WAT E R G L O B A L P R A C T I C E C A S E S T U D Y Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana About the Water Global Practice Launched in 2014, the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice brings together financing, knowledge, and implementation in one platform. By combining the Bank’s global knowledge with country investments, this model generates more firepower for transformational solutions to help countries grow sustainably. Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/water or follow us on Twitter @WorldBankWater. About GWSP This publication received the support of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership (GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor trust fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global Practice and supported by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; The Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation; Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; Irish Aid; and the U.K. Department for International Development. Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/gwsp or follow us on Twitter #gwsp. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana © 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. Please cite the work as follows: World Bank. 2019. “Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana.” World Bank, Washington, DC. 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 photo: © Clean Team Ghana. Cover design: Bill Pragluski, Critical Stages, LLC. C ONT E NTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • v EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL OF CONTAINER-BASED SANITATION: AN OVERVIEW • vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • vii ABBREVIATIONS • x INTRODUCTION • 1 Background • 1 Study Objectives • 1 Study Methodology • 1 Report Structure • 2 Note • 2 CHAPTER 1:  CBS SERVICE AREA CONTEXT • 3 Implementation of Clean Team in Kumasi • 3 Urban Context of Kumasi • 3 Water and Sanitation Service in Kumasi • 4 Policy and Regulatory Environment for Sanitation Services • 7 Legal and Policy Environment and Impact on CBS Services • 10 Notes • 10 References • 10 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CBS SERVICE PROVISION • 12 Background: Brief History of the CBS Provider • 12 Overview of Services Provided • 12 Legal and Policy Environment and Impact on CBS Services • 16 Notes • 16 References • 16 CHAPTER 3:  CBS SERVICE PERFORMANCE • 17 Clean Team Customer Growth • 17 Assessing the Value of Clean Team’s Services to Customers • 18 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana iii Notes • 20 Reference • 20 CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE • 21 Current Costs and Financing Sources • 21 Improving the Efficiency of Its Operations • 21 Plans to Achieve Economies of Scale through Expansion • 23 Notes • 23 Reference • 23 CHAPTER 5:  KEY LESSONS • 24 APPENDIX A:  PEOPLE INTERVIEWED • 25 APPENDIX B:  CLEAN TEAM ORGANOGRAM • 26 Figures 1.1 Fecal Waste Flow Diagram for Kumasi • 6 1.2 Key Institutional Relationships for Sanitation Services in Kumasi and Ghana • 9 2.1 Sanitation Service Chain for Sanitation Options in Kumasi (as of May 2017) • 13 3.1 Evolution of Clean Team Toilets Serviced in Kumasi (as of April 2018) • 17 C ollection Per Week and Gross Margins • 22 4.1 Relations between Numbers of ­ Map 1.1 Map of Kumasi, Showing Study Location and the Four Service Areas Designated by Clean Team • 4 Photo P reviously Used Bucket Toilets • 19 3.1 Block Shared by Families That ­ Tables 1.1 Frequency of Different Sanitation Types for Kumasi • 5 1.2 Typology of Housing and Sanitation in Kumasi • 6 3.1 Qualitative Comparison of CBS and Alternatives • 20 iv Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana A C K NO W L E DGM E NTS This case study was written by Adrien Mazeau (i-San) in coordination with Julian Parker (independent consultant). Sophie Trémolet (Senior Economist, World Bank) provided overall guidance and quality control for the preparation of the case study, and Ruth Kennedy-Walker (Water Supply and Sanitation Specialist, World Bank) and Clémentine Stip (Operations Analyst, World Bank) contributed to finalizing the case study. The author is grateful to the following people for their active participation in providing information: Peter Townsley, Abigail Aruna, and the Clean Team staff in Kumasi; Georges Mikhael, Faustina Ashante, Loan Diep, and the WSUP Ghana London staff; staff at the KMA as well as Ivo Amparato and Emmanuel Nkrumah in the World Bank office in Ghana. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana v E VALUATING TH E P OT E NTIAL OF C ONTAIN E R - BASE D SANITATION: AN OV ERVIE W The World Bank Water Global Practice (WGP) has to support Bank teams and their clients when e ­ ngaging developed an approach to urban sanitation based on in CWIS. One of the aims of this work is to explore inno- citywide inclusive sanitation (CWIS) principles, which vative approaches to provide safely managed sanitation have been developed in conjunction with sector part- services along the whole service chain and to support cli- ners (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation et al., 2017). This ents in identifying when such options might make sense. approach aims to shift the paradigm around urban sani- The study “Evaluating the Potential for Container-Based tation approaches in World Bank engagements, promot- Sanitation” aims to answer some of these questions for ing the following principles: container-based sanitation (CBS), an emerging sanita- tion approach. • Everybody benefits from adequate sanitation service delivery outcomes. ­ The objective of this study is to document and assess • Human waste is safely managed along the whole ­ xisting CBS approaches, with a particular focus on eval- e sanitation service chain. uating their safety, reliability, affordability, and financial viability. The report also seeks to identify the circum- • Comprehensive approaches to sanitation improve- stances in which CBS approaches are most appropriate ments are deployed, with long-term planning, and whether they could be considered as part of a port- technical innovation, institutional reforms, and folio of options for CWIS. The study was motivated by financial mobilization. growing interest in the emerging CBS experiences and • A diversity of technical solutions, which are adap- by the fact that many governments, city authorities, and tive, mixed, and incremental, is embraced. financing entities are often not familiar with the approach. • Effective resource recovery and reuse is considered. • Cities demonstrate political will and technical and The study builds on four case studies (Sanergy, ­ Nairobi, managerial leadership, and they identify new and Kenya; Sustainable Organic Integrated Livelihoods creative ways of funding sanitation. [SOIL], Cap-Haitien, Haiti; Clean Team, Kumasi, Ghana; and x-runner, Lima, Peru) to provide insights into these • Both on-site sanitation and sewerage solutions, questions. The present document is one of these four in either centralized or decentralized systems, are case studies. The full suite of documents is available at considered to better respond to realities faced in www.worldbank.org/cbs. cities. • Complementary services (including water supply, drainage, greywater, and solid waste) are considered. Reference As part of the implementation of these principles, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Emory University, The University of Leeds, WaterAid, Plan International, and World Bank. 2017. WGP is developing a suite of tools and other material Citywide Inclusive Sanitation: A Call to Action. vi Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana E XE C UTIV E SUMMARY This case study, along with three others, is a com- Clean Team’s Operating Context in Kumasi ponent of a wider study by the World Bank of ­ container-​ based sanitation (CBS) models. CBS con- A large proportion of the low-income urban com- sists of an end-to-end service—that is, one provided munity’s population in Kumasi depends on the along the whole sanitation service chain—that col- more  than 400 public latrine blocks found around lects excreta hygienically from toilets designed with the city for their sanitation needs, with some ­ toilets sealable, removable containers and strives to ensure (pit latrines and septic tanks) found within com- that the excreta is safely treated, disposed of, and pounds and minor incidences of open defecation. reused.1 Rather than h ­ aving to build a sanitation facil- A few small-scale decentralized sewerage systems exist ity, households (or public toilet operators) can sign up in Kumasi, serving approximately 100,000 ­ people. for the service. The CBS service provider then installs The high dependence on public toilets in Kumasi, and a toilet with sealable excreta receptacles (also referred the lack of in-house facilities, is due to a c ­ ombination to as cartridges) and commits to emptying them (that of historical factors, tenure arrangements, low income is, removing and replacing with clean ones) on a reg- of both landlords and tenants, and lack of enforce- ular basis. ment of some existing bylaws. Initiatives have been taken to increase the uptake of in-house toilets; how- The objective of this study is to document and assess ever, these have not yielded effective results due to the existing CBS approaches with a particular focus on eval- aforementioned challenges, high interest rates, lack of ­ uating their safety, reliability, affordability, and financial trained and motivated artisans, and  the high cost of viability. The report also seeks to identify the circum- toilets. stances in which CBS approaches are most appropriate and whether they could be considered as part of a port- In Ghana, Metropolitan, Municipal and District folio of options for citywide inclusive sanitation (CWIS). Assemblies (MMDAs) are responsible for sanita- tion service delivery. In the target city, the Kumasi This study is focused on Clean Team, a social enterprise Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) is responsible for providing CBS services in Kumasi, the second-­ largest sanitation. The municipality has introduced several city in Ghana with a population of 2.7 million in sanitation bylaws in support of developing in-house 2018.2 Clean Team is owned by Water & Sanitation toilets but has made little progress in terms of increas- for the Urban Poor (WSUP), a nonprofit partnership ing coverage. The Environmental Sanitation Policy between the private sector, civil society, and academia. revised in 2009 calls for the majority of environmen- It is focused on addressing the increasingly global prob- tal sanitation services to be provided by the private lem of inadequate access to water and sanitation for the sector, which includes public toilet management and urban poor. Clean Team delivers a single service: rental construction and maintenance (desludging) of toilet and regular servicing of in-house portable toilets, which facilities. In January 2017, the government of Ghana includes transporting feces to a centralized treatment (GoG) created a new Ministry of Sanitation and Water facility but not the processing and reuse of excreta. Resources. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana vii Overview of Clean Team’s Business Model from three to two pickups per week, however, which was introduced as a way to cut operating costs. They claim that WSUP, in partnership with IDEO and Unilever, estab- it had led to the development of maggots and the pres- lished Clean Team in 2011 as a Ghanaian social enter- ence of ants in the sawdust, whereas Clean Team says this prise with the aim of developing and testing a niche is likely due to poor household-level cleaning and toilet sanitation business. The service had approximately management. In January 2017, Clean Team introduced 1,200 customers in May 2017,3 by which time it oper- some house visits to ensure proper usage and adopted ated in four service areas. Clean Team had more than some internal performance indicators as a tracking mea- 40  employees divided into three main teams: finance sure. At the time of data collection, it was too early to and administration, sales, and operations. assess whether such measures had been s ­ uccessful. People interested in but unable to use the s­ ervice are those who Collectors transport the feces in sealed cartridges 1 to typically live outside the Clean Team service area; have 2 kilometers to the transfer station using tuk tuks, then insufficient space to install the toilet; have an ultimate another 10 kilometers to the centralized treatment facil- decision maker who does not support subscribing to the ity using a tractor-and-trailer system. The containers are service; or are unable to afford the monthly fee paid in a emptied, cleaned, and prepared for redeployment with single installment, which the introduction of small but sawdust as cover material. regular mobile payments should help overcome. The feces is disposed of at the municipal waste treatment Clean Team services are affordable compared to other facility, where it is dried and sent to a landfill. The treatment alternatives. Clean Team charges ₵38 per household per process is currently not monitored, though Clean Team is month (US$8.80) for those making mobile payments. By planning to prepare and implement a sanitation safety plan. comparison, the monthly cost of using a public toilet for a family of five ranges between ₵45 and ₵60 per month Although not explicitly disallowed by authorities, CBS (US$10.42 and US$13.89). In addition, the capital cost is not explicitly encouraged either. In January 2018, the of investing in a new in-house toilet can range between KMA recognized that Clean Team services were compli- ₵1,500 and ₵5,000 (US$350 and US$1,160), with an ant with local sanitation bylaws. However, it was unclear annualized desludging cost between ₵30 and ₵175 which sanitation category CBS services, such as Clean (US$7.50 and US$40.50), depending on the number of Team, would be classified under the Ghana census. Neigh- users and type of technology. borhoods where Clean Team intervenes share several commonalities: prevalence of shared housing, often with Clean Team has been working, with support from more than eight households sharing a house and the facil- funders and external advisers, on improving the effi- ities (courtyard, kitchen, and bathroom); few houses with ciency of its services and reducing costs. As of May toilet facilities; and a relatively high number of public toilets. 2017, Clean Team was expecting to recover only 20 per- cent of its total costs through its customers in fiscal year Assessment of Clean Team’s Services (FY) 2016–17 (that is, 80 percent subsidy), but it was looking to increase this cost recovery ratio to 60 percent Customers find the Clean Team toilet appealing, with by FY 2017–18 (that is, 40 percent subsidy) through a no reported similarities to the “traditional” and now combination of cost-reduction measures and an increase banned bucket toilet. Many have criticized the move in service fees. A study prepared by Ernst & Young (EY) viii Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana and WSUP identified the following cost drivers for the In Kumasi and Ghana, the social and legal environ- CBS business: payment collection, collection frequency, ment relating to the CBS approach is unclear. From the densification, customer churn, waste-to-resource, and ­ perspective of national authorities, the CBS technology cost of toilets. The move from door-to-door collec- lies in a gray zone between the banned bucket toilets, tions to mobile payments was estimated to potentially “­composting toilets,” and “other toilets.” ­ Similar to improve the gross margin of the business by 26 percent. other cities in Ghana, the local government in Kumasi A reduction in collection frequency from three times is encouraging the uptake of the “one house, one ­ toilet” to one time per week, as well as the move from “wet” to policy, but they have also invested massively in improv- “dry” toilets, was estimated to improve the gross margin ing public toilets, even in residential areas. Some officials by 34 percent. Clean Team is working toward addressing perceive CBS to be a transitional solution that may inter- both of these cost drivers. The EY–WSUP study did not fere with in-house toilet support programs. In general, estimate the financial impact of densification; however, the lack of urgency and pressure to deliver toilets in Clean Team introduced key performance indicators every household seems to hinder the provision of full (KPIs) for this and is targeting neighborhoods within support for and strong partnerships with innovative the existing service areas to increase customer density. solutions such as CBS. External subsidies have been necessary for Clean Team Going forward, Clean Team could benefit from a (as is the case for other sanitation service providers). clearer policy environment, which would allow them to These subsidies have been provided through public and increase the scale of their operations based on a more philanthropic grant funding, with heavy dependence efficient business model. cost-­ on the latter. Public funding has been through in-kind provision of land and services. Clean Team is seeking fur- ther public subsidies through tax relief (value-added tax Notes (VAT) exemption). Grant funding has been mainly pro- 1 In this report, the term excreta is used instead of waste to avoid any potential confusion with solid waste. Tilley et al. (2014) vided by foundations and bilateral to cover startup costs, define excreta as “urine and feces that is not mixed with any research and development costs, capital expenditure on f lushwater.” Note that for the four CBS case studies and the main ­ report, feces and urine are separated using urine-diverting toi- infrastructure and equipment, and operational losses. let technologies. Cases where the CBS service provider collects only feces is referred to accordingly as feces. Also note that cover material (for example, sawdust or carbon cover) is added to the excreta in all cases.  Key Lessons 2 Index Mundi data portal. “Ghana Demographics Profile 2018.” Last updated January 20, 2018. http://www.indexmundi.com/ghana​ /­demographics_profile.html. Despite offering a better quality and more affordable 3 This figure had grown to 1,500 by December 2017. service than most of the available public toilets in the area, the number of customers using the service remains limited. Shared housing arrangements, lack of Reference space, limited affordability for the poorest, and absence Tilley, E., L. Ulrich, C. Lüthi, P. Reymond, and C. Zurbrügg. 2014. of explicit position of institutions toward CBS were iden- “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.” 2nd rev. ed. Duebendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science tified as key limitations. and Technology (Eawag). Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana ix A B B R E VIATIONS BMGF Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation CBS container-based sanitation CBO community-based organization CEO chief executive officer CRM customer relationship management CWIS citywide inclusive sanitation CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency DFID Department for International Development EBITDA earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization EHSD Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate EY Ernst & Young FY fiscal year GAMA Greater Accra Metropolitan Area GoG government of Ghana KMA Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly KPI key performance indicator LIUC low-income urban community MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development MMDAs Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies MOSS mobile operations and services system NGO nongovernmental organization OSS on-site sanitation PPP public–private partnership PSI Population Services International SFD fecal waste flow diagram SFF Stone Family Foundation SSD Sanitation Service Delivery SSP Sanitation Safety Plan sq. km square kilometer TP treatment plant USAID United States Agency for International Development US$ United States dollar VAT value-added tax VIP ventilated improved pit WASH water, sanitation, and hygiene x Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana WEDC Water, Engineering and Development Centre WHO World Health Organization WMD Waste Management Department WSUP Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor Exchange rate: US$1 = ₵4.32, as of June 10, 2017. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana xi INTRODU C TION Background the  circumstances in which CBS solutions are most appropriate. The ultimate objective is to identify whether This case study, along with three others, is a component these solutions could be considered as part of a mix of of a wider study by the World Bank of container-based options for citywide inclusive sanitation (CWIS). sanitation (CBS) models. CBS models have emerged over the past 10 years as an alternative to network-based The objective of this case study is to better understand sanitation or on-site sanitation (OSS) services. Clean how the Clean Team CBS business model fits within the Team launched a CBS model in 2011 in Kumasi, Ghana, overall context of Kumasi and Ghana, from the point where Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) of view of customers and of the authorities in charge of was already supporting various water and sanitation delivering reliable and inclusive citywide sanitation interventions. services. Clean Team acts as a research-and-develop- ment nonprofit organization that intends to develop CBS consists of an end-to-end service—that is, one pro- sustainable business models to increase access to safely vided along the whole sanitation service chain—that managed sanitation in vulnerable urban communities. collects excreta hygienically from toilets designed with sealable, removable containers and strives to ensure that the excreta is safely treated, disposed of, and  reused.1 Study Methodology Rather than having to build a sanitation facility, house- The field work for this case study was carried out in holds (or public toilet operators) can sign up for the early 2017 based on interviews with key Clean Team service. The CBS service provider then installs a toilet staff, covering the range of activities and functions with sealable excreta receptacles (also referred to as of the organization, and local stakeholders, as well as cartridges) and commits to emptying them (that is, focus group discussions. Relevant data and documents removing and replacing with clean ones) on a regular basis. Transport methods can vary—in Ghana, they were collected and analyzed until May 2017, though major developments and updates through May 2018 are include tuk tuks, tractors, and trailers—and adapt to a reflected. variety of space and logistical constraints. Some CBS entrepreneurs build and operate resource recovery The case study was based on the analysis of primary facilities to produce byproducts; Clean Team focuses and secondary data. This includes papers written by on collection of feces and transports it to the municipal Clean Team and WSUP, Clean Team activity reports, treatment site. policy documents, statistical data from a range of organizations, and nonpublished material from con- Study Objectives sultants and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). To further corroborate this information, a field visit The objectives of the overall study are to document to Kumasi was organized during the last two weeks and assess existing CBS solutions with a particular of May 2017. Questionnaires common to all four case focus on evaluating their safety, reliability, affordability, studies were used to interview ministry representa- and  financial viability. The study also seeks to identify tives, local authorities, the World Bank in Ghana, Clean Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 1 Team staff, WSUP staff, other sanitation providers, with a technical description of the different components local traditional leaders, and independent consultants. of the operation as well as the management strategies, Appendix A provides details on the interviewees. systems, and processes behind them. The impact of the Interviews were also organized with customers from policy and regulatory environment is briefly examined. Asawase and Tafo and noncustomers from Oforikrom Chapter 3 assesses the performance of the service from and Asawase. the customers’ points of view and reviews customer growth. Chapter 4 presents a financial analysis of the The fieldwork contributed to providing an overview of operation and briefly discusses the main cost drivers. the urban sanitation conditions in the case study loca- Chapter 5 summarizes key lessons. tions, highlighting how access to sanitation is currently provided, by whom, and at which service level. Note Report Structure 1 In this report, the term excreta is used instead of waste to avoid any potential confusion with solid waste. Tilley et al. (2014) define excreta as “urine and feces that is not mixed with any flushwater.” Chapter 1 describes the CBS operation’s service area Note that for the four CBS case studies prepared for this report, the feces and urine are separated using urine-diverting toilet technolo- and the basic geographic, economic, and demographic gies. In cases where only feces are collected by the CBS service pro- characteristics of Kumasi and its low-income areas. vider, this is referred to accordingly as feces. Also note that cover material (for example, sawdust or carbon cover) is added to the Chapter 2 provides an overview of the CBS operation, excreta in all cases. 2 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana C HA P T E R 1 • C B S S E RVI C E AR E A C ONT E X T Implementation of Clean Team in Kumasi Urban Context of Kumasi Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP), in According to the 2010 census data, Kumasi is Ghana’s partnership with IDEO and Unilever, established second-largest city with a population of 2 million Clean Team as a social enterprise registered in Ghana people. However, 2018 projections suggest a current with the intention of occupying a sanitation niche, population of 2.7 million.1 Kumasi has an annual pop- filling a market gap, and developing, then testing, a ulation growth rate of around 5.5 percent. Migration, new sanitation business. This nonprofit partnership both internal and external, is a factor contributing to this between the private sector, civil society, and academia high rate (Water, Engineering and Development Centre is focused on addressing the increasingly global prob- [WEDC] 2015a). lem of inadequate access to water and  sanitation for The service area of the container-based sanitation (CBS) the urban poor and thus contributing to the attain- business under consideration by Clean Team is high- ment of the Millennium Development Goals, partic- lighted in map 1.1. ularly those relating to water and sanitation. WSUP empowers service providers to demonstrate effective Given its central geographical position in the country, models in order to mobilize investments for further Kumasi acts as a commercial hub, both within Ghana improvements. and for bordering countries. Local large-scale economic activities include timber trade and mining. Clean Team delivers a single service of rental and regular servicing of in-house portable toilets in The main types of settlements in Kumasi are (UN-­ several low-income urban community (LIUC) neigh- Habitat 2011): borhoods in Kumasi (approximately one-fifth of the • Indigenous sectors, which are old villages that total area). More than 40 employees, including a chief have been incorporated into the city. These sec- executive officer (CEO), finance and administrative tors accommodate low-income households and are team, sales team, and operations team are all based characterized by high-density compound houses, in Kumasi. many of which are built with mud.2 During an expansion phase from 2012 to 2015, • Tenement sectors, which are also high-density services used mainly urine-diverting toilets with a ­ areas, accommodating low- to middle-income liquid chemical to suppress odor. In 2015, to reduce households and are characterized by multistory operating costs, there was a move to “dry” toilets compound houses. with a sawdust cover material to control odor. As part • Government-built estate sectors comprising low- of  its growth process, Clean Team has received sev- cost housing estates. These areas are well-serviced eral rounds of grant funding from the Department and occupied by middle-income households. for  International Development (DFID), Bill & • High-cost sectors, which are low-density areas Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and Stone Family characterized by large compound houses, each Foundation (SFF). accommodating only one household. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 3 Map 1.1 • M  ap of Kumasi, Showing Study Location and the Four Service Areas Designated by Clean Team a. Study location b. Clean Team service areas Rd g o n mp M a Bantama Suame Manhyia N10 TAFO Tafo Asawase Rd Dote ng o mp a M Kwadaso Sepe Timpom Subin Oforikrom S u nya n i Rd ADUM N6 Nhyiaeso N6 Kwame Asokwa Nkrumah Kotei Rd Service area Nhyiaeso University of Be k w a i Transfer station Kumasi Science and ... Centralized treatment facility Sources: Adapted from UD Studio III 2012; BBC World Service 2008; and Clean Team. Poverty levels in Kumasi are relatively high at 5.3 ­percent, The water transmission mains were upgraded and compared to Accra at 2.6 percent (Ghana Statistical extended in 2010 under a World Bank/government Service [GSS] 2015).3 Many neighborhoods have mixed of Ghana (GoG) urban water project (World Bank socioeconomic status, and it is estimated that between 2017). In LIUCs, some households use water kiosks, 60 and 75 percent of the Kumasi population lives in but based on observations and informal discussions, it LIUCs, which are essentially the indigenous and tene- seems a large part of the population shares a water tap ment sectors (Amoako and Korboe 2011).4 These LIUCs within the compound.5 are congested, with population densities ranging from 100 to 270 persons per hectare (Awortwi 2006). Sanitation access for LIUCs in Kumasi is character- ized by dependence on public toilets: About 700,000 As observed elsewhere in West Africa, a combination people use at least one of Kumasi’s 419 public latrine of events related to climate change, such as increased blocks every day (40 percent of the city’s population) intensity and frequency of rainfall, and “local urban (WSUP 2016). The remaining households depend on changes,” consisting of alterations of the urban “compound toilets,” with minor incidences of open def- landscape and water bodies, has led to increased ecation. A  certain number of in-house or compound incidences of flooding and flood-related damage in toilets are shared by both tenants and landlords. Septic Ghana’s major cities (Douglas et al. 2008), including tanks provide containment and partial treatment for the Kumasi (Oppong 2011). majority of in-house toilets. Access levels are summa- rized in table 1.1. Water and Sanitation Service in Kumasi According to 2010 census data, approximately 100,000 people are connected to decentralized sewerage systems Kumasi is served by a dense water supply net- in Kumasi. The two largest systems serve universities, work managed by Ghana Water Company Limited. which are reported to reach 50,000 and 25,000 people, 4 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana Table 1.1 • Frequency of Different Sanitation Types for Kumasi Sewerage Septic Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Public No Pit Latrine Systems Tank Latrine Toilet Facilities Percent 4 36 7 11 39 3 Source: (WEDCa 2015) based on 2010 Population and Housing Census, Government of Ghana. Note: The main uncertainty in the data is the reliance on census data for technology types used to generate the SFD. This is because the city is rapidly developing and the census data was from 2010 (GSS 2012). respectively (WEDCa 2015). The remaining five sys- The statistics on types of sanitation facilities, as seen in tems serve fewer than 12,000 people each, and only table 1.2, are based on 2008 census data. Since then, the three of them have a functioning decentralized treat- population is likely to have increased overall in the city ment plant. and at a much higher rate in LIUCs. The condition and geographic location of settlements in Kumasi influence During the 2010s, several public and private sector the type of sanitation adopted (Maoulidi 2010). sanitation initiatives have been implemented in Kumasi, ­ including the rehabilitation of a large number of public Dependence upon public toilets and lack of in-house toilets and a modification of their management models, toilets is pronounced in LIUCs. A combination of his- as well as the construction of a septage treatment plant torical events and social and policy initiatives explain the in 2004 (World Bank 2004) in Dompoase, which is now difficulties of increasing coverage of in-house toilets in in need of rehabilitation. these areas. Some of these issues are summarized below: Private sector investment and innovation in sani- • Poor management, followed by the banning of tation is growing in Ghana, including Kumasi. This bucket toilets (pan latrines) (Addai 2009) has includes, for instance, Clean Team, as well as distri- reduced a large number of in-house (yet unsafe) bution networks of Accra-based businesses such as toilets during the past 20 years. Most of these toilets Biofilcom toilets and DURAPLAST® septic tanks. These have not been replaced. Clean Team’s toilets are dif- services and technologies remain limited in terms of ferent in their design in that they are urine-­diverting direct uptake by customers; they account for fewer than and safe to use, they contain excreta effectively, and percent of the sanitation coverage in Kumasi and, 1  ­ they are associated with a professional, regular, and therefore, do not appear in the latest statistics or fecal safe emptying service. waste flow diagrams (SFDs). • Although the number of tenants per compound The SFD seen in figure 1.1 provides a representa- has increased (Mazeau et al. 2014), landlords find tion of the flow of excreta along the service chain in it increasingly difficult to maintain in-house shared Kumasi. Although the containment section is based toilet facilities (due to conflict between multiple on 2010 census data, other estimates are based on families/users) and expensive (due to high cost of interviews and field observations conducted in 2015 irregular desludging). by the WEDC as part of the SFD Promotion Initiative. • Some rooms initially dedicated to bucket toilets According to the SFD study, 45 percent of fecal waste have now been converted into shower rooms or produced by households in Kumasi is not safely rooms for rent (Water and Sanitation Program managed. (WSP) 2011). Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 5 Figure 1.1 • Fecal Waste Flow Diagram for Kumasi Containment Emptying Transport Treatment End use/disposal 4% WW treated WW delivered to 2% WW contained 4% decentralized 2% WW not treated decentralized treatment (off-site) FS contained—not emptied or composted 18% FS treated 35% FS contained FS (on-site) delivered to 93% FS emptied treatment 75% 70% FS not treated FS not 55% delivered to treatment 3% 5% 3% 35% 2% Open defecation 45% Local area Neighborhood City Key: % of flow Safely managed Unsafely managed Source: WEDCa 2015. WW = wastewater; FS = fecal sludge. Note: Kumasi, field-based assessment 10/27/2015. Table 1.2 • T  ypology of Housing and Sanitation in Kumasi Population (estimation House/settlement Main sanitation facilities in 2000) Indigenous housing 55 percent 60 percent public latrines 25 traditional pit latrines Tenement housing 22 percent 45 percent septic tanks 40 percent public latrines Low-density housing 15 percent 100 percent septic tanks High-cost housing 10 percent 100 percent septic tanks New government housing 8 percent 100 percent septic tanks Source: Adapted from Salifu 2008. 6 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana • Although toilets are a legal requirement in homes Policy and Regulatory Environment for (according to the House Owner and Occupier Sanitation Services Bylaw 7 (1, 2013)—see Policy and Regulatory Environment for Sanitation Services, Local Level.), Despite the efforts from the government (both national the prevalence of public toilets further discour- and local), private companies, and CBS service provid- ages landlords to invest in providing toilets to their ers themselves, initiatives to increase the number of ­ tenants (Caplan 2010). in-house toilets and strengthen existing services con- • Strict rent control in LIUCs has prevented land- tinue to face challenges. lords from increasing rent for many years, result- ing in poor incentives for further investment into compounds. Urban Sanitation Policy • The economic status of both landlords and tenants Ghana’s current National Environmental Sanitation limits their capacities to find desirable, affordable, Policy was developed by the Ministry of Local and appropriate sanitation technologies (UN-­ Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) and Habitat 2011). was last updated in 2009. The policy sought to have 90 percent of the population with their own in-house In 2014, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA), toilets by 2015, with the remaining 10 percent using supported by WSUP, launched an initiative to increase hygienic public toilets. These targets have not been met. the uptake of in-house toilets through a combination Sanitation provision in Ghana has suffered from a high of artisan training, marketing campaigns, enforce- dependence on shared toilets, as well as a lack of com- ment strategies, and easier access to financing. The prehensive planning and funding allocations. project targeted more than 5,000 households within four years, but by April 2017, fewer than 100 land- Night soil and sewage (liquid waste) collection and dis- lords had built in-house toilets. Along with the posal is listed among the basic programs and services that challenges previously stated, and according to the district assemblies are required to provide (directly or stakeholders, the main reasons for the slow different ­ by enabling service providers). The policy recommends progress are failure to train and motivate artisans, cistern and pour-flush toilets, VIP toilets, aqua-privies, inappropriate enforcement strategies, high interest chemical toilets, and “other proven technologies rec- rates from  local banks, the high cost of toilets, and ommended by MLGRD” while also emphasizing that priority with competing demands on household low ­ they should be appropriate and affordable. Furthermore, income. Though the initiative identified the right the policy reemphasizes the nationwide ban on “bucket measures, implementation has not yet realized the latrines” and encourages district assemblies to phase 2014 vision. them out by passing and enforcing relevant bylaws. In Accra, the World Bank-financed Greater Accra According to the policy, waste recycling should be used Metropolitan Area (GAMA) Sanitation and Water when there is either a financial or environmental benefit. Project has, since 2014, been seeking similar objectives This policy establishes six guiding principles: increasing of toilets in every home and is facing similar challenges, value for money, transferring risks to the private sec- despite a 50 percent subsidy being offered under the tor, ensuring end users’ ability to pay, promoting local component supported by the Global Partnership on operators and technologies, safeguarding the public, and Output-Based Aid. conforming to national laws (WaterAid 2016). Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 7 Institutional Arrangements for Sanitation Private Sector Participation In January 2017, the GoG created a new Ministry of The National Environmental Sanitation Policy Sanitation and Water Resources, following a long (revised in 2009) calls for the majority of environmen- period of campaigning by donors and nongovernmen- tal sanitation services to be provided by the private tal organizations (NGOs). Previously, MLGRD was ­sector, including the management and maintenance the lead agency responsible for sanitation policy devel- of all public toilets and all desludging of septic tanks opment, with its Environmental Health and Sanitation and VIP toilets, unless insufficient capacity or interest Directorate (EHSD) coordinating the activities of the is manifest. The policy includes NGOs and commu- various institutions involved in the sector. nity-based organizations (CBOs) in the definition of the private sector, reserves a minimum of 20 percent Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies of service provision for the public sector, and forbids (MMDAs) are responsible for delivering sanitation monopoly by a single private-sector actor in towns with services in small towns and rural areas, and they per- populations of more than 15,000 (which are to be zoned form regulatory functions, including the approval of for sanitation services provision) in order to maintain tariffs. The Community Water and Sanitation Agency pressure for good standard services. (CWSA) of the Ministry of Works and Housing is also involved in rural and small-town sanitation provision A full-cost recovery principle for sanitation has been (WEDC 2015b). The national sanitation and hygiene adopted. Public toilet management is listed among the policy mentions the role of the Ministry of Health in services to be provided by the private sector, as is the regulation and standard setting without giving details. management of septage tankers. The private toilet ser- vicing model of CBS is not included in the policy as it In May 2018, responsibilities of the Ministry of did not exist at the time of its drafting. Sanitation and Water Resources were in the process of being firmed up. The Ministry intended to review the National Environmental Sanitation Policy and intro- Local Level duce a sanitation authority at national and local levels to During the 2010s, Kumasi’s sanitation landscape has facilitate coordination and implementation of sanitation witnessed several major improvements: enhanced activities at district and municipal levels (Mubarik 2017; quality of services by public toilet operators, the near field interviews). The implementation of sanitation strat- eradication of open defecation, and a number of new egies and activities would likely remain in the hands of sanitation initiatives tested in the city (for example, municipal and district assemblies, and the funding for Clean Team, Biofilcom, DURAPLAST, and Waste sanitation activities was still under discussion. Enterprises) (WaterAid 2016; WEDC 2015a). The sum- mary of key roles and responsibilities for sanitation in To date, the main source of domestic finance for water and Kumasi is provided in figure 1.2. sanitation facilities is the District Assemblies’ Common Fund, which is shared between MMDAs. Government According to the representatives interviewed, the main investment in sanitation has been minimal. International strategy for human excreta management in the munici- donors have largely taken on the burden of capital invest- pality is to guarantee the proper management of public ment, whereas the private sector has been increasingly toilets and increase the uptake of in-house toilets. filling the gap in the operation of public toilets and treat- ment of liquid waste (that is, septage). Monitoring is poor The KMA, through its Waste Management Department and lacks a set of agreed-upon national indicators. (WMD), oversees the quality of public toilet  facilities 8 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana Figure 1.2 • Key Institutional Relationships for Sanitation Services in Kumasi and Ghana Ministry of Local Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Sanitation Government of Ghana Government and Science Technology and Water Resources Rural Development and Innovation Environmental Sanitation Authority Health and Sanitation Directorate Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly Local government Environmental Waste Management Environmental Sanitation Authority Heatlh and Sanitation Department Protection Agency Department Service providers Septage and Operators of public Septage treatment fecal sludge operators Population toilets plant operator (including sewerage) Key Regulates, educates, enforces Sets policy Sets targets, oversees organizational development Responsibilities under discussion (Summer 2017) Licenses operations Institutions newly created with roles yet to be confirmed and  encourages private-sector participation in the • Nuisance Bylaw 4 makes it an offense if sanitation construction, rehabilitation, and/or management of facilities cause a nuisance through bad maintenance them, as well as overseeing the delivery of fecal sludge and accumulated excreta. ­management services. • House Owner and Occupier Bylaw 7 (1, 2013) makes it an offense to construct a house without a Using the national sanitation policy, the municipality toilet or latrine. It also prohibits households from has introduced sanitation bylaws to support the devel- emptying sanitation systems in an inappropriate opment of in-house toilets (WEDCb 2015): way and disposing their contents into drains. • Sanitation Bylaw 5 provides that fecal disposal at the Except for the banning of the bucket latrine, which compound level is required and refers to the ban- has largely been phased out, many of the bylaws put in ning of bucket toilets/latrines. place have not been effectively enforced by the  KMA. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 9 This is not an uncommon challenge and is seen across enumerators, CBS toilets may be classified as “bucket” or different municipalities and district assemblies in Ghana, “other” toilets. A “composting toilets” category exists in including Accra. Nevertheless, the KMA has been the DHS Ghana survey but not in the census (GSS 2012). reported to be preparing new sanitation bylaws for exist- ing houses since 2015. As of May 2017, CBS was neither recognized nor rejected by the Ministry of Sanitation and Water The only known household sanitation project the KMA Resources. At the moment, the Clean Team CBS service is currently undertaking is the compound sanitation addresses at least two of the main objectives stipulated in strategy referred to as Sanitation Service Delivery (SSD). the sanitation policy by EHSD: stopping open defecation It is supported by WSUP as part of a United States and encouraging in-house toilets through sustainable Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded solutions. project, implemented in partnership with Population Services International (PSI) and PATH, and also funded The KMA has been supporting Clean Team through by BMGF. the allocation of land (transfer and disposal sites), issuing an authorization to operate, and providing an In addition, the KMA and WSUP have other partner- in-kind subsidy for the cost of treatment. In January ships to strengthen the following: public toilet services, 2018, the KMA recognized that Clean Team services fecal sludge management at the centralized treatment were compliant with local sanitation bylaws. facilities, public financing for sanitation (through col- lected revenue), and the capacity and quality of vacuum tanker operators’ services. Notes 1 Index Mundi data portal. “Ghana Demographics Profile 2018.” Last The challenges in the current policy and institutional updated January 20, 2018. http://www.indexmundi.com/ghana​ /demographics_profile.html. environment are mainly due to a lack of clear per- 2 Compound housing is a multifamily housing arrangement where formance indicators, targets, and responsibilities to households often rent one or two rooms out of a 10- to 30-room house (one or two stories). Such housing arrangements have led to the enforce current bylaws. There are no clear incentives for shared management of specific areas of the compound house, such sanitation authorities to change the status quo. However, as the courtyard or bathroom. Arrangements to maintain and clean these semiprivate areas are often discussed among the women of each there is an opportunity within the sector to potentially household occupying the compound. Cleaning is, for instance, often done on a daily or weekly basis with each household taking a turn. move forward with the formation of the new Ministry of 3 Poverty line is ₵1,314 (US$304) per person per year. Sanitation and Water Resources. 4 These are located in Manhyia, Asawase, Old Tafo, Oforikrom, and Asokwa submetros. 5 Similar to electricity bills, water bills are shared among house occu- piers according to rules established within each house between Legal and Policy Environment and Impact on landlord and tenants (often based on the number of household CBS Services members). After several legal attempts, bucket toilets have been banned nationally for their clear environmental and References health risks (both for users and collectors) due to their Addai, E. 2009. “Discourage the Use of Public Toilets.” (blog). http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/blogs/blog.article​ poor design and poor servicing. It is unclear which san- .php?blog=1856&ID=1000002859. itation category CBS services, such as the one offered by Amoako, C., and D. Korboe. 2011. “Historical Development, Clean Team, would be classified under during a Ghana Population Growth, and Present Structure in Kumasi.” In Future census. If CBS is not introduced as a separate category, of the Tree: Towards Growth and Development of Kumasi, edited by Kwasi Kwafo Adarkwa. pp. 35-55. Ghana: University Printing Press, and depending on the directives or training provided to KNUST. 10 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana Awortwi, N. 2006. “Technology and Institutional Arrangements “Southern Journey: Kumasi, Ashanti.” 2008. BBC World Service. in the Delivery of Public Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/2008/11/081126_ghana08​ Ghanaian Cities.” International Journal of Technology Management _kumasi.shtml. and Sustainable Development 5, no. 3: 221–39. UD Studio III. 2012.“2012 – Comparative Informalities: Akorem- Caplan, K. 2010. “Quick Stakeholder/Context Analysis of Public Adukrom-Sawaba, Kumasi, Ghana.” http://msaudcolumbia.org​ Toilets in Kumasi, Ghana: Initial recommendations for WSUP.” /spring/2012/2012/05/asawasi. Last updated May 22, 2012. Unpublished Report, Building Partnership for Development in Water & Sanitation (BPD): London, UK. UN-Habitat. 2011. “Ghana, Housing Profile.” Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Douglas, I., K. Alam, M. Maghenda, Y. McDonnell, L. McLean, and J. Campbell. 2008. “Unjust Waters: Climate Change, Flooding, and the Urban Poor in Africa.” Environment and Urbanization 20, no. 1: 187–205. WaterAid. 2016. “A Tale of Clean Cities: Insights for Planning Urban Sanitation from Kumasi, Ghana.” Kumasi case study report, prepared GSS (Ghana Statistical Service). 2012. 2010 Population & Housing for WaterAid by Partnerships in Practice for WaterAid. Census, Summary Report of Final Results. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical Service. WEDC (Water, Engineering and Development Centre). 2015a. “SFD Promotion Initiative, Kumasi-Ghana.” Final report, ———. 2015. “Ghana Poverty Mapping Report.” Accra, Ghana: Ghana produced by Claire Furlong and Water, Engineering and Statistical Service. Developing Centre. Maoulidi, M. 2010. “A Water and Sanitation Needs Assessment for ———. 2015b. “National Sanitation Policy in Ghana. A Case for Kumasi, Ghana.” MCI Social Sector Working Paper Series No. 16. Improved Co-ordination?” Water, Engineering and Development Centre. http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/docs/research/WEJEH/Briefing​ Mazeau, A. P., N. Wellington, S. Drabble, F. Asante, and D. Awantugo. _Note_Ghana_-_National_sanitation_policy_in_Ghana_(pdf).pdf. 2014. “Bringing Toilets Back to Kumasi’s Compound Houses: Landlord and Tenant Behaviors and Motivators.” 37th WEDC World Bank. 2004. “Implementation Completion Report: Urban International Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam. Environmental Sanitation Project.” http://documents.worldbank.org​ /curated/en/911901468771357088/pdf/29368.pdf. Mubarik, A. 2017. “Making Ghana Clean: Minister Mulls Setting up a National Sanitation Authority.” Pulse GH. May 13. http://www​ .pulse​ ———. 2017. “Implementation Completion and Results Report: .com.gh/news/making-ghana-clean-minister-mulls-setting-up-a​ Urban Water Project.” http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en​ -national-sanitation-authority-id6671750.html. /754801484077117837/pdf/ICR00003112-12212016.pdf. Oppong, B. K. 2011. “Environmental Hazards in Ghanaian Cities: The Incidence of Annual Floods along the Aboabo River in the Kumasi WSP (Water and Sanitation Program). 2011. “Water Supply and Metropolitan Area (KMA) of the Ashanti Region of Ghana.” Kwame Sanitation in Ghana: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Dissertation Data and Beyond.” An ANCOW Country Status Overview. http:// Base: 95. documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/438411468281086437​ /pdf/7241000REPLACE0x00PUBLIC00CSO0Ghana.pdf. Salifu, L. 2008. “Clean Towns: Progress and Prospects of Strategic Sanitation Planning in Ghana.” Vers. presentation from the 2008 WSUP (Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor). 2016. “Improving World Water Week in Stockholm. the Quality of Public Toilets in Kumasi.” Practical Note 27. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 11 CHAPTER 2 • OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CBS SERVICE PROVISION Background: Brief History of the CBS Provider To ensure customer satisfaction, the sales team is led by a sales manager with five account managers and seven Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP), in sales agents. The account managers are responsible for partnership with IDEO and Unilever, established Clean collecting fees and supporting customers in the ser- Team as a social enterprise registered in Ghana with the vice area. A mobile money payment system connected intention of occupying a sanitation niche, filling a mar- to a mobile operations and services system (MOSS) ket gap, and developing a new sanitation business. was introduced in May 2017 to replace door-to-door payment collection and reduce missed pickups by col- In 2011, the project was at the proof-of-concept stage, lectors. Clean Team is focusing on investing in these using a log-cabin toilet from Sweden. About 60 house- systems, reducing the frequency of pickups, and densi- holds signed up for the service. After six years, Clean customers to improve profitability. fying ­ Team started using urine-diverting, container-based toi- lets with dry cover material and was attending to more than 1,200 customers. Overview of Services Provided There are four designated service areas, including This section presents main activities and challenges Ashtown, Oforikrom, Sawaba, and Tafo (as seen in encountered along the sanitation service chain. figure 1.1), and anyone within this area can sign up to ­ Figure  2.1 summarizes key elements with a focus on be a Clean Team customer. The exact size of the service container-based sanitation (CBS) operations. area is not known, but it is estimated to be approxi- mately 44 square kilometers (sq. km) (total Kumasi area is 254 sq. km) with a population of 450,000. Demand Creation Clean Team delivers a single service of rental and regu- Sales activities and promotions are delivered by a lar servicing of in-house portable toilets, but this does team of five sales agents and one supervisor. Three key not include the processing and reuse of the excreta. approaches are used: Twice a week, collectors take the feces and transport it via small motorized transport (tuk tuk) to a transfer facility • Door-to-door sales: Sales agents are assigned geo- 1 to 2 kilometers away. Then it is moved to a central- graphical sectors they are most familiar with, and ized processing facility at the outskirts of Kumasi more they visit around 30 compound houses per day and than 10 kilometers away, where the containers are emp- as many of the households within them as possible. tied, cleaned, and prepared with the cover material to be Clean Team is actively seeking to develop a denser redeployed to customers. The feces is disposed of at the customer base and is, therefore, focusing sales municipal waste treatment facility, where it is dried and efforts within its existing service areas. sent to a landfill. Urine is not collected (as Clean Team has • Sales events: Since March 2017, the sales team has not yet found a reuse for urine that will financially justify organized sales events outside mosques on Fridays. its collection), and it is usually disposed of in open drains. Religious leaders are informed of the visits and may 12 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana Figure 2.1 •  Sanitation Service Chain for Sanitation Options in Kumasi (as of May 2017) Service Demand creation Containment Emptying Transport Treatment End use/disposal chain Urine-diverting Cartridges Microsite, Technical details dry toilet collected within Summary of one transfer site, 20-L cartridge the customers’ the various fleet of Non-engineered (average five users houses by Landfilled marketing four tuk tuks, drying beds for four days); Clean Team; Clean Team CBS service chain activities one tractor, and no containment collectors use two trailers of urine tuk tuks Average 9,120 cartridges Quantities one cartridge for cleaned per 380 cartridges 380 cartridges five users for four month per day per day days (average (136,800 kg weight 15 kg) waste generated) One head of operations, eight waste collectors (50 percent), One sales manager one transport officer, Personnel Five sales officers Six waste one head of operations (20 percent) One sales support officer processors Two drivers Five account managers One collection supervisor One transport officer Dompoase River Historical Public toilet or septage (no recent quality perspectives septic tank sanitation services treatment plant data available) Mechanical Vacuum truck Alternative Enforcement desludging and education In-house toilets or Indiscriminate Untreated waste programs septic tank dumping to environment (government) Privates River wastewater Sewerage (no quality data treatment plants: available) Oxidation ponds inform worshipers at the end of prayers. Each of the is also the need to following up several times with custom- identified mosques is visited several times within a ers to reach those with decision-making power. period of a few months. This reflects the fact that the vast majority of Clean Team customers are Muslim. Sales efforts are supported by brochures and flyers with • Community events: Once a month, a community a focus on two main messages: The first emphasizes the event showcasing the service is organized within a challenges of day-to-day defecation, including waiting targeted neighborhood for several hours with the times and lack of cleanliness of public toilets, as well as participation of the entire sales team.1 the unhygienic and unpleasant use of plastic bags for defecation. The second highlights the potential eco- According to a Clean Team sales manager, the dynamic of nomic gain of using a Clean Team toilet compared to a local power may vary in each community, which is why public toilet, which is what a majority of potential cus- support from influential community leaders, whether polit- tomers are using. ical, traditional, or religious, is crucial. Even so, the decision to subscribe to the service is often made by the husband, Sales incentives are available for both Clean Team sales spouse, mother, or, more commonly, landlord. Thus, there agents and customers themselves. The former receive a Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 13 commission for each toilet sold, and the latter receive Emptying/Collection a referral bonus (in the form of credit on their mobile money account) of ₵5 (US$1.15). In each of the four service areas, a pair of collectors drives through communities using a motorized tuk tuk and walks to customers’ households to access the toilet, seal Containment and remove the full cartridge, and replace it with a clean one containing new organic cover material (sawdust). The toilet used by Clean Team was designed specifically for the business. It is a urine diversion toilet, currently With the objective of increasing gross margins (see manufactured in China solely for Clean Team. With Clean Team Customer Growth), and following recom- shipping, importation, and customs fees, the toilet costs mendations of the Ernst & Young (EY)–WSUP report, US$92 when it lands in Kumasi. As mentioned, though Clean Team reduced the number of weekly collections the toilet was initially chemical-based (that is, a liquid in early 2017 from three to two times per week, with odor suppressant), 99 percent of customers now use dry the objective of moving to once per week by the end toilets with sawdust. Clean Team is experimenting with of 2017. additives to further suppress odors and allow for less Following the introduction of mobile money (April ­frequent collections. 2017), a MOSS was custom-developed for Clean Team The service areas are divided among five account man- to ensure real-time updates of customers’ payments, agers, who are responsible for collecting payments and as well as feces collection operations. Collectors use for increasing subscriptions to the mobile payment ser- handheld scanners to scan identification codes on the vice (since it was introduced in April 2017) and training toilets, enabling them to quickly identify any missed customers how to use it. MOSS integrates mobile pay- pickups. ments with customer relationship management (CRM) and geolocalized customer data. To encourage uptake Transport of the new payment system, customers who subscribe pay a monthly fee of ₵38 (US$8.80), compared to ₵43 In each service area, a team of two collects cartridges (US$9.95) for those making payments to account man- from customers’ houses and transports them to micro- agers directly. Customers paying through mobile can sites using a tuk tuk. Microsites (often located on the pay in as many installments as they wish, as long as pay- pavement of main streets) are areas where cartridges ment for a particular month is made in advance. are stored for approximately one or two hours before being moved by truck to a centrally located transfer site Account managers are also responsible for ensuring the called Ashtown. The cartridges are then transferred to a quality of the service, so they direct any challenges or tractor-and-trailer system, where clean cartridges (with complaints they receive (directly or by phone) to the new cover material) are replaced with used ones. The operations team to address. And together with sales Ashtown transfer site helps distribute collection teams agents, they are responsible for locating new customers and cartridges across the four service areas. (recording their location by GPS), preparing contracts with new customers, and supervising the installation of The tractor-and-trailer system transports the used car- toilets. The team is also involved with uninstalling toilets tridges to the disposal site of Dompoase, where they are as a result of delays in payment (beyond 30 days) or at a emptied and cleaned. The facility, owned by the Kumasi customer’s request (for example, customer is moving to Metropolitan Assembly (KMA), provides solid and liq- a nonserviced area). uid waste (fecal sludge) management services delivered 14 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana through a private operator. The solid waste is disposed are currently underway to mix fragrance and neem of at an engineered landfill, with informal waste pickers ­powder3 in different quantities to improve the quality contributing to recycling, and the fecal sludge is treated of the sawdust, reduce odors, and improve the cus- in waste stabilization ponds (for which treatment per- tomer experience. formance could not be assessed). There are no formal operations for processing the fecal sludge into alterna- Clean Team has six processors at Dompoase, alter- tive byproducts. Clean Team has secured an agreement nating between the different tasks: emptying and with the KMA for an in-kind contribution to the CBS washing cartridges, preparing covering material, and service through access to part of Dompoase and for transporting the feces by tuk tuk to the drying beds. allowing disposal of the feces at subsidized rates (that is, The team is capable of managing as many as 500 car- the KMA charges only for renting equipment to move tridges per day. the sludge to the landfill rather than for the full cost of The content of the cartridges (feces and sawdust) is disposal). transported to and disposed of at the “drying beds” site To undertake the transport operation six days per week, (Tilley et al. 2008),4 located approximately 500 meters four tuk tuks, two trailers, four teams of two feces col- from the Clean Team facility, adjacent to the waste sta- lectors, one tractor, two drivers, and one collection bilization ponds, where it dries naturally. The treatment supervisor are required. At the end of each day, mate- process is currently not monitored, though Clean Team, rials, uniforms, and vehicles are washed at the transfer supported by WSUP and the World Health Organization site, and equipment is maintained when necessary. The (WHO), has worked on preparing and implementing average number of cartridges processed in May 2017 was Sanitation Safety Plans (SSPs).5 Once dried, the material 380 per day. is transported and disposed of at the nearby engineered landfill. With the anticipated increase in customer numbers and volume of feces to be processed, waste- Treatment to-resource options need to be considered as space for natural drying is limited. As previously mentioned, Dompoase was constructed in 2004 under the World Bank-financed Ghana Urban According to Clean Team, waste-to-resource is not Environmental Sanitation Project. It is owned by the undertaken for several reasons: First, bringing a reuse KMA and includes an engineered landfill for solid product to market would be challenging unless the waste disposal and a septage treatment facility (Water, full business case and market assessment is made Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC) 2015),2 for treatment of byproducts. However, during the both managed by a private operator. The site is located course of 2017, WSUP commissioned a study to approximately 10 kilometers (30 minutes, depending build the case for investment in appropriate waste- on traffic) from the Ashtown transfer site. Clean Team to-resource ­ solutions for all fecal waste produced in was provided with space to construct a facility to empty Kumasi, including Clean Team feces. Second, Clean and clean cartridges and prepare the cover material. Team wants to strategically focus on what it believes is The sawdust is a waste product found abundantly in the core part of the CBS business: delivering s ­ ervices and around Kumasi’s large number of sawmills. A com- (that is, collection and transport) to customers. Third, pany is paid to collect the sawdust and deliver it in it considers treatment to be the KMA’s responsibility, large sacks to Clean Team’s site at Dompoase, where it though this was not formalized in a contract as of is repacked into smaller bags for each customer. Trials May 2017. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 15 Legal and Policy Environment and Impact on flood and, as such, are not safe or effective. He said that WMD would not support CBS solutions in Accra CBS Services due to the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA) According to the Environmental Health and Sanitation project with the World Bank, which encourages Directorate (EHSD), CBS services have never been households to construct in-house toilets. Although the ­ clearly discussed at the national level. EHSD has no clear project has not been able to perform as expected (see position toward the technology and the service, given Urban ­Context of Kumasi), the director thought that that a request by the KMA to establish CBS as an accept- introducing CBS could further negatively impact its able sanitation option has never been made. performance. As of May 2017, EHSD had no known standard The director of the WMD in Kumasi, as of May ­procedures or risk assessment processes, such as SSPs, 2017, expressed fewer concerns than his predeces- for evaluating a service like Clean Team’s. By con- sor, expressing his satisfaction toward the design trast, some new toilet technologies, such as Biofilcom or and service. However, he stressed the importance of DURAPLAST®, have requested that their technology be high-quality management. No studies had been done assessed by a national technology framework managed on the impact of CBS on the implementation of the by the EHSD in collaboration with the Ghana Standards Compound Sanitation Strategy in Kumasi, though it Authority. When new technologies pass the framework is thought to be minimal compared to other barriers. successfully, this nonmandatory test validates a product Overall, municipal authorities perceive that long-term and allows its promotion in official documents. technical solutions are sewerage networks, but these currently exist only in Accra. Although not explicitly disallowed, CBS is not explic- itly encouraged either. There is some level of hesitation or resistance by the Waste Management Department Notes (WMD) to adopt such an innovative service. The 1 Such event was not observed during the fieldwork. director of the WMD of the Accra Municipal Assem- 2 Six anaerobic ponds in two parallel streams of three each that con- nect to one facultative pond, which is followed by two maturation bly, previously occupying the same function in Kumasi, (aerobic) ponds. raised the concern that the CBS service has no margin 3 Neem or nimtree: A plant-based powder with fungicidal properties. 4 Drying beds, planted or unplanted, is a technology that, “when for error: Missed collections will discourage customers loaded with fecal sludge, allows the fecal sludge to dry by evapo- and jeopardize the whole system. ration. The bottom of the drying bed is lined with perforated pipes that drain away the leachate. In Dompoase, the sludge is let to dry on dedicated space but without drainage system and with limited In Ghana, CBS is sometimes seen by authorities and maintenance and operation” (Tilley et al. 2008). 5 SSPs were developed by WHO to ensure safe reuse of wastewater sector stakeholders as an improved revival of bucket and are gradually being applied to new sectors, such as CBS. toilets. The director of the WMD of the Accra Munici- pal Assembly views CBS as a glorified bucket toilet and thinks that it remains a transitional solution that could References be adopted by certain segments of society in some Tilley, E., C. Lüthi, A. Morel, C. Zurbrügg, and R. Schertenleib. neighborhoods while they wait for new and long-term 2008. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.” Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), technical solutions. The transition time is described as Dübendorf, Switzerland. five to 10 years. Nevertheless, he added that CBS is a WEDC (Water, Engineering and Development Centre). 2015. “SFD good solution in flood-prone areas where traditional Promotion Initiative, Kumasi-Ghana.” Final report, produced by containment systems, such as septic tanks, would Claire Furlong and Water, Engineering and Developing Centre. 16 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana C HA P T E R 3 • C B S S E RVI C E PE RFORMAN C E This section examines customers’ progression, as well as to the management team, because there were multiple the factors affecting it, and customers’ perceptions con- databases that did not connect in a structured way.1 To cerning the service. address monitoring challenges, Clean Team decided to consolidate and restructure the various databases. In September 2016, following a 100 percent field audit of Clean Team Customer Growth customers, Clean Team determined, with reasonable As stated in Chapter 2, when the Clean Team proj- accuracy, that the number of active (that is, fee-paying) ect was at the proof-of-concept stage in 2011, about toilets deployed was 890. 60  households were signed up for the service. There  was reasonably slow but steady growth until a During the second semester of 2016, Clean Team plateau was reached between October 2015 and April management reported that a deliberate suppression of 2017, when there were approximately 1,110 customers. sales was in force until February 2017. One reason for This number subsequently picked up, reaching 1,500 this was a willingness from the management team and by December 2017. its funders to focus on improving the efficiency of the operating model before embarking on further growth. However, the data regarding the number of custom- Figure 3.1 provides an account of the number of custom- ers prior to September 2016 is unreliable, according ers through April 2018. Figure 3.1 • Evolution of Clean Team Toilets Serviced in Kumasi (as of April 2018) 3,000 2,500 Toilets (= Customers) 2,000 1,500 1,000 5,00 0 Oct. 13 Dec. 13 Feb. 14 Apr. 14 Jun. 14 Aug. 14 Oct. 14 Dec. 14 Feb. 15 Apr. 15 Jun. 15 Aug. 15 Oct. 15 Dec. 15 Feb. 16 Apr. 16 Jun. 16 Aug. 16 Oct. 16 Dec. 16 Feb. 17 Apr. 17 Jun. 17 Aug. 17 Oct. 17 Dec. 17 Feb. 18 Date Source: Adapted from data provided by Clean Team. Note: No data was provided between October 2015 and October 2016. Data for April 2018 was provided, but there were no monthly figures between April 2017 and April 2018, which is why the progression is represented as a dotted line. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 17 Assessing the Value of Clean Team’s Services cartridge (which is above the recommended number) and in households that did not regularly wash and dis- to Customers infect their toilets. Clean Team service does not include This analysis shows that container-based sanitation regular cleaning of the toilet, as that is the customer’s (CBS) services provided by Clean Team offer a sound responsibility. Customers receive an explanation on how alternative to other forms of sanitation in areas where to use and maintain the toilet, but there are no system- space requirements and difficult access create challenges atic hygiene promotion sessions or in-house visits to for these alternatives.” ensure proper uptake. Although the level of cleanliness of the toilet is not Quality and Reliability of Services included in the key performance indicators (KPIs), observation during cartridge collection shows that some From a customer perspective and during observed are not regularly cleaned (two out of 15 toilets were commercial events, the public found the external flooded with urine). design appealing and easy to interact with. Similarities to or memories of bucket toilets were not reported. The Clean Team KPIs do include the number of collec- toilet is presented as a portable toilet with a cartridge tions missed. Between November 2015 and April (and excludes the word bucket). 2016, that number remained relatively low, with a peak of 0.8 percent for March and 0.2 percent in April. Those who previously subscribed to the “wet” chem- Missing a collection can occur inadvertently in isolated ical toilets stated a preference for the dry service. The cases or because a collector did not show up at the last wet service was perceived to have several d ­ rawbacks, moment. Pairing collectors (that is, having two along the including foul odors after a few days of use, the risk same route) has reduced the number of missed collec- of backsplash, as well as “seeing other people’s feces” tions because each knows the other’s customer locations (Greenland et al. 2016). Fourteen of the 15 customers and can support any temporary collectors to ensure interviewed were using a dry service with sawdust. nothing is missed. Missed pickups are remedied as soon Only one customer interviewed preferred the wet as customers report them. service as he had reported the presence of maggots with the use of sawdust. Of the approximately 1,100 customers receiving the service as of April 2017, only Cost to Service Users 28 expressed a preference to continue using the wet service. The cost of Clean Team services to users has been set at  a price point that is attractive compared to other Many of the customers interviewed criticized the sanitation alternatives for service users. During the decision to move from three to two collections per initial trial period in 2011, the monthly service fee week. Half pointed out that after three days, maggots was set at ₵15 per month, which then increased to can develop, the amount of sawdust becomes insuffi- ₵35 at the full launch of the service in 2013, and is now cient, and sometimes ants are found in the sawdust, ₵38  (US$8.80) per month for customers using mobile which then requires chemical treatment. Clean Team payment (or ₵43—US$9.95—for those paying manu- staff think that the maggot and odor development is ally). These costs are slightly lower than of using a pub- likely related to poor management, as such presence was lic toilet for a family of five – see Clean Team vs. public prevalent in households with more than five users per toilets below. 18 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana A number of people who expressed interest in the Clean of five with one use per person per day,3 the monthly Team service during the marketing events are not able cost of using a public toilet for one household would be to subscribe for the following reasons: between ₵45 and ₵60 (US$10.42 and US$13.89). • They live outside the four service areas. Clean Team vs. In-House Toilets • There is insufficient space to install the toilet. • The ultimate decision maker2 does not support the In one of the old tenement neighborhoods (Asawase), subscription. some Clean Team users had bucket toilets until the ser- • They cannot afford regularly paying a one-time vicing of these toilets was effectively banned (around installment of the monthly fee (but the introduction 2015. Photo 3.1 shows a block with wooden-covered of small mobile payments should help overcome access holes shared among four families. The buckets this). were used in the house and accessed by night-soil col- lectors from the outside. Now three of those four house- People with non-shared in-house toilets are not inter- holds receive a Clean Team service. In this area where ested in Clean Team services. bucket toilets were common, some rooms are now used to house Clean Team toilets, some have been converted into shower rooms, and others have been changed into Clean Team Services vs. Available Alternatives in the Service Area Photo 3.1 • B  lock Shared by Families That Previously Used Bucket Toilets ­ Convenience appears to be the primary reason custom- ers prefer Clean Team services to others in the area, but hygiene and comfort also play a role. Clean Team vs. Public Toilets The majority of Clean Team’s customers previously used public toilets. Some of the customers inter- viewed stated that convenience and hygiene and potential health gains were the predominant drivers for switching to Clean Team, as well as the lack of comfort associated with public toilets. Maybe unsur- prisingly, customers did not highlight the supposed ­ oilet. financial savings when compared to using a public t Several noticed that the Clean Team service cost had increased since they joined, and a majority hoped that service costs would decrease in the near future. The cost of public toilets in the Clean Team service area is between 20 pesewas to 50 pesewas per visit (US$0.05 to US$0.12). The average is likely to be 30 pesewas to 40 pesewas (US$0.07 to US$0.09). Considering a family Source: Clean Team. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 19 Table 3.1 • Qualitative Comparison of CBS and Alternatives Safety of sanitation service chain Potential reach Disposal/ Containment Emptying Transport Treatment reuse Clean Team CBS In sealed containers Septage TP Landfill Extensive CBS (partially functional) Household Lined pit Vacuum tanker Septage TP Landfill Medium/­extensive— Latrines (partially functional) reaches most areas Note: Green = safe; yellow = partially safe. Sewer-based alternatives are not mentioned as these solutions would not be implementable in the near- to medium-term. CBS = container-based sanitation; TP = treatment plant. ­ eographical area. Note on potential reach: Potential to provide defined sanitation service to all households in specific targeted g toilets with septic tanks or a lined pit for pour-flush and ₵350 per desludging event (US$60 and US$80). toilets. Depending on the size of the pit/septic tank and the number of users, desludging frequency may be between One family in the process of moving from a Clean two to 10 years, suggesting an annual cost ranging Team service to a pour-flush toilet explained that they between ₵30 and ₵175 (US$7.50 and US$40.50). were one of the first Clean Team customers in the area and were happy to move away from the public toilet Table 3.1 compares the safety of the Clean Team’s CBS for convenience and comfort reasons. Having had the service with the alternatives at each point in the sanita- opportunity to experience an in-house toilet, and having tion chain, as well as their potential reach—that is, how seen the increase in the cost of the Clean Team service, well they can penetrate the informal settlements. she decided to invest in a pour-flush toilet. She started constructing the facility together with neighbors and is doing so in phases/installments, paying a range of differ- Notes ent suppliers. She is unsure what the full capital cost of 1 The analysis of all KPIs under a representative period is, therefore, investing in the toilet is, or the future cost and frequency not possible. 2 The decision maker could be the spouse and/or, more often, the of desludging, and has not received external assistance landlord. Some landlords do not want their tenants to have a por- in to make such calculations. table toilet, fearing negative consequences, such as odor, which may disturb other tenants. Improvements in the technology and an increase in the number of customers may give legitimacy to the According to Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor product, reducing the landlords’ reluctance. (WSUP), who is supporting the Kumasi Metropolitan 3 Depending on the public toilet and age of children, children may use toilets for free or at a lower price. Authority (KMA) in implementing a strategy to install a “toilet in every compound,” the cost of installing a household toilet facility can range between ₵1,500 and Reference ₵2,500 (US$350 and US$580). However, a technical Greenland, K., J. de-Witt Huberts, R. Wright, L. Hawkes, C. Ekor, solution approved under the strategy typically costs and A. Biran. 2016. “A Cross-sectional Survey to Assess Household between ₵2,000 and ₵5,000 (US$460 and US$1,160). Sanitation Practices Associated with Uptake of ‘Clean Team’ Serviced Home Toilets in Kumasi, Ghana.” Environment and Urbanization 28, Desludging costs are estimated to be between ₵250 no. 2: 583–98. 20 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana C HA P T E R 4 • FINAN C IAL PE RFORMAN CE This section presents an analysis of the financial per- grant funding to cover startup costs, research and devel- formance of the Clean Team business model. A key dif- opment costs, capital expenditure (infrastructure and ference from other case studies is that no original work equipment), and operational losses from the Depart- was conducted for this financial analysis. Clean Team ment for International Development (DFID), Bill  & had just completed an in-depth financial analysis with Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and Stone Family the support of Ernst & Young (EY) and in collaboration Foundation (SFF). with Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) as of May 2017, so it did not want to duplicate efforts. Public subsidies so far have been received only in-kind, Therefore, the content of this section is primarily based through the provision of land (that is, transfer stations on the EY report, which was conducted to advise Clean and treatment facility) and services (for example, dis- Team on pathways toward achieving financial sustain- posal of Clean Team feces at subsidized rates). By May ability and reducing dependency on external funders. 2017, Clean Team was seeking further public subsidies through tax relief, as it has applied for a value-added tax (VAT) exemption (of 17.5 percent). The EY–WSUP Current Costs and Financing Sources report articulated a vision of moving toward public ­ubsidies in the form of cash transfers per customer s To recover costs, Clean Team employs a combination of served. The report, for instance, suggests a type of service fees and external subsidies. Clean Team recov- public–­ private partnership (PPP) contract that could ered only 20 percent of its total costs through its cus- help secure subsidies for the cost of the toilet and/or tomers in fiscal year (FY) 2016–17 (that is, equivalent to service. an 80 percent subsidy) but was looking to increase this cost recovery ratio to 60 percent by FY 2017–18 (that is, 40 percent subsidy). Clean Team was also aiming to sus- Improving the Efficiency of Its Operations pend subsidizing its operational costs, both direct and indirect, by October 2018 (that is, break even earnings Clean Team has worked with its funders and external before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization advisers to analyze and improve the efficiency of its [EBITDA]) through a combination of increased cus- business model, reduce costs, and expand its customer tomer charges and efficiency gains. base. Based on the analysis contained in the EY–WSUP report (2017), the following cost drivers are discussed in The two main types of external subsidies Clean Team this section: currently uses are external grant funding from phil- anthropic donors and public subsidies from the local • Payment collection government. Until now, there has been a heavy depen- • Collection frequency dency on the former. • Densification • Customer churn The vast majority of funds provided to Clean Team so far has been through grants from foundations and bilat- • Waste-to-resource eral donors. Clean Team has received several rounds of • Cost of toilets Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 21 In addition, Clean Team has implemented a revised ser- (see  figure  4.1). As mentioned previously, Clean Team’s vice fee structure. Where data is available, the impact collection frequency has decreased from three to two they have on the business is assessed through the lens of times per week, with a goal of achieving a collection of the key financial performance indicators used by Clean once per week by December 2017. The once-per-week Team: gross margin, 1 EBITDA,2 and net margin.3 frequency assumes the move from a wet to a dry (using sawdust) service for all Clean Team customers. Payment Collection Densification According to the EY–WSUP analysis on Clean Team, a move from direct payment by account manag- Although densification4 is considered to be a main driver ers to mobile money could improve gross margin for reducing costs for Clean Team, the financial impact by 26  ­percent. As Clean Team had recently launched of it was not reported in the EY–WSUP analysis. WSUP mobile money at the time of the field visit, it was not yet reported plans to increase the densification of Clean possible to confirm the actual impact of such a switch as Team  customers by introducing a customer density key projected based on financial modeling. performance indicator (KPI), targeting new neighbor- hoods within the existing service areas and revisiting customers who had previously left the service. ­ Collection Frequency The EY–WSUP analysis suggested a significant impact Customer Churn of collection frequency on the gross margin of the ­business—a once-per-week frequency of collection WSUP reported that in 2016 Clean Team lost as many led to a gross margin of 51 percent compared to a three customers as it had gained in the previous four years time-­per-week frequency with a margin of 17 percent due to a high customer churn rate. Although the EY– WSUP report did not evaluate the cost this had on the business, it did suggest that a satisfied customer is Figure 4.1 •  Relations between Numbers of “imperative” for the business. In March 2015, WSUP C ­ ollection Per Week and Gross reported churn at Clean Team to be at 3 percent per Margins month, mainly due to customer dissatisfaction with 60 missed pickups and the resulting unwanted odors. 51 By March 2017, this was reduced to less than 1 per- 50 cent, with a plan to further reduce it to 0.5 percent by Gross margin (percent) March 2018. 40 30 Waste-to-Resource 20 17 As mentioned, Clean Team has purposefully and stra- tegically chosen not to invest in “closing the loop” and 10 incorporating a waste-to-treatment operation into the 0 business model. Instead, it has depended on the munici- 3 1 pality managing the waste post-disposal. The EY–WSUP Numbers of collections per week report clarifies that in the context of Kumasi, it is not yet 22 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana known whether sales from converting waste-to-resource willingness to pay more than US$5 from low-income can cover the cost of processing/treatment. To better customers. understand this, a strong understanding of the market for different byproducts would be necessary, which is why WSUP supported an assessment of the business Plans to Achieve Economies of Scale case for different solutions. through Expansion As of April 2017, when the initial research was con- Cost of Toilets ducted, Clean Team had approximately 1,100 house- holds as customers. Clean Team’s plan at the time was The EY–WSUP report puts significant emphasis on the to reach 5,000 customers by March 2019 and 10,000 impact of the cost of a toilet on the business model. customers within five years. WSUP believed this The proposed target landed cost is between US$40 and would be achievable because there had not yet been a US$50, with a life span of five years—the current landed strong sales push and the focus had been on achieving cost of a Clean Team toilet is US$92. Although the capi- a positive gross margin. These estimates reflect efforts tal cost of the toilet is not crucial to achieving the target to restructure the collection and transport p ­ rocess gross margin of 50 percent, it does become relevant once together with the new market strategy and densifi- the business starts to work toward a positive EBITDA cation efforts, focusing on promising geographical (projected by October 2018) and then a positive net areas. There were no plans at that stage to expand to margin (projected beyond March 2019). To achieve such other cities, either in Ghana or beyond. Instead, the cost reductions, Clean Team is looking into redesigning team was more interested in sharing learnings from the toilet to decrease costs while maintaining life span Clean Team to inform similar investments in other or increasing the effectiveness of the toilet by lowering countries. collection frequencies. Notes Service Fees 1 Gross margin is defined as the difference between revenue and direct costs (mainly transport, disposal, and payment collection) In April 2017, Clean Team started the process of divided by the total revenue. As identified by the EY–WSUP report, the proposed target gross margin for a household container-based implementing a revised service fee structure, increas- sanitation (CBS) business to be viable is 50 percent. ing the fee by 8.5 percent (for mobile money subscrib- 2 EBITDA is a measure of a business’s operating performance (including both direct and indirect costs). In the case of Clean ers) and 23 percent (for direct payment subscribers). Team, the major cost that EBITDA excludes is depreciation of its Although the impact this has had on the gross mar- assets, particularly its toilets. Indirect costs include, for instance, management overheads. gin and other financial indicators was not reported, a 3 Net margin is the percentage of revenue remaining after all operat- significant churn in customers has not been reported, ing expenses (direct and indirect) and after taxes and depreciation have been deducted from a company’s total revenue. suggesting a  level of tolerance by customers for the 4 Densification is increasing the number of customers within the increased service fee and potentially additional ­ specified geographic service areas. increases if they are gradually introduced and com- municated. The EY–WSUP report suggested the need for achieving a price range between US$8 to US$9 per Reference household per month, but this is heavily dependent EY (Ernst & Young) and WSUP (Water & Sanitation for the Urban on customers’ willingness and ability to pay for the Poor). 2017. “Why Wait for Sewers? Advancing Container-based Sanitation Businesses as a Viable Answer to the Global Sanitation service. The EY–WSUP reported a rapidly decreasing Crisis.” London, UK. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 23 C HA P T E R 5 • K E Y L E SSONS Despite offering better quality and a more affordable mandates and lack of accountability for achieving results ­ service than most of the available public toilets in the on access to sanitation seems to result in a focus on an area (as compared on a monthly basis), the number idealistic—and potentially unrealistic—vision of a water of customers using the Clean Team service remains septic tank in every household. In fact, local closet and ­ ­limited. Shared housing arrangements, lack of space, governments in Kumasi and other cities in Ghana, are limited affordability for the poorest, and absence of encouraging the uptake of the “one house, one toilet” explicit position of institutions toward container-based policy. sanitation (CBS) were identified as key limitations. At the same time, these cities have also invested mas- Neighborhoods where Clean Team intervenes share sively in improving public toilets, even in residential several commonalities: prevalence of shared housing, ­ areas. Thus, some officials perceive CBS to be a transi- often with more than eight households sharing a house tional solution that may interfere with in-house toilet and the facilities (courtyard, kitchen, and bathroom); support programs. This, along with lack of urgency and few houses with toilets facilities; and relatively high pressure to deliver toilets in every house, seems to hinder number of public toilets. the provision of full support for and strong partnerships with CBS providers. In Kumasi and Ghana, the social and legal environ- ment relating to the CBS approach is unclear. From Going forward, Clean Team could benefit from a the perspective of national authorities, the technology clearer policy environment, which would allow it to lies in a gray zone between the banned bucket toi- increase its scale of operations on a more cost-efficient composting toilets,” and “other toilets.” The weak lets, “­ business model. 24 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana A P P E NDI X A • PE O P L E INT E RVIE W E D Institution Position Name World Bank Ghana Water, sanitation, and hygiene Emmanuel Nkrumah (WASH) advisers Sanitation/Environmental Health and Sanitation Program Officer Kweku Quensah Directorate (EHSD) Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) Waste Management Department John Gorkeh-Miah director KMA EHSD director Don Awantungo Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA) Waste Management Department Anthony Mensah director Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) Head of sanitation Georges Mikhael WSUP Ghana Social business lead Faustina Ashante Public toilets Owner Name not available Sewerage network Operator Name not available Manual emptier Drivers Names not available Clean Team Chief executive officer Peter Townsley Clean Team Head of operations Abigail Aruna Clean Team Sales manager Eric Yeboah Clean Team Finance officer Name not available Clean Team Account manager, Asawase Janet Harrison Clean Team Account manager, Adukrom Lovia Boakye Clean Team Account manager, Sabon Zongo Beatrice Agyemang Clean Team Account manager, Tafo Name not available Clean Team Sales officer Names not available Clean Team Collector, Asawase Alidjah Aygiya community Traditional leader Name not available Aygiya community Traditional leader Name not available Interviews were also organized with 14 customers from Asawase and Tafo and five noncustomers from Oforikrom and Asawase. Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana 25 A P PE NDI X B • C L E AN T E AM ORGANOGRAM Chief executive officer Operations Sales Financial manager manager controller Business Transfer station Transport Treatment plan Finance development supervisor supervisor supervisor officer managers (4) Waste Waste Field sales Drivers collectors processors officers Administrator (2) (8) (5) (7) 26 Evaluating the Potential of Container-Based Sanitation: Clean Team in Kumasi, Ghana W18041