CS1 public toilets; sitting or composting onsite technical ? Public toilet Suitable for flood-prone areas Can be expensive (capital) g sanitation shared squatting (sealed) treatment, support may be (pay per use) Significant reduction in pathogens User acceptability; - shared private riser onsite/offsite required by near library Compost can be used as a soil conditioner Low cultural acceptabilty for household disposal of users No real problems with flies or odours if used managing waste/compost would toilets sludge, collection of and maintained correctly (i.e., kept dry) require outsourced servicing managed by compost by Organic solid waste can be managed Requires well-trained user or service service provider service provider concurrently personnel for monitoring and (possible Long service life maintenance onselling for Low operating costs if self-emptied Compost might require further agricultural treatment before use use) Leachate requires treatment and/or appropriate discharge Requires expert design and construction May require some specialized parts and electricity Requires constant source of organics Manual removal of compost is required Compostin CS1 individual sitting or composting onsite technical Rare in SI Suitable for flood-prone areas Can be expensive (capital) g sanitation household squatting (sealed) treatment and support may be Trials in other Significant reduction in pathogens User acceptability - household toilets riser disposal of required by PICS Compost can be used as a soil conditioner Low cultural acceptabilty for (outside sludge, users No real problems with flies or odours if used managing waste/compost would house) managed by collection of and maintained correctly (i.e., kept dry) require outsourced servicing household compost by Organic solid waste can be managed Requires well-trained user or service service provider concurrently personnel for monitoring and (possible Long service life maintenance onselling for Low operating costs if self-emptied Compost might require further agricultural treatment before use use) Leachate requires treatment and/or appropriate discharge Requires expert design and construction May require some specialized parts and electricity Requires constant source of organics Manual removal of compost is required Page 112 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Biogas BS individual vacuum Pipe from house onsite technical ? Trials in Suitable for flood-prone areas Requires expert design and skilled system household flush piped to Biogas digestor treatment and support and other PICS Generation of renewable energy construction toilets; to digestor (1,000 L for a prduction of maintenance - Small land area required (most of the Incomplete pathogen removal, the shared single family up to biogas (best though not structure can be built underground) digestate might require further private 100,000 L for used locally to regulalrly No electrical energy required treatment households; institutional or avoid required Conservation of nutrients Limited gas production below 15°C publi toilets public toilet): transport); Long service life Biogas production not high unless brick-constructed digestate Low to moderate capital costs; low operating significant inputs of high organic domes or (partially costs materials (e.g. animal manure, organic prefabricated treated) needs market or household waste) tanks, installed to be manually above or below removed and ground required further treatment Dry pits VIP public toilets; sitting or Ventilated onsite none (beyond common in SI Not suitable for flood-prone areas or with Manual removal of humus is required (VIP and shared squatting Improved Pit (VIP) treatment and spare parts) shallow groundwater, or rocky ground Possible contamination of similar private riser, - single or double disposal Can be built and repaired with locally groundwater variations) household concrete/pla pit available materials Higher capital costs than Single VIP; toilets; stic slab for Low (but variable) capital costs depending on but reduced operating costs if self- individual hygiene materials and pit depth emptied household Small land area required toilets Double Longer life than single VIP (indefinite if maintained properly) Excavation of humus is easier than faecal sludge Significant reduction in pathogens Potential for use of stored faecal material as soil conditioner Flies and odours are significantly reduced (compared to non-ventilated pits) Can be built and repaired with locally available materials Dry Pits DP Don’t meet basic sanitation standards - not recommended (unimprove d pits) Page 113 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 9.3 C O N SU L T A TI ON S O N SE R V I C E D E LI V E R Y M OD E LS : W O RK S H O P W ITH S O L O M O N W A TE R Date of workshop: 26 Feb, 2019 Location: SW (Mataniko office) Participants: IWC (Regina Souter, Pablo Orams Whiting), ~10 SW staff from multiple divisions and executive Copy of presented materials is attached as PDF, and was designed to accompany the Draft assessment of water and sanitation service options report. 1. GENERAL COMMENTS & ACTIONS ARISING DURING THE WORKSHOP - SW needs greater clarity regarding existing policies and legislations relating to services that can be provided for different status of land tenure. [Subsequent consultation with MLHS confirmed the government does not have formal rules about what services can/cannot be installed depending upon land tenure status, and that SW is entitled to make its own policies regarding requirements to be met to qualify for water connections]. - It is recommended to engage with Solomon Energy to identify lessons and challenges, and identify any synergies regarding providing services into informal settlements [Consultation planned 30 April] - Recognise there is significant variability in total incomes and disposable incomes between residents within and between settlements. Previous SW survey (by AECOM) estimated these incomes for 6 settlements, illustrating the range (summarised in settlements characterisation chapter of this report). Thus, water and sanitation service delivery options should not exclude those options similar to existing services offered to formal settlements in Honiara, as some residents will be able to afford these services. However consideration will need to be given to how affordability for lower income households can be achieved. WATER SERVICES General comments: - Well-strategized communication efforts are required to raise awareness about benefits of SW (safe) water over other options (e.g. bottle water, free unsafe sources, etc). - It is believed that issues of water theft will be reduced if water services reach settlements, together with good communications about the value of SW water, engineering solutions and adequate monitoring. - SW strategic plan considers an aspirational average water use of 140 l/p/d. Note that WHO standard is 50 l/p/d. Rural WASH standards for design in Solomons is also 50 l/p/d. Feed b ac k o n sp ec if ic w ater ser v ic e o p ti o n s 2.1. HH private water connection - Cost of connection in formal circumstances includes: o Service fee (fixed cost) =$52/month o Water fee (volumetric) o Connection fee (one-off) = $1300 o There is an additional cost, covered by user, to implement piping to meter outside the house. What is the smallest unit (volume) of water that can be purchased using CashWater? - Strong consideration to affordability and willingness to pay is required. The challenge is the income-level diversity/variation within communities. - Water theft is a prevalent issue. Motivations for theft are diverse (lack of access, cost, stealing for selling, etc) - Theft (across the system) makes up for 25% of total NRW (=65%), but this is less than was previously thought. - There can be safety risks for SW staff working on informal settlements. - Illegal connection may cause backflow contamination of water supply. - After lengthy discussion it was determined water theft can be minimised by (i) high rates of HH connections through an easier process to gain a connection and (ii) more resilient piping with deeper installation where necessary. - In settlements where rates of non-payment or theft have proven to be high, a transitional approach may be better suited, by starting with a water kiosk 2.2. HH shared connection - It is not allowed, but tolerated, and common practice. - Payment of usage is an issue. Some pay (sharing cost with neighbours), many find this difficult especially for post-paid options). - Some connection owners will earn money from charging neighbours for access, however this doesn’t ensure owner paying SW for connection. - Main benefit of this model is the sharing of water tariffs, although the higher consumption (due to more houses) may result on a higher tariff tier. - Is used with CashWater 2.3. Kiosk (piped) - People pay in advance, similar to CashWater Some thought is required to know how CashWater aligns to this model – has advantage of no monthly service fee. But need to check pricing structure is not too different - Price needs to be regulated by SW to ensure equity in water costs - Kiosks may be adequate for some, but not all settlements. - Kiosk may be implemented at the edge of settlements, avoiding the need to running pipes through the settlement. May be adequate where population density is enough to make it viable. - Kiosks can serve as precursor/“tasters” of water service provision in areas of expansion (e.g. a mobile kiosk moved as the grid expands, developing a norm for paying for safe water. - Kiosks may offer better value to community than automatic dispenser, as it could offer a business opportunity. - Proposed additional service to this model: From the access point (e.g. kiosk), water can be pumped to a household tank via hose allowing people to purchase larger volumes (e.g. to fill small tanks). This would require SW to visit with larger distribution hose to reach nearby HH tanks - The management model needs to be discussed. It is not clear how far SW would go in the implementation and operation of the system. Community involvement in the management needs to be explored, and might vary depending on each settlement. Currently, there are community run business (canteens, shops), and kiosks could leverage from this. In appointing/recruiting kiosk operators, SW could reach out to strong community groups (e.g. churches). SW keen to hear from settlements on their views (refer to settlement consultations for summary perspectives) - The business model/strategy needs to be well thought through to ensure sustainability of service (e.g. having the profit of kiosk being reinvested in the community). - A potential model to ensure sustainability of a kiosk scheme is to ensure service provision if community complies with a no-water-theft commitment, policed by implementing water meters at source and at kiosk and monitoring NRW levels. - Communication on benefits of choosing kiosk water over informal cheaper/free options needs strong consideration (e.g. value of having a safe water source). Page 115 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 - SW confident previous challenges associated with tampering and breakage of pipes could be overcome by piping technology and installation methods (e.g. more resilient piping material and buried deeper to minimise possibility of tampering). 2.4. Automatic water dispensers (piped) - Not considered a preferred option by SW for use within settlements due to risks such as vandalism, money/tokens theft (tokens could be safer), energy requirements, impact of power failures, low reliability of technology/broadband, etc. - A more feasible option would be to have the device inside a shop. This would require a clear agreement on who is responsible for /owns the system. - Would be more useful in critical congregation areas within the city (e.g. port, market) - While kiosk may require more community cohesion to ensure sustainability of system (e.g. for adequate operation, use, etc), automatic dispensers may be easier to implement. - Strong communication/awareness campaign would be required (e.g. to ensure community knows how to use the system). 2.5. Trucked water (to kiosk/automatic dispenser) - Trucks are currently providing water services, and it is poorly regulated (although these are private operators, service is of low quality, they steal water from SW and sell at higher prices). - Main challenge is the quality of roads, cost of service, water safety, and the distance to the refill point. - Not a preferred option, but there might be a role for truck conveyance in circumstance where piping is not feasible (long distances, etc). - This is considered not likely to be necessary anywhere within the town boundary. 2.6. Borehole supply (to kiosk/automatic dispenser) - Maintenance costs of boreholes is high - Willingness to pay for local/on-site water could be an issue (survey data from AECOM indicated no willingness to pay for local water resources). - It is difficult to ensure the quality of water, giving intensive O&M tasks. Only feasible on big scale systems. It is an operational risk for SW. - There could be naturally occurring arsenic, but need to be confirmed. - Water hardness is an issue. - Artesian bores could be an option, given their high-water volume potential, and location within communities. - More suited for remote locations, or where no other options can be feasibly implemented – decided to be not necessary within town boundary Su m m ar y o f d i sc u ss io n ab o u t wat er s er v ic e d e l i ver y o p t io n s fea s ib le f o r Ho n i ar a sett le m en t s - First preference is piped water connections to households or shared households o SW will need to review its policies/practices on requirements residents must meet in order to qualify o Community engagement will be important, as this approach will likely be most effective if many in the settlement take up connections (minimising the number of people without connections will likely reduce water theft/tampering) - Where difficult (now) to run mains water pipe to each household/group of houses: Piped water to kiosks. o Operation of kiosks as a business, prices regulated by SW o engagement of operators to be determined in discussion with the settlement. o May need to consider theft-proof water pipes to kiosks as well as community engagement on protecting water pipes Page 116 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 o Containers. o Cash management? o Retail cost – need to think about how align with tariff system (domestic v commercial and other) o Business model (service fees, tariff rates, retail/on-charge, other products; contract v inhouse - ATM / t-taps – possibly problems with security and vandalism but potentially of value near to major public transport terminals (if associated with existing shops for security) - Trucks and bores – not a better option than main pipes (for locations within town boundary) SANITATION - For all onsite options – need clarity on SW role. Applying current governance arrangements it would be aligned to catchment management rather than provision of service. - There is a need to liaise with the Ministry of Health and Honiara city Council, and other local actors. The challenge is bigger than what SW can do and is responsible for. - Open defecation is a prevalent issue. - The existing cultural norms around defecating and management of human waste influences the feasibility of some onsite options (e.g. compost) - All solutions will require greater capacity in Honiara for waste treatment and disposal – either water-based sewerage/effluent treatment and/or septage collection, treatment and disposal. Feed b ack o n sp ec if ic s a n it at io n o p t io n s 3.1 Public toilets (versus individual household or shared household toilets) - Cultural behaviours around sharing of toilet facilities is an important consideration - Public toilets in public spaces seem to work, but inside communities it would be difficult, given close relationships across community, as well as expectation to pay within community - Cultural norms around who can see who going to bathroom present challenges when implementing public toilets in community spaces - Operation & Maintenance, especially maintaining hygiene, likely to be a significant challenge as running public toilets on fee-for-use arrangement within a community is likely to be problematic, and therefore limited funds will be available. - It would be a new concept in the context of communities Technology options for collection, treatment and disposal of waste 3.2 Simplified (simple sewer) pipes (to either onsite or offsite treatment options) - Will be associated with higher water usage (and therefore household costs) - Likely to have challenges in terms of system pressure due to increased/uncontrolled discharge from houses. - There could be challenges around users connecting other inputs into the Simplified network (stormwater, etc.), and put pressure on system downstream. And this would be difficult to regulate. - Simplified + community septic + EDS (effluent disposal system) - For some settlements, where onsite options are limited in practicalities/feasibility, and the terrain is suitable, it may be possible to combine Simplified pipe systems to shared septic tanks – that are managed by SWater and where the effluent is transported offsite for treatment (e.g. solid-free sewer pipes to connect to existing sewerage infrastructure), and septage is pumped and treated offsite 3.3 PWWTP (as an onsite or near site treatment option) - O&M requirements likely to be intensive given previous experience of SW staff - There are experiences in using PWWTPs in resorts, but they are not very effective due to O&M. Page 117 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 - Biological systems can be more sensitive to the type of waste that goes in, and there is a risk of people putting in waste that shouldn’t go in (e.g. chemicals, paint, etc) - Chemical and Physical systems – often operational and maintenance challenges - Sludge disposal practicalities need to be considered (distance, conveyance, treatment, disposal.) 3.4 Pour flush (single and double pits) - Has potential, though uses water. And wont suit all settlement situations. Is the preferred option of settlement residents now, so limited behaviour change required. - Challenge is treatment and disposal as these are often used in unsafe situations at present (where local environments, and water sources are likely contaminated) 3.5 VIP latrine - Not widely known. - If pit is to be emptied rather than buried and new pit dug, management of sludge would be a challenge due to topography, access, disposal options. 3.6 Composting toilets - Investment can be substantial - Community is unlikely to use the resulting waste on food crops as there is a strong stigma around human waste. Potentially could be encouraged to use on flowers and non-edible gardens. - Leachate needs to be safely managed - Some discussion about possible challenges of men handling women’s waste and vice-versa – seek settlement views on this. - Space requirements for storing composting waste is an important considerations. - A potential model could involve a desludging service by a third party operator. 3.7 Biogas (with pour-flush) - Digestors are being constructed by some local groups, but it is not common knowledge. - Expensive and site visit (Burns creek) confirmed tend to be used mostly for animal waste not human waste due to cultural norms - Maybe has potential in school environments but recommended not to pursue for settlements. 3.8 Septic tank - HH-scale septic tanks problematic O&M and very rarely conducted properly. - effluent is not safe - Sludge removal – need truck/cart access septage for safe removal – very difficult in the hilly areas where no roads Su m m ar y o f s an i tat io n d is cu s s io n s - For some settlements, with steep terrain, dense housing and limited road access, there are very few suitable on-site options in which the whole sanitation service chain can be safely achieved. - Where these settlements are close to existing sewerage networks, may be its possible to explore simple Simplified sewers to community septic tanks managed by SW, and where the effluent is transport offsite via an EDS (solid-free sewer) connected to existing sewerage network, and septage is pumped and transported offsite for treatment and disposal. - For flatter settlements, where access is often easier/more feasible, groundwater is often very shallow, making in-ground options problematic (e.g. pit latrines). Above ground options, such as composting, biogas or above ground pits could be feasible though leachate will be unsafe and need disposal consideration. Biogas and composting options would need to address cultural barriers regarding use of human waste (such as not using waste products for consumption-related activities). Page 118 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 RESULTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL VOTING EXERCISE All workshop participants were given 3 green and 3 pink dots to cast votes independently. Green dots were used to indicate that option has potential and should be further assessed; Pink dots indicated option has limited/no potential and should not be further assessed). Regarding water service delivery models, workshop participants preferred the piped household connections (57% of preference votes), in particular private house connections (36%). Neither private or shared household connections received non-preference votes. Water kiosks sourced by piped water came second in preference (32%), while bore and truck sourced kiosk were not seen as feasible (47% of non-preference votes). Automated water dispensers (water ATMs / token taps) receive little support overall (only 11% of preference votes, 53% of non-preference votes), with a slight preference for these models to be sourced by piped and bore water sources. On the sanitation service delivery models, septic tanks were the most preferred option (27%). Pour flush technologies came second in preference (23%), although with 5% of non-preference votes on its double pit setup. Simplified pipes also received an overall preference of 23%, in particular if connected to decentralized packaged treatment plants (18%). However, the same level of non-preference was given to the later (18%). VIP latrines received 14% of preference votes, while the remaining options (biogas, fossa alterna and composting toilets) were received the least preference. Page 119 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 9.4 C O N SU L T A TI ON S O N SE R V I C E D E LI V E R Y M OD E LS : I N FO R M A L SE TT LE RS Where possible, community consultations have been done separately with men and women groups with the aim of understanding gender-specific perspectives on the discussed issues. In some of the main questions / discussion topics, sub-questions have been used to prompt conversations and gain more clarity on the discussed issues. When possible, results have been categorized under these sub-questions. Water C U R R E N T E X P E R I E N C E AC CESSING W A T E R ? (H O W D O P E O P L E G E T W A T E R T O U S E F O R D R I N K I N G ? W H A T D O T H E Y T H I N K AB O U T I T ?) Settlement Men Women - No water access is available [from Solomon Water] How do people get water to use for drinking? - There is no accessing water from Solomon water - Water collected from the dug-up wells - About three dug-up Wells in the entire How do people get water to use for drinking? settlement and people shared from that. - They said that they can buy bottled water - People got their drinking water from well. from the shops or market hats only if they - There was only one well owned by a family that was had enough money. shared by the whole riverside community. - The safety of their drinking well is not safe - The well was covered properly. Burns Creek given their environment live its - The water was fetched directly from and well and used (Riverside) surroundings. as a drinking water they didn’t boil it. - Only a few people in the community both water from What do they think about it? nearby community/block which was cost them $5 per mineral water bottle. (1.5 Liter) - The response was we don’t have many options to meet the cost of bottles of What do they think about it? water. These are sold in the shops but that depends on the availability of cash flow. - They knew that the well was bad for drinking because if - They also knew the risk related to water the smell but they didn’t have other choices. collected from the well, one even mentioned that diarrhoea is very common here maybe it’s from water from the well, he said. - - Accessing from Solomon Water through using of Meter Water and Cash Water - Few houses already have Solomon water connection. - 1x question was raised and asking why - Many families live in one house and no discussion Solomon Water continued to cut and even between the families worst the quality of it its always turn - Financial problem brown/dirty. Fulisango (Mad How do people get water to use for drinking? How do people get water to use for drinking? Land) - Almost everyone access water from - Most people in the community got there drinking water Solomon Water and some household used from Solomon Water and rain. water tanks - One community leader explained, here few households shared to pay for one pipe connection then they had to contribute on What do they think about it? a monthly basis to meet water bills. Page 120 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 What do they think about it? - One woman that got her drinking water from rainwater said that she prefers rainwater because it is fresh and - Currently they happy with what they had didn’t have the chlorine smell on it. But for Solomon now but they really want Solomon Water water, she said the most time it has the chlorine smell to improve on their services such as quality with the white colour water. of the water and stop cutting-off water - Those who used Solomon water as their source of unnecessary. drinking water said although, they have a kind of smell - Few men also add on the same line that they don’t have any other choice. they want to see if Solomon Water can reduce or improve its rating system of bills because they have faced a similar problem with Meter Water (Connection) that their bills continue to increase every month even when they already paid for. • • There is an existing SIWA pipeline running in the settlement. How do people get water to use for drinking? - Most people access drinking water through SIWA connection. - Total of 16 houses. 8 House shared connections and 2 storage distributing to the settlement. Everyone gives fair to contribute to pay the bill. - Even today only one end of the settlement has water one side of the settlement water is disconnected. - For washing and swimming sometimes we use well or tank if there is rain. Ohiola - Sometimes the creek is used for washing and toilets. What do they think about it? - Not fair for all household because some pay high while only use less water - Some water pressure was not strong to reach all house - Paying bill can be problematic - Last time we have $5000 outstanding bill with SIWA and they disconnect the water - When bills are not paid in time, interest will be added to the bill and it keeps accumulating. lt is not good that way. How do people get water to use for drinking? - Most people access drinking water only through the water well. Some water tank Burns Creek - For washing and swimming, most use the river. (Site 2) What do they think about it? - We think it is not good for us but there is no other alternative to get water. How do people get water to use for drinking? How do people get water to use for drinking? - Spring water - Some household access water from SIWA - Some have access to SIWA water - Few stand-pipes were also there piped by SIWA - They also access to a borehole water - Others collect water from the stream. Used it for source washing. - Few people purchase water from nearby - Use water from rain stored in the tank shops (mineral water). Only some can - Few people said that only if they had enough money afford this. they will buy water from shops used for drinking. Namoliki - Spring water was also used there. What do they think about it? - They said they are satisfied with those What do they think about it? water sources they already have. They used - The response was we don’t have many options of course the spring water for wash and bath. For bottles of water are sold in the shops but that depends drinking water, they mainly use borehole. on the availability of cash flow. They don’t trust SIWA water, it can cause - They suggest that SIWA should just improve the stream diarrhoea. The borehole is constructed by - During the rainy season, flooding occurs to the stream, it city council 40 years ago and it is safe and can be contaminated. cheap. Page 121 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 - They suggest the SIWA should just improve - Sometimes the SIWA water source can be overcrowded the stream. and at times it is hard to get water when SIWA supply is - During flooding, it can be contaminated cut off. - The water source(borehole) can be - They also knew the risk related to water collected from overcrowded(water is daily used) the stream, one even mentioned that diarrhoea is very - An elder suggests that SIWA should put common here maybe it’s from water from the well, he tanks at the hilltop to provide water to all said. households. The water is supplied from the - SIWA supply is too expensive and can’t afford to pay the borehole. This will prevent them from bills. buying expensive water bills from SIWA. - Others comment that their drinking water is not safe at times. - Well water - Tank water(rain) - Sea water - Mataniko water - SIWA water. How do people get water to use for drinking? - One woman explain that all household - They access to water from the well, rain, sea, Matanikio used SIWA water and rainwater for river and SIWA. drinking, - The flow of the water is not good - They used the well water and Mataniko - Water taps are far distant from some households River for washing and swimming. - Overcrowded (some have to collect water at 9 pm to 12 Sometimes they also drink from well water. midnight when the tap is free) Seawater is used for swimming, - They contribute at $20 per households, others don’t - Seafront (beach) they used for toilet contribute. This is not fair. - One community leader explained, here few - It can cause augments between community members. households shared to pay for one pipe - They complain about high bills they used to charge them connection then they had to contribute on without even explaining how they calculate the charges. a monthly basis to meet water bills. (SIWA) Renlau How do people get water to use for drinking? What do they think about it? - They mainly get drinking water from SIWA and rainwater So far they are happy that they have proper drinking water which was funded by Honiara What do they think about it? city council (six standpipes) (SIWA). However, listed are some of their concerns. - They said that rainwater is good because it is cheap, fresh and thus not have the chlorine smell in it. - The flow of the water is not good - Others comment that even if it has the chlorine smell on - Water taps are far distant from some it, this is much safer for them to drink households - They want more standpipes to be constructed because - Overcrowded (some have to collect water they are now becoming overpopulated. at 9 pm to 12 midnight when the tap is free) - They contribute at $20 per households, others don’t contribute. This is not fair. - It can cause augments between community members. - They complain about high bills they used to charge them without even explaining how they calculate the charges. Page 122 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 W H A T D O Y O U T H I N K A B O U T SIWA C O N N E C T I O N S T O T H E I N D I V I D U A L H O U S E H O L D ? (W H A T D I F F I C U L T I E S W O U L D T H E R E F O R SIWA I F W A N T E D T O P U T P I P E S T H R O U G H T H E C O M M U N I T Y ? W H A T A B O U T T H E O T H E R C O M M U N I T I E S ? H O W C O U L D T H E S E P R O B L E M S B E S O L V E D ?) Settlement Men Women Connecting water to our houses is what we are longing for we’ve tried many times even seeking parliamentarians for financial They thought water connection is from Solomon Water is a assistance, but nothing happens, so yes it is good idea but they’re afraid of the charge that will be a great idea and reduces of the life stresses allocated for them. here. What difficulties would there be for SIWA if What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put wanted to put pipes through the pipes through the community? community? Land dispute (people might not be allowed the water pipes to The vulnerability of the area is the concern pass their area. because due to river flooding and waterlogs. Some people will not agree and some might agree about the arrangement. Water is life so I think connecting pipes through community would not be a problem, said Burns Creek chief (Peter) only fear I’ve got in mind is (Riverside) illegal connecting pipes. The land is not an issue here because needs water. What about in other communities? What about in other communities? They not really sure about other communities but the main problem that a lot of people will face is the land dispute. The reply to this is, Burns Creek community has similar issues but water would be their How could these problems be solved? priority to address or solve. The community should be meet together and come up with How could these problems be solved? one agreement, and let the whole community aware of the issue before carrying out the activity. To solve the issue of waterlogging and river flooding drains for pipe connections must They thought if Solomon water put water pipe to the be well constructed to withstand those community there should be a water tap for each block. types of situations. Thus, for the better community then consultation with. Almost all the participant want SIWA connection to individual So far so well said by the community chief and households. he also adds on by saying that Solomon Water and other responsible authorities should work together solve water issue in Honiara. To have water connected to your home/house is what we want the most currently almost every household have already connected Fulisango (Mad their homes with water with the help or What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put Land) assistance for Solomon Water. pipes through the community? Most participants complained about unreliable The water pipe already been in the community and only a few and very expensive services provided by households don’t have it. The main problem is the Solomon Water and they think water financial problem. should be cheap to all residents of Honiara city as well as for the whole nation. There is no other problem but some woman complained about how some household connects their water pipe. What difficulties would there be for SIWA if They said the Solomon water should connect the new wanted to put pipes through the pipes from the main connection not connected from the community? middle because it causes low water pressure in some houses. Page 123 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Piping access is an issue because it has to run Also, some people paid for high cost and those who through different area or land before connected from others paid at lower cost. reaching your area/households. What about in other communities? Financial difficulties are the main problem They aren’t really sure about other communities. because some families can afford and some are don’t. How could these problems be solved? About 3xpersons have mentioned that a good Solomon water should connect all the water pipes from the consultation with landowners or area main connection. owners is needed to be done first. Some people not really sure about the charge of water What about in other communities? therefore, Solomon water should have awareness talk so that they informed the people in the community about Have no clue or how they had connected their the water bill and the other charges. water. Because of the higher bill but they don’t know how they How could these problems be solved? calculating the charges they used cash water meter. Solomon Water should improve their existing piping system because some households have connected their pipe without consultation or permission from Solomon Water. Solomon Water should at least reduce the rate of water bill per month Introduce more Cash Water than Meter Water. What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put pipes through the community? I want a SHARED SIWA connection between houses we can work together to pay the bill for water. There is an existing connection to the settlement SIWA help do the connection but the pipes belong to the community. The pipes were funded by MP for East Honiara after we have water problem for so long so he helps provide the pipes for the water connection now currently used. I think water is for the good of family and community to benefit no one will spoil so we will work together to help protect it. And we do not want anyone else to take from out connection because it will reduce water pressure to the settlement. If SIWA set up water connections individual houses we would be very happy. In this settlement, I think it is safe now for SIWA to make water connections because we are working together for Ohiola individual connections to households. What about in other communities? Other communities April Valley and Lau valley also need water they will help to protect the water connections. It is for the benefit of all the community so I think no one will damage the facilities. If anyone damages the pipe he must be punished. There is no existing connection to those settlements and communities. How could these problems be solved? Community help collect to pay the pipes once a member of the community destroys it Someone who destroys the pipe or causes the problem must be punished or move away from the community People will work together to allow SIWA connections to individual houses Protect other SIWA facilities What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put What difficulties would there be for SIWA if pipes through the community? Burns Creek wanted to put pipes through the One woman mentioned that it would be easy and hard at the (Site 2) community? same time. Easy in the sense that the water would be accessible for them to use at their disposal but also hard Page 124 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 because of the paper works needed and not forgetting I want a SHARED SIWA connection between will be expensive to pay for the connection and the user houses we can work together to pay the bill fee. It is seen likely to be so, but overall, they don’t know for water. and never tried it out all because there is no one from Before the young people are too crazy so they the community or the authority to go ahead in setting up will destroy the water, but now the people the idea for implementation. No leadership role carried are behaving and we are in need of water out (personally; responsible authority need to consult and suffering so we can’t spoil it. with the chiefs, church leaders or elders in the role and option there is to help the community in development I think water is for the good of family and access). Even the Minister of the Parliament (MP) does community to benefit no one will spoil so not see fit to help out in any way we will work together to help protect it. If SIWA set up water connections we would be very happy. In the settlement settings like that of Burnscreek where most of the dwellers are ill-literate, they tend to hesitate in In this settlement, I think it is safe now for SIWA thinking of going into such development of connection to make water connections because we are because they (the women’s) wouldn’t know what the in great need of water and work together. authority(s) will be asking for when questioned. No What about in other communities? knowledge of when it comes to meter reading, registration or questioning. Other communities also need water they will help to protect the water connections. What about in other communities? It is for the benefit of all the community so I What about the other community like that of Sand valley? Do think no one will damage the facilities. they have the same problems or difficulties in gathering drinking water? They replied; ‘they wouldn’t know if How could these problems be solved? SIWA have done piping to each house’. But would have Community help collect to pay the pipes once a faced the same problem like those in burns creek. Many member of the community destroys it women at burns creek area do not have some form of work and live off their daily lives through subsistence Someone who destroys the pipe or causes the farming only. problem must pay for or we will arrange for police to arrest him. How could these problems be solved? People will work together to allow SIWA A woman raised up the idea of shared connection between connections to pass through their areas to household which directed the discussion to Question 3 reach most parts of the settlements. on water. This idea is 100 per cent supported by all community members. They question us All agree that SIWA should connect water to individual about the charges SIWA will put if this is houses. It is what they are longing for. The question going to happen. about the bill. Will, it not too expensive? What difficulties would there be for SIWA if What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put wanted to put pipes through the pipes through the community? community? Settlers who live there have no right ownership of the land so They suggest that SIWA will not help out. They pipes can’t go pass others boundary. just go for the spring water and borehole. Flooding is also an issue. An elder said that if the pipe is to be connected Geographical location of that area. Needs more pressure to through their community, it should be be able to supply water to all household since most Namoliki along the access road. He explains that this houses are built up the hills. will not be a problem since water is life. Drunkards will damage the taps or pipes. What about in other communities? Others said that it will be too expensive for SIWA to connect Water pressure is the main issue for those the pipes. communities who are living up the hills. What about in other communities? Others said that if the other communities live as we live then they should also experience The reply to this is if other communities are living in the same the same as we did. geographical location as we, they will also face the same difficulties. However, they said water would be their One main problem that they will face land priority to address. disputes. How could these problems be solved? How could these problems be solved? Page 125 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 The community should be meet together and They suggest tanks should be provided uphill so that it will come up with one agreement, and let the able to supply to all households who collect water from whole community awareness of the issue the spring or SIWA. before carrying out the activity. One woman recommend that it will be better if pipes are An elder suggests that SIWA should put tanks at connected to all households the hilltop to provide water to all Chiefs and elders to of the community to give heavy penalties households. The water is supplied from the with those who cause the damage. borehole. This will prevent them from buying expensive water bills from SIWA One woman strongly suggests that if he/she purchases her own pipe, she does not allow anyone else to connect to the pipe for his or her household since it cost her to connect the pipes. They all agree that connecting pipes is the best idea. However, they have some concerns that SIWA should consider. They are listed below, Connecting SIWA connection to all houses is the best option Water and other responsible authorities should they all prefer. work together to solve the water issue in their community. They think that SIWA might afraid that the owners will not pay the bills if pipes are constructed. Pipes should be piped to houses that only owned by landlords. SIWA should also understand than Renlau is a customary land said by one old woman. They ask about how the bills will cost them if this is so. They said that it will be too expensive for them. Sometimes they said that the service can be What difficulties would there be for SIWA if wanted to put unreliable. pipes through the community? What difficulties would there be for SIWA if The problem with finance Renlau wanted to put pipes through the community? Houses are closed together, pipes cannot pass through The land issue is a common obstacle in Careless attitude of drunkards connecting pipes through our community. This needs proper consultation. They said that the only access for SIWA connection to reach them is to go through The expensive charge that SIWA used to do without the WORKS area. explaining to customers how the charges are calculated. Difficulties in where the pipes will run through since the houses are not distant from each What about in other communities? other. They are not really familiar with other communities. Others comment that proper consultation should take place before the actual job is How could these problems be solved? carried out. Some people not really sure about the charge of water What about in other communities? therefore, Solomon water should have awareness talk so that they informed the people in the community about It depends entirely on their geographical the water bill and the other charges. location. Because of the higher bill but they don’t know how they How could these problems be solved? calculating the charges they used cash water meter. Proper consultation as to who is the right ownership where the pipe is to be connected. Mutual understanding should be done between SIWA and landowners. Page 126 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Houses, when built, should be planned properly so that it will easy for the pipes to go through. Cash water is most preferred. DISCUSSION ON OTHER WAYS WATER AUTHORITIES USE TO GIVE ACCESS TO WATER FOR PEOPLE IN SETTLEMENTS. This section aimed to discuss four alternatives to water access provision: (1) water kiosks, (2) automated taps / water ATMs, (3) private household connection and (4) shared household connection. Community members where asked if they thought these alternatives (i) were a good thing, if they saw any (ii) problems with such alternatives, and (iii) how to make these alternatives work. In the case of water kiosks, and additional discussion point was put forward to community participants: who do you think should run the water kiosk? SIWA? or someone from the community? A business operator? When feasible, a simple voting process was used to measure preference of community participants over the four discussed alternatives. When available, results of the voting have been provided as percentages. Settlement Men Women Water Kiosk (voting results: 10% preference) Is this alternative good thing? Water Kiosk Water Store is a great idea most like this some even mentioned that it’s a good business idea for Is this alternative good thing? an individual to run. They thought there will be no good thing about water kiosk They also said that the Water Store can be seen as for their community a way to create income. Problems with such alternative? Nature often the area is a threat if this can be Problems with such alternative? implemented. Attitude problem. People will not respect whoever owns Attitude problems, no respect the water store. Wantok system will be the downfall of this. How to make this alternative work? This can be work if they run someone in the How to make this alternative work? community as its own. These can’t work in their small community they said. They also said to avoid break-in or robbing it, it Burns Creek needs to safeguarded which then it create jobs for (Riverside) community dwellers. Who should run the water kiosk? No response Who should run the water kiosk? No response Automated taps / water ATMs (voting results: 3% Automated taps / water ATMs preference) Is this alternative good thing? Is this alternative good thing? No response For us, in the community or settlement levels Water ATM is not really suits but maybe it fits for other community with a good background. The Problems with such alternative? reason not everyone here can make a dollar a day. These are the same as the water store they said it won’t work in their community because of an attitude problem. Problems with such alternative? It is easy for criminals are known as beluga to spoil it. A most common problem here is stealing due to the diversity of people live here it quite hard to control or manage so for those kinds of facilities to How to make this alternative work? be installed here is risk associated to this is high, No response this was said by the chief. Page 127 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 How to make this alternative work? The only way these facilities can work here is to build a well secure house. Community awareness is also needed before any further development into this kinds facilities, someone has mentioned that level understanding is very low which is good if government or NGOs to aware about before going into such activities basic training should be provided. Private household connection (voting results: 71% preference) Is this alternative good thing? Almost everyone goes for private tap, they said that this is the only solution because it allows each household to look after and easy to manage. They said that water bills can be low because each house can control how they had used it. Problems with such alternative? Private household connection The problem that may relate to this is paying off monthly water bills because here not every one of No discussion us gets permanent jobs. Natural disaster also a problem to consider because of our location. How to make this alternative work? Conduct proper consultation with landowners that water pipe connections run through their homes/areas this avoids any disagreements or hiccup. They said that water is our main issue here so we don’t see any big problem might affect this, only proper consultation is needed. Shared household connection (voting results: 16% preference) Is this alternative good thing? The idea of sharing water amongst several households is a good idea because they will take up full responsibility for whatever requirements it requires, for instance, water bills, repair of any damages and etc. Problems with such alternative? An argument between users/household members Shared household connection this is common everywhere that sometimes people turn blind eye to perform their responsibilities, No discussion especially when sharing responsibilities amongst themselves. How to make this alternative work? It is best for shared water is amongst close relatives or family members. one person from the group suggested that to avoid any disagreement between community members then, the facility (shared water) should be run and look after by one person and he/she will take full responsibility for collecting water fees, security purposes and also to do the repair. Fulisango (Mad Water Kiosk (voting results: 17% preference) Water Kiosk Land) Page 128 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Is this alternative a good thing? Is this alternative a good thing? The idea of Water Store is a good idea given that They thought it is a business where people could earn water access is limited most of the participants in money from. favour of this idea. It will help those who have no water access. People can go and buy water at any time when is People would pay at a certain amount they want to spend. needed. Reduce frustration when water is cut-off. Few participants have said that this idea can bring job opportunities to our community Problems with such alternative? Problems with such alternative? If the shop closed especially on Sunday, and in the night The security of it is an issue; the chief highlighted people want water they won’t get the water. that community itself but faces issues related to stealing and drunken youths, men and public. Management also an issue if the price is high compared to bottled water sold in the shops How to make this alternative work? nowadays. They don’t want Solomon water staffs to run the water store, it should be a local from the settlement but it must How to make this alternative work? have a license from the city council like the other shops To install or construct water store inside the and have an agreement with the Solomon water. community first thing to identify who will run or own the store or it is own by Solomon Water or Who should run the water kiosk? No response private entrepreneur, this can allow the public to know. Who should run the water kiosk? No response Automated taps / water ATMs (voting results: 17% preference) Is this alternative a good thing? Automated taps / water ATMs Water ATM good because one can access it at any time Is this alternative good thing? Automate tap is good people will get whatever amount of Problems with such alternative? water that fits their pocket The security concern is the most common in whatever community around Honiara highlighted Problems with such alternative? by the chief. How people will respect the machine is the other problem. Land/Space to install such facilities is another Also for big families, it will not adequate to give them all. issue. Public response to those of facilities is another issue. How to make this alternative work? No response How to make this alternative work? This only works if it is run or owns by a private businessman or if Solomon Water then they should considering employ someone to take care of it. Private household connection (voting results: 50% preference) Is this alternative good thing? Private tap is the best solution because it manages by individuals or each household. They said living in a community like is not easy so Private household connection therefore they prefer private taps. No responses Problems with such alternative? Financial difficulties are the core problem, some families can afford while others can’t. How to make this alternative work? If this kind of project is funded by the government or NGOs then it would be best because an individual can apply for themselves. Page 129 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Shared household connection (voting results: 17% preference) Is this alternative good thing? They thought that shared water is good and at the same time it has its disadvantages. Problems with such alternative? People are not taking responsibilities seriously while others do. Arguments and dispute can happen amongst Shared household connection families. Anyone can access to collect water when no one is No discussion around. How to make this alternative work? The agreement should be a sign between landlords and tenants. Everyone should take ownership rather than a few or one household. Consultation with community dwellers is needed and further information on water management should be provided this was recommended by the chief of the community. Water Kiosk (voting results: 0% preference) This way will not work well in the settlements. What we want is for SIWA to put a big tank here to supply water to the settlements or households. Water kiosk will not work well in the settlement since there is an existing SIWA connection Hard work carrying water every day Most people are not earning to buy water every day Automated taps / water ATMs (voting results: 0% preference) This way was not good for the settlements. People do not get used to the machine and it was a new technology will take long for people to know how to use and adapt to it. Even ATM first time to be seen in the Solomon Islands. Will this work in the Solomon Islands? And how reliable will it be? Ohiola Can be good for other parts of the world not for the Solomon Islands at the moment. Private household connection (voting results: 86% preference) Is this alternative good thing? Private SIWA household connection is best for the people of Ohuioala settlement as preferred by the majority. There is privacy and you can control water and pay for your water bill. If you use the water wisely your bill will be less, but if you mismanage your water you will meet the high water bill. Shared household connection (voting results: 14% preference) No discussion Water Kiosk Is this alternative good thing? No response Water Kiosk Burns Creek Problems with such alternative? voting results: 2% preference (Site 2) This way will not work well in the settlements. Previous when SIWA brings water to the front No discussion settlement they youths destroy it because those at the front use water it will not reach the settlements at the end. Page 130 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 What we want is for SIWA to put a big tank here to supply water to the settlements. And then we pay the bill to SIWA. Water kiosk will not work well in the settlement because they can go and buy $5 bottle of water in Chinese shops which can cheap for them. Hard work carrying water containers every day over a long distance. How to make this alternative work? No response Who should run the water kiosk? No response Automated taps / water ATMs Is this alternative good thing? No response Problems with such alternative? Automated taps / water ATMs This way was not good for the settlements. People voting results: 8% preference do not get used to the machine and it was a new technology will take long for people to know how No discussion to use and adapt to it. Even ATM machine which is much heavier people removed it; this could be easily done with this water ATM How to make this alternative work? No response Private household connection Is this alternative good thing? Private SIWA household connection is best for the Private household connection people of Burns Creek settlement. voting results: 44% preference There is privacy and you can control water and pay for your water bill. No discussion If you use the water wisely your bill will be less, but if you mismanage your water you will meet the high water bill. Shared household connection voting results: 46% preference Shared household connection No discussion No discussion Water Kiosk Water Kiosk Is this alternative good thing? Is this alternative good thing? Young men prefer water store is best since in Water Store is a great idea most like this some even communities not all people have access to ATM mentioned that it’s a good business idea for an individual cards. to run. They proposed that the water store should be run They agree with it but it must be at a cheap rate by SIWA employers to avoid conflict among Accessibility to kids themselves or wantok business during cash They also said that the Water Store can be seen as a way to Namoliki shortage. create income. Others said that this is a business opportunity and It will help us to use water wisely since it cost them money. anyone to run this should have a business license and privately owned. Problems with such alternative? Nature of the area is a threat if this can be implemented. Problems with such alternative? It will only work if cash flow there is effective and Attitude problem. People will not respect whoever cooperation among community members is well implied. owns the water store. Water is life and if they have Attitude problems, no respect no money, they will have to steal from the water Wantok system will be the downfall of this. shop. Page 131 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 It can bring conflicts between customers and the How to make this alternative work? shop owner. This can be work if they run someone in the community as it’s owned. How to make this alternative work? They also said to avoid break-in or robbing it, it needs to These can’t work in their small community they safeguarded which then it create jobs for community said. dwellers. Water should be sold at a cheaper price. The owner of the water store should always be loyal to customers Who should run the water kiosk? No response Community leaders should do awareness on how to safeguard the water store. Who should run the water kiosk? No response Automated taps / water ATMs Is this alternative good thing? Automated taps / water ATMs For us, in the community or settlement levels Water ATM is not really suits but maybe it fits for other community Is this alternative good thing? with a good background. The reason not everyone here can Chief says that swipe card is best so that each can make a dollar a day. only purchase enough to sustain them. It also helps Easy for kids to use to maintain freshness other than those ones stored Cost wise. Just take enough to use at the shops. Problems with such alternative? A most common problem here is stealing due to the diversity of people live here it quite hard to control or Problems with such alternative? manage so for those kinds of facilities to be installed here It is not safe unless it is guided properly. Drunkards is risk associated to this is high, this was said by the chief. and stealers can destroy this when they are not It might be too expensive for them happy with something else. It can be damaged by drunkards Most questioned about how to register the ATM Most of them have no idea in this system and they did not card. bank at any bank. They prefer water store. How to make this alternative work? The only way these facilities can work here is to build a well secure house. How to make this alternative work? Community awareness is also needed before any further No response development into this kinds facilities, someone has mentioned that level understanding is very low which is good if government or NGOs to aware about before going into such activities basic training should be provided. Private household connection Is this alternative good thing? Almost everyone goes for private tap, they said that this is the only solution because it allows each household to look after and easy to manage. Not overcrowded They said that water bills can be low because each house can control how they had used it. The owner is fully responsible for any damage without any Private household connection compliance. No discussion Problems with such alternative? The problem that may relate to this is paying off monthly water bills because here not every one of us gets permanent jobs. Some say that this will too expensive for them. They just prefer the stream water. Natural disaster also a problem to consider because of our location. How to make this alternative work? Page 132 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Rules and regulation in the community must be strongly implemented. Some suggest that leader in the communities should be the leading hands to work forward. It can work well if all household has one mindset. Shared household connection Is this alternative good thing? Shared water has the advantage in terms of maintenance, water bills and etc. community members has the full responsibility to account for any issue arise concerning what may become a problem to their water. It establishes friendship among community members who use shared pipes. It teaches community members to be responsible for what Shared household connection the community owns. No discussion Problems with such alternative? The concern raised by most women saying that they did not agree with shared water. It can cause arguments among themselves when it comes to usage, bills payments, maintenance and etc. How to make this alternative work? Each family should have their own SIWA connection so that he/she took full responsibility for whatever occurs. Water Kiosk Water Kiosk They all agree with the idea of running a water store because they said that it cost less. Is this alternative good thing? Generate income in the community setting Is this alternative good thing? Cheaper for peoples that they don’t have enough money to Its family can concern for its own use. meet the Solomon water bills. Some like water store because users will be Accessibility for kids to use. cautious about that water since water is life and it Less time spent when using of it. cost them money. It will useful for them when disaster strikes It only good when sold cheaper compared to cash water. It provides employment for the unemployed. Problems with such alternative? When water is cut off, you can just go to the shops. This important service should be provided for 24 hours and It also avoids an argument between community 7 days a week all throughout the years. (Water is life). If members. shop is closed. It will affect he customers. Problems with such alternative? Renlau Some suggest that if it owns by the community it will cause arguments. If it is owned by any individual proper manages and avoid Nature of the area is a threat if this can be implemented. It will only work if cash flow there is effective and cooperation among community members is well implied. Attitude problems, no respect Wantok system will be the downfall of this. Robbery will be an issue. How to make this alternative work? How to make this alternative work? If anyone has to run this service, they must be always Community to have good leaders to shared idea reliable. amongst them so that it works. Water should be sold at a cheaper rate Avoid the wantok system It should be privately owned and has a business license Tired security Security to safeguard the shops. Page 133 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Proper consultation should be done as of who should run the business. (SIWA, private or community owned) Elders should teach the community to be responsible and have respect for others. Heavy penalties should give to those who break or Who should run the water kiosk? don’t follow the rules. Automate tap is good people will get whatever amount of water that fits their pocket but how people will respect the Who should run the water kiosk? No response machine is the other problem. Also for big families, it will not adequate to give them all. Automated taps / water ATMs Is this alternative good thing? Automated taps / water ATMs Some agree of it because of it easy to manage by each family. Is this alternative good thing? Easy for kids to use Automate tap is good people will get whatever amount of Anyone can access water at any time they wish. water that fits their pocket but Water is fully utilized since it cost them money. Educate us to use water wisely. Problems with such alternative? Not all community members can cater to have Problems with such alternative? ATM cards. how people will respect the machine is the other problem. They also say that most community members are Also for big families, it will not adequate to give them all. not educated so they question us how this will work. When explained they say that it needs proper training. If this has to be installed, it needs careful management (security). Attitude is also an issue. It will cost SIWA to install such facilities If ATM card is lost they will become stranded. How to make this alternative work? No response How to make this alternative work? Generally, they said that this will not best for them. Private household connection Is this alternative good thing? Private tap is the best solution because it manages by individuals or each household. It will not be overcrowded. It will avoid arguments since it is privately owned. It will cost them less It is easy to clean up the mess. Each household is satisfied with what bills they charge them for. Private household connection Problems with such alternative? No discussion If a fault occurs, it will cost them to repair the damage. The main problem is with finance incurred to install such facilities. Cliticization can occur if the owner put a restriction of not allowing anyone to use his/her tap. How to make this alternative work? SIWA must provide each household with a private tap. Shared household connection Shared household connection Page 134 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Is this alternative good thing? No discussion Cost less (water bills) It provides friendship between households. Shared connection tap will enable each household with full responsibility. (this is not always the case) SIWA connection shared is easy to delegating of work done between households. Problems with such alternative? Full responsibility for delegating work sometimes is not done accurately. Feeling unreliable is the most problems with the shared connection of water. Anyone can access to collect water when no one is around. Water bills are the main issue. Overcrowded and time-consuming are the big problems with the households. Families always face arguments between themselves How to make this alternative work? The agreement should be a sign between landlords and tenants. They should all agree with one idea. Everyone should take ownership rather than a few or one household. Consultation with community dwellers is needed and further information on water management should be provided this was recommended by an elder of the community. Sanitation WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TOILETS THAT USE WATER COMPARED TO TOILETS THAT DON’T USE W A T E R ? (What is good about the water use-based toilets? What is good about the dry toilets? What about the VIP toilets?) Settlement Men Women 2x participants within the discussion group said here we don’t use those facilities but generally A toilet that uses water is better compared to toilets that don’t we think that toilets that use water is better than use water. ones that don’t use water What is good about the water use-based toilets? What is good about the water use-based toilets? Clean and better smell Clean Burns Creek Comfortable when using Not smelly (Riverside) What is good about the dry toilets? What is good about the dry toilets? Less expensive They thought that there is no good thing about dry toilets Require less cleaning up because it is smelly where you can smell it from far a distance. What about the VIP toilets? What about the VIP toilets? Good settings with less expense and reduce the Less smell with no water bill bad smell in the environment Use a water toilet is expensive, unlike toilets that Most of them prefer water based toilet. don’t water. What is good about the water use-based toilets? Fulisango What is good about the water use-based toilets? The water-based toilet is clean. (Mad Land) Clean and hygiene, comfortable when used. Not Smell No smell It is not yucky to use Clean environment with fresh air What is good about the dry toilets? Page 135 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 What is good about the dry toilets? No water bill but it not good for urban areas because it is Less expensive to construct smelly No water bills What about the VIP toilets? What about the VIP toilets? They said that it's cheap to build but it requires They don’t really understand this type of toilet but by listening good management. to the explanation they said no water charges, Some said the smell will pollute the air. Not smelly What is good about the water use-based toilets? Good to use water-based toilets because it is clean and free from flies. Privacy in the use of the toilet. Household responsible for cleaning the family toilet Less smell than dry pit toilets Hygienic and safe for kids What is good about the dry toilets? Cheap to create Can create with local materials Ohiola No expense to pay for water Disadvantages: Attracts flies Bad unhealthy smell The danger for kids and animals The dry pit is not good. What about the VIP toilets? They have no Idea about VIP toilets. They have never seen one before. New thing for them. Don’t even know how it works. What is good about the water use-based toilets? Good to use water-based toilets because it is clean and free from flies. Privacy in the use of the toilet. The current sanitation used is the one over the creek. They Household responsible for cleaning the family simply build a bridge like platform over the creek which leads toilet to the small room. Easy to remove waste when septic is full just hire One women said that, ‘it really depend on whether they live trucks to pump the waste out. near the river or live inland whereby, those living inland use Safer than dry pit from animals like chickens, and properly built sanitation house than those using the sanitation dogs etc… over the creek. Less smell than dry pit toilets What is good about the water use-based toilets? Burns Creek What is good about the dry toilets? They mainly prefer the toilets using water flush or pour flash (Site 2) Cheap to create but one of the women added by saying that, ‘their means of Can create with local materials income does not carter to purchase the needy materials to No expense to pay for water build a preferable toilet, but rather she added by saying that it Disadvantages: is rather easier to build a simpler sanitations system. Attracts flies What is good about the dry toilets? Bad unhealthy smell As above The danger for kids and animals What about the VIP toilets? The dry pit is not good. No response What about the VIP toilets? They have no Idea about VIP toilets. They have never seen one before. A toilet that used water is better compared to They prefer water-based toilets to avoid the filthy smell. Water toilets that don’t use water. can dissolve the waste unlike non water based according to What is good about the water use-based toilets? their geographical location. Their houses are closed together. Clean Population growth is also a major concern. Not smelly What is good about the water use-based toilets? Water based can be harmful, at times it can cause It is clean, safe and smells at least better than dry toilets the linkage to water streams and affects kids It feels Comfortable when using Namoliki playing around the streams. It avoids diarriaoh all over the place What is good about the dry toilets? They thought that there is no good thing about What is good about the dry toilets? dry toilets because it is smelly where you can Less expensive smell it from far a distance. Require less cleaning up They did not agree with dry toilets even if it is less expensive and not too much labour required. What about the VIP toilets? What about the VIP toilets? Page 136 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Less smell with no water bill Good settings with less expense and reduce the bad smell in the environment All prefer water-based toilet. The problem is you can’t dig septic because the Compared to the two toilets they all agree for the water based water table is just about 3 feet below ground one. level. Therefore they are eager to understand They said that the water base is more comfortable than the dry how dry toilets work. They are really interested in toilet. this type of toilet. One participant suggested that Why some people prefer water base toilet is because the big tanks should be used instead of rubbish bins standard of living is the most contributing factors in our areas. What is good about the water -based toilets? So that people always go for it. They prefer water base toilets. Because of the What is good about the water -based toilets? following reasons, Easy to clean it up the mess It is clean, safe and smells at least better than dry Smell at least good, compared to the dry toilet. toilets Provides hygiene for the communities surrounding. It feels Comfortable when using It avoids diarriaoh all over the place Renlau It is good for the environment What is good about the dry toilets? What is good about the dry toilets? They said it is very cheap for the Grasse root peoples. Less expensive to construct No water bills costs. No water bills Cheap materials used. Use water toilet is expensive, unlike toilets that don’t use water. They like the dry toilets but more training should What about the VIP toilets? be done to give them broad ideas on how the They agree with it but due to limited space, and careless system works attitude, they conclude that this is not the best option for They said that dried toilets are best for their them. location. Others did not understand what VIP toilets are. What about the VIP toilets? The water level is just about 3 feet above ground level so it will In accordance with their location. They did not be difficult to construct the septic. agree with the VIP toilets. SHARING TOILETS WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SHARING TOILETS WITH SOME OTHER HOUSES NEAR TO YOURS? Settlement Men Women There are many factors concerning shared toilets The ladies thought that it is not a good idea to share a they said; cultural norms, misunderstanding Burns Creek toilet. This is because they thought only the owner of the between shared members, ownership concerns. (Riverside) toilet will do everything like the washing of the toilet; the Careless attitude by other users may result in people will just use and live their waste there and go. disputes. Nobody wants shared toilets. They said community like Almost every household already have private toilets them sharing toilet is not good because some people will so for sharing toilet is not what they are looking for. have no care attitude where they will leave their waste Fulisango They said sharing toilets have many disadvantages and go. (Mad Land) especially in the community like this where very Only the person who owns the toilet will do cleaning up diverse. and other stuff like water bills, and detergents and so forth. Toilets can be shared but it is not good like a private toilet. In case a woman is using the toilet and a man comes in might spark arguments and might end up in compensation Ohiola No one is responsible for cleaning the toilet Others are not free to use the shared toilet Easily spread diseases Toilets can be shared but it is not good like a private The women agreed that sharing toilets by other houses is toilet. In case a woman is using the toilet and a man time consuming in reference to waiting in line for long comes in might spark arguments and might end up hours or so. In an instance, if there were 5 houses sharing Burns Creek in compensation the same toilets for male and female respectively and (Site 2) No one is responsible for cleaning the toilet there are more than 5 family members living in the house, Others are not free to use the shared toilet there will be problems faced if there is a long queue Easily spread diseases awaits theirs turn of use. Therefore, they (the women) Page 137 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 said it would rather be much easier and convenient if each house has its own private toilet system. The other issue is that, when it comes to cleaning the shared toilets only one or two house members would do all the cleaning all the time when some houses would ignore their duties if set. Not good also during when emergency purposes. They comment saying it is very dangerous (not good). One man comment that his wife is only responsible Men at times can peep through the windows. Namoliki to clean up the mess of his own family. It’s against Each household should have each toilet( looking at their norms to clean other relatives mess. household size, who to clean up the mess, cultural norms and beliefs, ownership concerns, conflict between family members) Nobody wants shared toilets. They said community like They did not experience shared toilets because all them sharing toilet is not good because some people will of their lifetime they use the seafront as their waste have no care attitude where they will leave their waste venue. and go. It is not good at sharing of toilets because it costs if Renlau Only the person who owns the toilet will do cleaning up others do not feel responsible to clean it and and other stuff like water bills, and detergents and so maintained it. forth They said that shared toilets are not good for them Meanwhile, they use the seafront to dispose of their by their own views. waste. WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC TOILETS THAT YOU PAY TO USE? COULD THESE WORK IF DESIGNED APPROPRIATELY, MAYBE SEPARATE MEN AND WOMEN’S BUILDINGS? WHO WOULD KEEP THESE C L E A N ?) Settlement Men Women In community settings like this public toilet is not a They thought in their community public toilet won’t good option. However, 1x participant explains work. that if it's going to build then someone has to employ to take care of it. Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe Burns Creek separate men and women’s buildings? separate men and women’s buildings? (Riverside) They though for the public like in the city it will work They said that it may work but their concern is how long it will be last. but for their community, almost everybody used the river, therefore, they don’t need it. Who would keep these clean? Who would keep these clean? One participant said it should give to one household so look after manage it as a business. No response They thought it is a good idea to have public toilets. To have a public in the community is a very idea but it needs someone to manage it either that It is a business for the community. person owns that toilet or employ under any NGOs who responsible for it. As a youth leader, he said that this is a good idea to create so youths can involve in. Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe separate men and women’s buildings? Fulisango (Mad Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe Land) separate men and women’s buildings? Yes, they said it should be designed separated men and female, so those women don’t listen to the men Definitely, it will work but it needs to be well and so as men. managed and look after. Privacy concern In community settings, those kinds of facilities should well set-up to avoid any Security purposes or safety for women. (Avoid men misunderstanding also considering factors peeping to a woman) involves women or girls involvement. Who would keep these clean? Page 138 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Who would keep these clean? They thought that men should keep their own and female kept their own toilets. (Cleaning the toilet) That kind of set-up should run by someone as a business so he/she can manage it. A public toilet like that can work but not reliable. This is because most of the people in these settlements are not employed and paying for using the toilet every day would be a problem for them. Ohiola Most will turn to use the bush or river as their toilet Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe separate men and women’s buildings? No response Who would keep these clean? No response in an area or settlement like that of burns creek it wouldn’t be applicable to run or establish a public toilet, because some of them men and women A public toilet like that can work but not reliable. have attitude problem. This is because most of the people in these This attitude problem may include; vandalism, loitering, settlements are not employed and paying for leaving faeces near the building especially when it using the toilet every day would be a problem is closed, not using it wisely because of the for them. thinking that the public toilet does not belongs to Most will turn to use the bush or river as their toilet them and so on. Chief Peter Usi said if there is access to water, he Overall, they see that setting up a public toilet at burns Burns Creek creek area isn’t going to work for them and would can build a cheap toilet that uses two drums. (Site 2) rather not think of going to that agenda. Said this was an Indian design and he had built one before and it worked. The design he gave is Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe handed to Regina. separate men and women’s buildings? No Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe response separate men and women’s buildings? No Who would keep these clean? response The other question asked by the women is, who is going Who would keep these clean? No response to look after the facilities by cleaning it and providing tissues? Is it going to be the Honiara City Council, the Solomon Islands Water Authority or a joint partnership by someone living in the area? They all did not agree with the public toilet. (Careless attitude, Low-income earners) However, one They did not agree with the idea of a private toilet to woman stressed out that it is only good to use pay even if the focus group leader tries to during special occasions like church activities. convince them. Someone has to be employed to take care of this. Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe separate men and women’s buildings? separate men and women’s buildings? Namoliki They though for the public like in the city it will work They all agree that if it is to be built, it has to be but for their community, almost everybody has separated, whilst, this will not last. their own toilet, some use shared toilet. Who would keep these clean? Who would keep these clean? They suggest that public toilet has to be owned by the No one they think off that’s why they did not agree community as their source of income. They have to with it. set up a committee to look after the toilet as their business. The caretaker should be employed for this. They said that this is a very good idea but it will not They thought it is a good idea to have public toilets. work for them. Most of them are low-income earners. Their daily earnings are just enough to It is a business for the community. buy food. They did not agree with the public toilet since some Renlau Attitude is also an issue. families have large numbers and can’t afford to pay them all for every day. Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe separate men and women’s buildings? Most did not agree with this. Page 139 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Yes they think so, it only needs to be carefully Could these work if designed appropriately, maybe managed separate men and women’s buildings? Yes, they said it should be designed separated men and female, so those women don’t listen to the men Who would keep these clean? and so as men. In such cases, it has to be managed by any private Privacy concern firm, not the community. If it is owned by the community, community leaders must have to Security purposes or safety for women. (Avoid men always teach community members on how to peeping to a woman) be responsible for such properties. Who would keep these clean? They thought that men should keep their own and female kept their own toilets. (Cleaning the toilet) W H A T D O Y O U T H I N K S H O U L D H A P P E N W I T H T H E W A S T E F R O M T H E T O I L E T S I N T H E S E T T L E M E N T ? (If taken away, who to do that and how?) Settlement Men Women Here we don’t have toilets so to manage waste is not our concern right now. There is only one woman who owns the toilet in the Some said if given a chance to have those facilities community said; when the septic is full the waste was Burns Creek then yes that question is necessary to us. taken away. (Riverside) If taken away, who to do that and how? If taken away, who to do that and how? Currently, Honiara City council do that but have to They paid the city council to come and empty the septic. pay for it. Few women who have proper toilets said the waste should be taken away. Most household here have a toilet so when it comes One woman said her husband build another septic tank with the waste they usually call Honiara City Council beside the old one so that when it full it will transfer to to do that. the other septic tank. So far waste in the community remains an issue but Fulisango If taken away, who to do that and how? others who use proper toilets they don’t have a (Mad Land) They pay the private and the city council trucks to come problem. and did the pumping of the septic tanks. If taken away, who to do that and how? A concerned woman asks and worried, she wants to Honiara city council and other private companies know if the wastes that were taken away Were thrown were paid to do that. at the right place or otherwise It just dumps anywhere which will affect our health. They did not really care about the waste from the toilets. This part they don’t freely discuss so we move on Ohiola If taken away, who to do that and how? If it is possible to waste disposal trucks can remove the waste if they want. They did not really care about the waste from the toilets. Questions 4, 5 & 6 (remaining question on sanitation and There are no other ideas on ways to do with waste, waste) where not discussed by the women’s group unlike chicken manure where you can reuse in Burns Creek because they would rather not think more on how and gardens as organic for plant growth. (Site 2) what would happen to the waste. They joked about it If taken away, who to do that and how? and said that if anybody wants it then they can come and If it is possible to waste disposal trucks can remove take it away for other use. the waste if they want. They just don’t care about where the waste goes out. There is only one man who owns the toilet in the This is due to poor road access. They said that SIWA community said; when the septic is full the waste should be responsible that since they are responsible for was taken away due to the accessibility of road. water. Others who lived up the hills just don’t care about Namoliki If taken away, who to do that and how? what happens to the waste in the toilets. Honiara city council should be responsible for this. If taken away, who to do that and how? One woman said that during heavy rain when septic is They paid the city council to come and empty the filled, she just use buckets to draw water from the septic septic. and splash it to the drains and run off to the streams. Page 140 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Few men who have proper toilets said the waste should be taken away by the Honiara city council or any relevant This is a good question but for our case, at the firm... moment we just dispose of them at the sea(out of One man build another septic tank beside the old one so sight out of mind) that when it full it will transfer to the other septic tank. Only one woman have septic and say that if it is full, One participant prefers that all waste from the different she use to call the town council team to get rid of toilets should pipe to the main sewage lines that were Renlau this waste. The question she asks is where did town established by SIWA long ago since septic tanks are hard council dispose of this waste? to construct in those areas because of sea level rise and If taken away, who to do that and how? high water table. Honiara city council and other private companies If taken away, who to do that and how? were paid to do that. They pay the private and the city council trucks to come and did the pumping of the septic tanks. A concern raised does the waste taken disposed of in the right place or they used it for other purposes. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT COMPOST TOILETS? Settlement Men Women Some heard about but never seen one. They don’t really understand this type of toilet. Burns Creek From the explanation made during the discussion They think it will useful for fertilizer if they really (Riverside) they just learn its usefulness and turn to like it understand how it works. because it is very cheap and fits their situation. The compost toilet is not fit for us here because most houses were built very close to each other. A teacher who also attends said compost good They don’t really familiar with this kind of toilet. Fulisango (Mad because it is cheap to build and plus one can use it They don’t think it can be done in their Land) manure for other purposes. community. It great they said but it does not really suit where we lived. Ohiola They have no idea about compost toilets and no discussion Burns Creek They have no idea about compost toilets and no They have no idea about compost toilets and no (Site 2) discussion discussion They don’t really understand this type of toilet. One elder agrees because it’s cheap to construct and Most women have no idea about compost toilet can be used as fertilizer, on the other hand, it is not and when explained to them they did not agree really good for the environment due to high with it. It will cost them to pay sawdust and truck population density and closeness of the houses. In hire. (expensive) Namoliki overall, it is not good by looking at their geographical They said that if the waste is to be used as location. compost for vegetables and sold at the market, They think it will useful for fertilizer if they really people will not buy them if they knew it was understand how it works. planted with waste compost. Majority of them don’t want to comment on this They totally not agree with this idea. question. They no agree with this. They don’t really familiar with this kind of toilet. They declared that compost toilet will no work well They agree with this type of toilet because it will for them because of their setting. Houses were built suit their location. (water table is close to ground closely together and limited space where they can do level and sea level rise experienced) gardening. They think that if they sold the compost All they need is good training and expert toilet, there will not any buyer for this because of engineers to construct it for them. Renlau cultural norms. One elder prefers to use the tank instead of using One person even highlight the importance of rubbish bin which will easily be filled if they are compost toilet but still, they did not agree with this, too many in the family. they said that what they have so far is good for them. They agree with the compost toilet. They said They said that this is good but it will not work well for that all they have to do is careful management. them. Each should have a concern for his/her own health. Page 141 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 H A S A N Y O N E A N Y E X P E R I E N C E / K N O W A B O U T S U P S U P B I O G A S T O I L E T S ? (What do you think about these? Do you think these could be the way to deal with the waste from toilets?) Settlement Men Women Never heard about it but it was interesting to learn No one knows or heard about the supsup biogas. about if awareness or training can be provided for this particular one of participant said. What do you think about these? What do you think about these? No response Sound interesting because it control waste and it can Burns Creek Do you think these could be the way to deal with be used again. (Riverside) the waste from toilets? Do you think these could be the way to deal with the They didn’t understand about the sup biogas but waste from toilets? they did mention if someone does some They agreed that it is, also they ask if possible that awareness or give them more information about training can be provided, they even said that they it and it could be work. want to learn about it. No response No, it sounds new to us. What do you think about these? One participant said that he might have seen the Really we don’t know how its system is Biogas system at Taiwanese Technical Farm functioning. What do you think about these? One lady even asks if possible Solomon Water can Really we can’t make any comment on this because it offer training on this. Fulisango (Mad is new to us. Do you think these could be the way to deal with Land) Do you think these could be the way to deal with the the waste from toilets? waste from toilets? No one has any idea about sup biogas but they Form the discussion some suggested that if free were interested to know about it. training on how to construct and its uses then it One lady said the sup biogas could be a good way would be must more interesting. to remove the waste and at the same time using the gas for the cook. They also have no ideas on sup-sup Biogas toilets. Ohiola Just new to them They also have no ideas on sup-sup Biogas toilets. What do you think about these? Burns Creek If it is possible that could be good to use biogas to Not familiar and no opinion (Site 2) make use of the waste from the toilets. But we have never seen one before so we can’t talk about. One woman has some idea about that. Others suggest that awareness and training should be implemented. They are surprised to know that Only one man heard about the supsup biogas. The the Boral gas is made from such waste. It sounds majority has no idea. are interesting to them. What do you think about these? What do you think about these? They said that this is a good idea but it sounds Interesting to know that that the gas that was difficult. All they need is proper training. used for cooking is extracted from waste. Namoliki Do you think these could be the way to deal with the However, this sounds difficult due to its waste from toilets? expensiveness to implement. They didn’t understand about the sup biogas but Do you think these could be the way to deal with they did mention if someone does some awareness the waste from toilets? or give them more information about it and it could They agreed that it is, also they ask if possible be work. that training can be provided, they even said that they won't learn about it. What do you think about these? Only one participant said that he has seen the Biogas Really we don’t know how its system is system at Taiwanese Technical Farm functioning. All of them are not familiar with this system. One man even ask if possible Solomon Water can What do you think about these? Renlau offer training on this. They had not much to say about this system because Do you think these could be the way to deal with of it sounds new to them. They need experts to the waste from toilets? clarify this with more training. They all think that this No one has any idea about sup biogas but they is a good idea. were interested to know about it. Page 142 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Do you think these could be the way to deal with the One man said the sup biogas could be a good way waste from toilets? to remove the waste and at the same time using Off course yes, they need experts (engineers) to help the gas for the cooking them out Page 143 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 9.5 O N -S I T E S A N I TA T I ON O P T I O N S SEPTIC SYSTEM Name of service SEPTIC SYSTEM delivery model (variations: Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR), Anaerobic Filter (AF), Aerobic treatment system (ATS)) Service Delivery Access (site of use) User interface Waste storage Transport Treatment & disposal Further transport, Chain (CAPTURE of waste) technology treatment or disposal Technology Access via • sitting or squatting Septic: • Optional transport Septic: • Sludge emptying and • public toilets; slab with pour • watertight chamber made of of effluent (e.g. • in chamber: Settling and safe disposal • shared private flush or cistern concrete, fibreglass, PVC or through simplified anaerobic processes (treatment) required household toilets; flush design – with plastic. With at least two sewer system) if reduce solids and every 2-5 years ABR: or a water seal. chambers (separated by a on site soak organics, but the 1-3 years) • individual • Ready supply of baffle). pit/leach field not treatment is only • Requires trucks or household toilets water (containers • Accessibility to all chambers feasible moderate (no treatment motorised carts to (inside house or for pour flush, or (through access ports) is of pathogens, unless de-sludge tanks outside) piped to cistern) necessary for maintenance. chlorine dosing before Also required: • should be vented for controlled discharge of effluent) • Superstructure • handwashing with release of odorous and • The effluent of the (housing) can be soap facility (need potentially harmful gases. septic tank must be built with local water access) Variation: Aquaprivy dispersed by using a materials • bins for menstrual • simple storage and settling tank Soak Pit or Leach Field hygiene that is located directly below the • Sludge needs to be Technical aspects • Drainage from management and toilet so that the excreta fall into emptied (removed for handwashing infant faeces it (low treatment efficiency). treatment) facility required management Variation: ABR: • Suited to 1 or small (e.g. garden bed) • is an improved with 3-6 baffles number houses, or for under which the wastewater is more toilets/public toilet forced to flow. – add chambers • Larger capacity – suited to multiple toilets (needs more ABR & AF: regular flow of waste) and can • Similar process to septic take greywater but more effective at Variation: AF reducing BOD (but • Similar ABR but with Biological similarly ineffective for filters (biofilm on gravel/rocks) pathogens) incorporated to multiple AF: chambers to improve treatment • Pathogens and nutrients • Requires pre-settlement tank not treated so effluent • Often combined with requires further subsequent Aerobic treatment treatment / careful system (requiring constant disposal pump aeration) Environmenta • physical Septic (ABR or AF) • safe sludge l and physical accessibility during • Soak Pit or Leach Field treatment/ disposal consideration night – prefer require significant land location required s location area – or ability to in/adjacent to transport offsite house for safety • On-site treatment & • need access to a disposal not suited to water supply shallow groundwater suitable for (especially if accessed handwashing and for human use nearby) cleaning and toilet • Need truck access (for flushing (not desludging) necessarily potable) Key • Need to be used with care by users: e.g. harsh chemicals entering tank will decrease treatment significantly (and create odours), Clogging is frequent when bulky cleansing operational materials are used tasks • Pour flush: Must use bucket/container of water to flush and maintain water seal • Promotion of sanitation use generally is required (see service providers – community mobilisation) • ABR: start-up time can be several months (unless inoculated) Key As for all sanitation: • Repairs to toilet • Accumulated sludge and scum Sludge need to be safely maintenance • Hygienic facilities interface (cracks must be periodically removed disposed (it is not fully tasks (at least daily etc) and functional (septic: 2-5 years; ABR: 1-3 treated – high pathogenic cleaning lid years) load) depending on level • check tank is water tight and of use, maybe repair cracks (typically not several times per regularly undertaken by day) consumer, leading to leakage of • Supplies: anal untreated effluent) cleansing materials • Check pipework associated into • handwashing tank and from tank through facility leach field or soak pit – clogs • bins must be removed, pipes • promotional repaired). materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housing maintenance) Page 145 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service As for VIPs: • Requires expert design and construction skills. Possibility for home-built with design assistance and plumbing • Sludge removal providers • Sanitation assistance. services required promotion is • Local manufacturers of septic tanks (plastic and concrete) (trucks and smaller required – city- • ABR, AF (with or without aerobic treatment system) requires expert maintenance motorised carts for Actors and their potential roles wide (or country- • All require regular desludging by a licenced service provider improved access) wide urban) • Possible Sol Water roles: technical training to NGOs, HCC or other actors engaging with settlements • Sludge treatment & communication disposal materials need to facilities/services be developed; can be implemented by HCC, NGOs and SW • Construction of superstructure (optional) Consumer • Public toilets: pay-per-use • Pay for maintenance inspections roles • Construction of superstructure (optional) • Manage soak pit / leach field • Arrange desludging O&M costs Minimal (mostly local Minimal costs to repair No Electricity (except if Aerobic Desludging of tanks Cost to operate materials can be used Cost of water to Treatment System added), but desludging services, and for super structure) operate several maintenance tasks – some Cost score: 3 treatment & disposal may require expert assistance (e.g. locations Cost score: 1 Cost score: 2 desludging) Cost score: 4 Cost score: 3 Costs Capital costs • Low (but variable) capital costs depending on • Plastic tanks cheaper, and easier to move and install than concrete, if access can be gained. Potential expansion of (relative materials for super structure Concrete requires ability to transport concrete rings for tank or construct onsite. sludge treatment indication) • Pour flush slabs and raisers available from HSS capabilities for purchase: $100 squat slab with water seal; Cost score: basic septic: 2.5 $500 raised seat with water seal Cost score: 4 Cost score: 1 Regulatory Same as for all • HCC: septic tanks regulated by HCC considerations sanitation • Superstructure: building regulations • Limitations on building on steep slopes Page 146 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Social considerations • Shared private septic (multiple households) tanks will require cooperation on operation and maintenance • more desirable than dry-based sanitation • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets FSM safety • Typically low due to ineffective treatment of pathogens by septic tanks, poor maintenance of tanks and unsafe FS disposal. (consumer perspective) Affordability • Capital and O&M costs potentially too high for many settlement consumers Service standards Accessibility • Can be good if close to, or inside house and not difficult physical terrain to access at night and by children and people with disability • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred, SDG • Probably only “basic” sanitation achieved (due to pathogenic load of effluent) Sanitation ladder position Health/wellbeing • Some health gains from reduction of immediate contact with human waste/pathogens. But possible spread of pathogens via effluent. considerations • Health - (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation required) • In-house facilities offer BEST wellbeing outcomes for all (e.g. privacy and safety for women) • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) • No mosquito breeding compared with dry sanitation Other • Requires water use (not suited to households carting water unless an alternative source is available at the house) • Significant investment by consumer so better suited to settlements planned for formalisation SEPTIC SYSTEM (TILLEY ET AL., 2014) Page 147 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 POUR FLUSH LATRINES Name of service POUR FLUSH LATRINES delivery model Service Delivery Chain Access (site of use) User interface (CAPTURE of Waste storage Treatment & disposal Further transport, treatment waste) technology or disposal Technology Access via • sitting or squatting slab with • twin pits used alternately • in pit: seepage of liquids • some pits may be emptied • public toilets; pour flush design including a (each one ideally for 12-24 for ‘treatment’ by natural for disposal and treatment • shared private household water-seal (accessible by months) ground processes; offsite (or onsite semi- toilets; or PWD, children – may need • pits not sealed but walls • double-pit: decomposition centralised treatment site) • individual household toilets multiple options) sometimes lined (e.g. concrete from faecal sludge to • Manual excavation of (can be inside) • concrete/plastic slab for rings, large drums without humus; single pit little humus. hygiene tops/bottoms) faecal sludge treatment • Excavation of humus from • Superstructure (housing) Also required: • often dug manually, but • disposal: when pit is fill twin pit is easier than can be built with local • handwashing with soap machine-dug may be either covered and new pit faecal sludge. materials facility (need water access) necessary (soil type, ability) dug (or for double pit, • Potential for use of stored • bins for menstrual hygiene (and is preferable) second pit used), or pit is faecal material or humus • Drainage from handwashing management and infant Life of each pit – dependent upon emptied for offsite as soil conditioner facility required (e.g. garden faeces management number users and depth of pit. disposal (not safe for bed) Large twin pit system can last onsite disposal) decades, with occasional emptying Double Pit option Longer life of humus. Ideally store for 12-24 than single and more effective Technical aspects months in pit to destroy pathogens treatment (formation of humus before removing humus. from faecal sludge) Environmental • physical accessibility during • protection from flooding Not suited to: • On-site treatment & • location to dispose or use and physical night – prefer location maybe required (draining • rocky ground that can’t be dug disposal not suited to excavated humus considerations in/adjacent to house for and lip around slab) • shallow groundwater shallow groundwater safety (especially if accessed for (especially if accessed for • need access to a water human use nearby). ~ 30 human use nearby) supply suitable for metres from water access • Small land area required handwashing and cleaning point (more for bore-pumps) and toilet flushing (not • flood-prone areas (pits may necessarily potable) overflow with waste during floods) Higher risk of groundwater contamination due to more leachate than with waterless systems Key operational • Easy (not technical) use required by consumer (system is fairly resilient to mis-use) tasks • Clogging is frequent when bulky cleansing materials are used • Must use bucket/container of water to flush and maintain water seal • Promotion of sanitation use generally is required (see service providers – community mobilisation) Page 148 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Key Maintain: • Repairs to toilet interface • Minimal maintained of pipes if Safe management of humus if maintenance • Hygienic facilities (at least (cracks etc) and functional exposed not in pit for 24 months tasks daily cleaning depending on lid • No maintenance of pit if pit level of use, maybe several prepared well times per day) alternate toilet riser between • Supplies: anal cleansing pits (2-yearly) materials • handwashing facility • bins • promotional materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housing maintenance) Service As for VIPs: • Potential sale of risers, slabs, concrete rings etc individually or as a • NA Actors and their potential roles providers • Sanitation promotion is kit (HCC sells some low-cost options) required – city-wide (or • Possible on-site construction/manufacture of slab, riser, rings etc country-wide urban) for difficult to access locations (take moulds and concrete-making communication materials materials). Construction could be undertaken by community need to be developed; can members with training (possible role for SW – HCC also has be implemented by HCC, capacity for this) and support for plumbing NGOs and SW1 • Recommend local distributor nearby with delivery (for accessible • Construction of locations) superstructure (optional) Consumer roles • Public toilets: pay-per-use Shift to second pit • Construction of superstructure (optional) Arrange pit emptying O&M costs Minimal (mostly local materials Minimal costs to repair Minimal can be used for super structure) Cost of water Cost score: 1 Cost score: 2 Cost score: 1 Cost score: 1 Costs Capital costs • Low (but variable) capital costs depending on materials and pit depth (relative indication) • Pour flush slabs and raisers available from HSS for purchase: $100 squat slab with water seal; $500 raised seat with water seal • Cost score: 1 Regulatory Same as for all sanitation • HCC: encourage pour-flush. considerations • Superstructure: building • Land owner permission not required regulations • Limitations on building on steep slopes Social considerations • more desirable than dry-based sanitation • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets Page 149 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 (consumer perspective) FSM safety • Double pit should allow for adequate treatment of waste inside the pit, before humus is emptied. If humus is used in correct locations (away from water sources, flooding) then FSM is acceptable Service standards • Flies (and odours) are significantly reduced (compared to dry sanitation) Affordability • Low cost (similar to VIP) Accessibility • Can be good if close to, or inside house and not difficult physical terrain to access at night and by children and people with disability • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred, SDG Sanitation • Safely managed (highest) and shared (depending on FSM) service level Health/wellbeing • No mosquito breeding compared with dry sanitation considerations • Health (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation required) • In-house facilities offer BEST wellbeing outcomes for all (e.g. privacy and safety for women) • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) Other • Some water use (not suited to households carting water unless an alternative source is available at the house) • May also suit settlements not (yet or not ever) planned for formalisation (where residents may eventually be required to move). POUR FLUSH – TWIN PIT SYSTEM (TILLEY ET AL., 2014) Page 150 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 V E N T I L A T E D I M P R O V E D P I T (VIP) L A T R I N E S Name of service VIP (VENTILIATED IMPROVED PIT) LATRINES delivery model (and FOSSA ALTERNA variation) Service Delivery Chain Access (site of use) User interface (CAPTURE of Waste storage Treatment & disposal Further transport, treatment waste) technology or disposal Technology Access via • sitting or squatting riser • single or double pit, • in pit: seepage of liquids • some pits may be emptied • public toilets; (accessible by PWD, not sealed but walls for ‘treatment’ by natural for disposal and treatment • shared private household children – may need sometimes lined (e.g. ground processes; offsite (or onsite semi- toilets; or multiple options) MUST concrete rings, large • double-pit: decomposition centralised treatment site) • individual household toilets have a functional lid drums without from faecal sludge to • pit emptying: • concrete/plastic slab for tops/bottoms) humus; single pit little o small sludge • Superstructure (housing) can be hygiene • often dug manually, faecal sludge treatment pump-out built with local materials • ventilation pipe with but machine-dug may • disposal: when pit is fill carts/trucks screen be necessary (soil either covered and new (after adding • Superstructure must be fairly • FOSSA ALTERNA variation type, ability) (and is pit dug (or for double pit, water to create dark when not in use (to requires addition of soil, preferable) second pit used), or pit is slurry) encourage flies to leave) leaves and ash etc (worms, • Life of each pit – emptied for offsite o manual Technical aspects soft carbon) dependent upon disposal (not safe for emptying not • Drainage from handwashing Also required: number users and onsite disposal) recommended facility required (e.g. garden • handwashing with soap depth of pit Double Pit option Longer life (health and bed) facility (need water access) • FOSSA ALTERNA: max than single VIP (indefinite if unlikely safe • bins for menstrual hygiene depth 1.5m (to maintained properly) and more disposal) management and infant support aerobic effective treatment (formation • Excavation of humus from faeces management treatment) of humus from faecal sludge) double pit is easier than faecal sludge (from single FOSSA ALTERNA: the added pit) carbon-rich bulking material • Potential for use of stored speeds the degradation process faecal material or humus  content is ready for as soil conditioner excavation and • FOSSA ALTERNA: empty use much faster than in a pit after 12-24 months for Double VIP safe humus (similar to compost) Page 151 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Environmental • physical accessibility during • protection from minor VIP Not suited to: On-site treatment & disposal • pit emptying machinery and physical night – prefer location flooding maybe required • rocky ground that not suited to requires access to pit considerations in/adjacent to house for safety (draining and lip around can’t be dug • shallow groundwater • disposal location required • need access to a water supply slab) • shallow groundwater (especially if accessed for suitable for handwashing and (especially if accessed human use nearby) cleaning for human use nearby). ~ 30 metres Small land area required from water access point (more for bore- pumps) – but is better than water-based sanitation for these areas • flood-prone areas (pits may overflow with waste during floods) FOSSA ALTERNA can be built above ground (possibly also VIP) Key operational Easy (not technical) use required by consumer (system is fairly resilient to mis-use) tasks Toilet lid must be closed when not being used FOSSA ALTERNA can only tolerate small volumes of water (urine good though) and requires consistent addition of soil, ash, leaves Promotion of sanitation use generally is required (see service providers – community mobilisation) Key Maintain: • Repairs to toilet interface None if pit prepared • Covering: seal so no access • Maintain emptying maintenance • Hygienic facilities (at least daily (cracks etc) and functional well by humans/animals, and machinery tasks cleaning depending on level of lid protect from use, maybe several times per • Maintain fly screen and flooding/excessive water day) ventilation pipe penetration • Supplies: anal cleansing OR materials • Arrange for emptying • handwashing facility • bins • promotional materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housing maintenance) Page 152 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service Sanitation promotion is required – • Potential sale of risers, slabs, pipes with screens, concrete • NA • Pit-emptying service providers city-wide (or country-wide urban) rings etc individually or as a kit (HCC sells some low-cost provider (new business Actors and their potential roles communication materials need to be options) required? Or extension to developed; can be implemented by • Possible on-site construction/manufacture of slab, riser, septage truck business) HCC, NGOs and SW1 rings etc for difficult to access locations (take moulds and • Disposal site service concrete-making materials). Construction could be undertaken by community members with training (possible role for SW – HCC also has capacity for this) • Recommend local distributor nearby with delivery (for accessible locations) Consumer roles • Public toilets: pay-per-use Sealing of full pits, shift to • Can construct super structure second pit, OR Arrange pit emptying O&M costs Minimal (mostly local materials can Minimal costs to repair • Machinery Excavation of be used for super structure) pits can be costly Capital costs Low (but variable) capital costs depending on materials and pit depth • Pit-emptying cart/truck (relative suited to drier indication) Cost score: 1 humus/faecal sludge Costs (compared with septic sludge) • (only a few small trucks required for Honiara) Cost score: 3 Regulatory • Superstructure: building • HCC: Ordinary pit and Ventilated Improved Pit latrines (with pipe) are not allowed in the city • Truck and waste service considerations regulations boundary as they can give out odour nuisance when not properly constructed. licensing • Limitations on building on steep • Land owner permission not required • Waste disposal regulations slopes Social considerations • Less desirable than water-based sanitation – if water access is improved, this may be even more difficult • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets FSM safety • Single-pit with emptying  FSM risks (consumer perspective) • If no pit emptying (or only second pit emptied after ‘treatment’) and used in correct locations (away from water sources, flooding) then FSM is acceptable Service standards • Significant reduction in pathogens from double-pit model compared with single-pit model • Flies (and odours) are significantly reduced (compared to non-ventilated pits) and further reduced by FOSSA ALTERNA model Affordability Low cost (though higher than unimproved pit) Accessibility • Can be good if close to house and not difficult physical terrain to access at night and by children and people with disability • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred) SDG Sanitation • Safely managed (highest) and shared (depending on FSM) service level Page 153 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Health/wellbeing • Mosquito breeding can be a problem considerations • Health (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation required) • Well-constructed facilities offer privacy and safety for women • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) Other • Very low water use (suited to households carting water) • May also suit settlements not (yet or not ever) planned for formalisation (where residents may eventually be required to move). Page 154 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 COMPOSTING TOILETS Name of service COMPOSTING TOILETS (HOUSEHOLD / SHARED HOUSEHOLD/ PUBLIC) delivery model (FOSSA ALTERNA alternative also possible – see VIP variation) Service Delivery Chain Access (site of use) User interface (CAPTURE of Waste storage Treatment & disposal Further transport, treatment or waste) technology disposal Technology Access via • riser (accessible by PWD, Batch-processing models: • Usually On-site • If desired, compost • public toilets children – MUST have a • single chamber with large treatment and (partially or fully treated) • shared private household functional lid. Cleanable bins that are rotated (e.g. disposal can be transport for use / toilets; or surface preferred (wooden wheelie-bins) and optional • Need access to sale elsewhere • individual household toilets ok if painted) (design storage area (so need only chambers to remove important – sufficient height one bin) (better for >6 compost (or bins) • Superstructure (housing) can above piling waste) people than double • 2 years in the Pacific be built with local materials • recommended: urine chamber) to eliminate all diversion riser or separate • double-chamber design: pathogens (including • Superstructure must be fairly urine facility ~1m3 each, usually bricks, worms) dark when not in use (to • concrete/plastic/cleanable sloping earthen floor, Batch encourage flies to leave) floor surface for hygiene lined with sticks for • Best and safest: • container of Bulking agent: aeration) – good for 4-6 compost is left inside • Superstructure usually needs readily available woody, people the chamber 6-12 Technical aspects to be above ground (unless on high carbon, material with a • Life of each chamber – months after inputs a slope) therefore requires high surface area to volume dependent upon number have ceased, then stairs / ramp with rails etc ratio: e.g. sawdust; coconut users and depth of pit. the compost placed husk fibre. with scoop Ideal to plan for 12 into a shallow pit • Drainage/seepage area for Also required: months use (to enable and covered with handwashing waste, septage • handwashing with soap timely rotation and earth for another leakage – (e.g. Banana Circle, facility (need water access) treatment) year before use planted bed around facility) • bins for menstrual hygiene Continuous processing model: Continuous management and infant • Single long chamber with • Design to allow for faeces management access point at base waste to be in (containing plastic) chamber for 1 year Ventilation pipe from bottom before reach access of chamber to outside point (incremental (screened) movement through chamber) • Access of treated • If urine diversion in place: humus via hatch urine catching containers (small, carriable) Page 155 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Environmental • Larger size facility than VIP – • local supply of bulking agent Is suited to: • Sufficient and safe and physical more space required e.g. coconut husk fibres (has • rocky ground that can’t be area to store/use considerations • physical accessibility during proven difficult to secure in dug compost (away from night – prefer location some Pacific islands) • shallow groundwater water sources) in/adjacent to house for safety (especially if accessed for • Not too dry • need access to a water supply human use nearby) suitable for handwashing and • slight flood-prone areas cleaning (depending upon design) Double-chamber: slightly sloping ground best (can be manmade slope) Continuous removal system – larger area and slope helpful Seepage management space – e.g. Banana circle Key operational Correct use of bulking agent by user is required (not too much, not too little) tasks Toilet lid must be closed when not being used Promotion of sanitation use generally is required (see service providers – community mobilisation) Key • Hygienic facilities (at least daily • Maintain user materials: • Maintain aeration inside chamber (design important, maintenance cleaning depending on level of anal cleansing materials and addition of sticks/vents etc), but some turning may be tasks use, maybe several times per bulking agent (and scoop) required day) • Repairs to toilet interface • Partially treated compost if removed, must be stored • handwashing facility (cracks etc) and functional safely from animals and humans • bins lid • promotional materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housing maintenance) Page 156 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service AS FOR VIP: • Whole system can be home built with local supplies (pipe, concrete blocks etc) • Optional service provider providers • For Public toilet block: pay- • Or commercially available: whole systems, or parts of systems. Existing commercial operator to purchase settlement per-use service. several in Honiara: SOLBRIDGE compost for resale possible service delivery models; including: Possible Roles for SW (in addition to construction/owning/leasing public facilities): o Owned and • Technical support and awareness to users (direct or via NGOs and HCC) managed by utility o Owned by utility and leased to operator (as for HCC public toilet in Honiara near library) Actors and their potential roles • Don’t recommend community- operated public toilets (private operator – who could be community member ok) o Constructed and owned and operated by community (unlikely to be successful) • Sanitation promotion is required – city-wide (or country-wide urban) communication materials need to be developed; can be implemented by HCC, NGOs and SW1 • Construction of superstructure (optional) Consumer roles • Public toilets: pay-per-use • Home systems require maintenance by consumer If want to on-sell, make • gathering of bulking agent compost available to third- • Construction of superstructure (optional) parties O&M costs • Minimal (mostly local • Low – purchase of bulking • Some commercial composting systems require Costs materials can be used for agent of can’t be sourced electricity super structure) locally • Manage leachate (garden bed) Page 157 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Capital costs Super structure cost Dependent Batch processing model: cheaper to construct than Continuous process systems. Can have very (relative upon model of composting system long-life span indication) – more than VIP (continuous): • SOLBRIDGE (local supplier/manufacturer): Prices TBA • Clivus Multrum Units (14 p capacity): $25k SBD – no install or delivery (from Aus); requires electricity • Clivus Multrum Units (5 p capacity): $20k SBD – no install or delivery (from Aus); requires NA electricity Cost score: 1-3 • small container-integrated system: small family: $6k SBD Cost score (best for systems shared between 2-3 houses): 4 Regulatory • Superstructure: building • HCC: not clear yet – they don’t allow other waterless sanitation (VIP, and basic pits) and considerations regulations seem to prefer water-based sanitation. General composting is promoted. • Limitations on building on • Waste disposal regulations applicable to private shared and/or public facilities? steep slopes • Reasonably significant financial investment required for insecure and tenure  better suited to settlements with planned settlement formalisation process underway (MLHS list classification) Social considerations • Community mobilisation on re-use of compost required (As for VIP): • Less desirable than water-based sanitation – if water access is improved, this may be even more difficult • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets FSM safety • If composting technique is correct, FSM is safe Service standards Affordability HH toilets: high cost (consumer) Shared private: medium cost Accessibility • Can be good if close to house and not difficult physical terrain to access at night and by children and people with disability • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred, SDG Sanitation • Safely managed (highest) and shared ladder position Health/wellbeing • Health (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation required) considerations • Well-constructed facilities offer privacy and safety for women • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) Other • generally, continuous systems are more complex than batch systems (may use fans and heaters), and higher cost, but provide a greater capacity relative to space requirements, and are more suitable for inclusion into houses, whereas the batch systems are often used in stand-alone 'out-house' toilet buildings • urine diversion recommended to reduce leachate (groundwater contamination) minimise odours, especially from home-built systems • examples in Honiara: o SOLBRIDGE – locations to be determined o Pay-per-use Public toilet facility near bridge (confirm is composting, or may be communal septic) • Finance support for purchase of composting systems likely to be required – microfinancing or subsidy (such as by donor programs underway) • FOSSA ALTERNA – is essentially a composting toilet using a dug pit. Rotation is achieved by using two pits. Pit is left for 12 months (after 12 months of use) then manually dug out. Cheaper and lower technology option. Harder to dig out than concrete chambers. Page 158 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 WHEELY BIN BATCH COMPOST (Leney, 2017 )DOUBLE CHAMBER – CONCRETE BLOCKS (Leney, 2017). SOLBRIDGE (local manufacturer) Page 159 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Biogas system Name of service BIOGAS SYSTEM (HOUSEHOLD / SHARED HOUSEHOLD / PUBLIC) delivery model Service Delivery Chain Access (site of use) User interface (CAPTURE of Waste storage & treatment Treatment & disposal Further transport, treatment waste) technology or disposal Technology Access via • Pour-flush or vacuum flush • Pipe from multiple • onsite treatment and Transport of digestate offsite • public toilets (or Urine diversion if urine toilets to Biogas digestor production of biogas ( may be required for dense • shared private to be used in gardens) • additional access point mix of methane, carbon urban areas were sludge household toilets • Vacuum toilets use suction for organic materials dioxide and other trace cannot be safely stored year (minimal advantage to for the removal of waste • brick-constructed domes gases) around) individual household resulting in a minimal or prefabricated tanks, • hydraulic retention time toilets since treatment requirement of water (0.5 to installed above or below (HRT) in the reactor system is shared) 1.5 litres) ground should be at least 15 Biogas use: • individual household • Pour-flush with water seal – • Capacity: 1,000 L for a days in hot climates • Biogas can be burned for toilets (linked to a require accessible water and single family up to • digestate (partially cooking, lighting or common biogas reactor, bucket 100,000 L for treated) is continuously electricity generation – Technical aspects or household scale institutional or public discharged and needs to but most efficient is for reactor) Allowable inputs: Urine, Faeces, toilet) be manually removed cooking. Flush-water, Anal Cleansing and required further • best used locally to Note: one biogas system Water, Dry Cleansing Materials, treatment avoid transport (loss, could support all options Organics (e.g., market or kitchen • Biogas that is produced and hazardous). simultaneously) waste) and, if available, animal needs to be used (to • Maintenance of gas lines waste prevent build-up in (higher water vapour • Superstructure (housing) reactor – will push out content) can be built with local As for all toilets: Also required: untreated sludge) • conventional gas materials • handwashing with soap appliances need to be facility (need water access) modified when they are • Drainage/seepage area • bins for menstrual hygiene used for biogas for handwashing waste, management and infant combustion (e.g. Banana Circle, faeces management planted bed around (containing plastic) facility) Page 160 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Environmental • Minimal and flexible Is suited to: and physical • need access to a water • Access to water for flushing • shallow groundwater (especially if accessed for human considerations supply suitable for use nearby) handwashing and • slight flood-prone areas (depending upon design) cleaning • Moderate land area required: most of the structure can be built underground (including under roads), but space needed to store partially-treated sludge • requires significant inputs of high organic materials (e.g. animal manure, green garden waste, organic market or household waste) to produce biogas. Many settlements have piggeries or chicken houses – excellent source of organic waste. • Limited gas production below 15°C Key operational • Bulky materials can clog (user education required) tasks • care should be taken not to overload the system with either too many solids or too much liquid (e.g., Greywater should not be added into the Biogas Reactor as it substantially reduces the hydraulic retention time). • Promotion of sanitation use generally is required (see service providers – community mobilisation) • Is fairly resistance to shock loading Key As for all other toilet types • Maintain user materials: • Once bioreactor has become properly established, maintenance • Hygienic facilities (at anal cleansing materials maintenance is minimal (check gas pipes, general tasks least daily cleaning • Repairs to toilet interface maintenance). depending on level for (cracks etc) and functional • No desludging but removal of inappropriate materials use, maybe several times lid may be required (stones etc) per day) • Vacuum system if used • Digestate must be managed (stored safely at all times) • handwashing facility requires regular • bins maintenance • promotional materials (notices etc) • Super structure (building/housing maintenance) Page 161 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Service AS FOR VIP: • LOCAL MANUFACTURER: SOLBRIDGE providers • For Public toilet block: • YWAM: youth trained to maintain (and construct?) – may offer maintenance service, training • Sanitation promotion is open to youth (and possibly others) Actors and their potential roles required – city-wide (or country-wide urban) Occasional maintenance/technical support could be provided by above providers, or others communication materials need to be Possible Roles for SW (in addition to construction/owning/leasing public facilities): developed; can be • Technical support and awareness to users (direct or via NGOs and HCC) implemented by HCC, NGOs and SW1 • Construction of superstructure (optional) Consumer roles • Public toilets: pay-per-use • Home systems require maintenance by consumer • Consumers required to • Construction of superstructure (optional) including management of digestate use biogas (it must be used) O&M costs • Minimal (mostly local • Low (except for vacuum • Biogas production can reduce local electricity costs materials can be used flush systems) • (no electricity required unless using vacuum flush) for super structure) Cost score: 1 Cost score: 2 Cost score: 1 Cost score (no vacuum): 1 Costs Capital costs Super structure of latrine low Requires expert design and skilled construction Purchase/Modification/replac (relative cost (vacuum flush adds significantly to capital cost) ement of gas-burning indication – 1 = appliances low cost) Cost score: 3 Cost score: 1 Cost score: 2 Regulatory Same as for other toilets • Waste disposal regulations considerations • Superstructure: building regulations • Limitations on building on steep slopes Social considerations • Community mobilisation on use of biogas • Supports water-based sanitation so more acceptable than dry-based sanitation (As for VIP): • Community mobilisation requirements: sanitation promotion at settlement scale • Need separate male and female toilet houses, with discrete entrance doors, for public toilet and possibly for private shared toilets FSM safety • Incomplete pathogen removal, the digestate requires further treatment and safe management Service standards Affordability • Low (once installed) (consumer) Accessibility • Toilets can be inside houses – good accessibility possible • Design of user interface will need to consider people with disability and children (e.g. squatting difficult for many – raised seat preferred, SDG Sanitation • Safely managed (highest) and shared ladder position Page 162 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Health/wellbeing • Can support inhouse toilets – BEST for wellbeing considerations • Health (reduced spread of pathogens) gains only if all in settlement use safe sanitation ( settlement-scale mobilisation required) • Well-constructed facilities offer privacy and safety for women • Health significantly improved if handwashing facilities available (and HWWS promoted) Other • Generation of renewable energy • Conservation of nutrients • Long service life • Biogas production not high unless significant inputs of high organic materials (e.g. animal manure, organic market or household waste) Local example: Burns Creek Youth With A Mission (YWAM) Local provider: SOLBRIDGE BIOGAS SYSTEM (BASIC) (SSWMINFO) Page 163 W AT E R & SA N I T AT I ON S ER VI C E S – HO N I AR A ’ S I NF ORM AL S E TT L EM EN T S | AUGUST 2019 Guidance note: City-Wide Sanitation Plans (prepared IWC, 2019) A city-wide sanitation plan is….. • A plan for which sanitation services will be promoted and available in different parts of a city, which organisations will be involved in promoting/providing those services, the targets and plans to achieve these sanitation services. • Usually includes a map identifying different sanitation needs and services to be available in different locations.  This ensures there are no areas that a suitable and feasible sanitation option AND allows for sanitation options to suit the local situation (not one sanitation option for a whole city) Benefits of city-wide sanitation plans • Develop sanitation in all parts of the city (city-wide), prioritizing poor residential areas where the health risks are highest. • Employ appropriate technologies that are suitable to user needs, while ensuring that they are relevant to the city’s actual conditions, comply with technical standards, and prevent potential impacts. • Enhance synergy among the actors in sanitation development, including municipal government agencies, the private sector, NGOs, and others. • Foster better use of existing sanitation services, which becomes the basis for developing new services. • Create opportunities and incentives for private sector initiatives in the development and operation of sanitation services. • Adopt step-wise sanitation development as available resources allow. • Increase funding from sources other than municipal government, such as from the national and provincial governments, donor agencies, the private sector and the public. A citywide sanitation strategy includes the vision, missions, and goals of sanitation development as well as strategies to meet these goals. Often a citywide sanitation plan will include plans for: • Latrines and faecal waste • Domestic wastewater • Drainage • Solid waste management. 5 key steps (which may take 6-12 months, or more): • Establish sanitation working group – multiagency & other sanitation actors and stakeholders (legitimacy from political leaders) • Sanitation mapping (describe the sanitation status across different parts of the city and develop general recommendations for sanitation improvement initiatives) • Develop ‘sanitation development framework’ (vision, mission, goals and strategic policies) • Develop strategies with specific targets and programs, projects for: o sanitation services (sanitation targets and services for different areas, developed through bottom-up and top- down planning approaches o non-technical aspects (community awareness and participation; policy and regulation; institutional capacity; private sector engagement; NGO engagement; financing and tariffs; monitoring and evaluation. Note: the PROCESS of developing the plan is more important than the plan itself – this is when cooperation is established, champions emerge and action can follow. It may take iterations of plans to progressively improve sanitation.