D: Evaluar, prevenir y tratar el delirio

CLUES is a further development of the HCES (Eawag, 2005) and is based on extensive field-level validation in seven sites around the world. Unlike HCES, the new CLUES planning approach now features a seven step participatory planning process – responding to the criticism that HCES with its ten steps was too lengthy and time-consuming. The change in terminology from household to community, reflects the importance of sanitation as a public good where communities need to be involved in selecting area-wide environmental sanitation solutions. The new approach is geared towards the community level and is meant to complement city-wide infrastructure planning approaches, e.g. Sanitation 21 by IWA (Lüthi, 2012).

Focus:

CLUES has a priority on community level of urban sanitation planning for the entire sanitation value chain (toilet, storage, transport, treatment and disposal or re-use). The main characteristics of CLUES stay the same with HCES: a multi-sector and multi-actor approach accounting for water supply, sanitation, solid waste management and storm drainage and emphasizing the participation of all stakeholders from an early stage in the planning process (Lüthi et al., 2011).

Steps:

CLUES consists of seven planning steps: 1) process ignition and demand creation, 2) launch of the planning process, 3) detailed assessment of the current situation, 4) prioritisation of the community problems and validation, 5) identification of service options, 6) development of an action plan and 7) implementation of the action plan.

Theoretical Background____________________________________________________________________

22

Stakeholders’ involvement:

Stakeholders are involved almost in all steps of CLUES, particularly in the launching of the planning process, identifying the current problems, defining users priorities and during project implementation. Community is significantly involved in decision-making and has a high degree of control over project outcomes and design the decisions (Eawag, 2005).

Technological aspects:

The selection of technology is based on consultation with experts and key stakeholders, using an informed- choice catalogue as its basis (Tilley et al., 2008). CLUES does not provide particular criteria selection for the proposed technology in its framework. It emphasizes the importance of reaching an agreement between community and local authority regarding the financial and management implications of the selected system.

CLUES:

 Reflects the importance of sanitation as public good, by involving community in the planning stages together with experts

 The seven steps offer an effective planning process, compared to HCES

 Technology selection based on its financial and management implications for the community

The comparison between four sanitation planning tools is summarized in Table 3.1.

Theoretical Background

23

Table 3.1 Summary of Open Planning, HCES, Sanitation 21 and CLUES

Analysis Open Planning HCES Sanitation 21 CLUES

Background/

aim To create and support an open and democratic sanitation planning process through the involvement of stakeholders.

To a create planning approach based

on the Bellagio Principles To address some key failings in current planning approaches which result in a mismatch between the stated investment objectives and the outcomes.

To create a more effective planning as an improvement of HCES

Focus Instead of focusing on purely technical solutions to sanitation, it focuses on the functionality of a sanitation system in order to supply a sustainable sanitation system.

The ten-step process focuses attention on issues of human dignity, local participation, holistic waste management, and solving sanitation problems close to the source.

The tool focuses on excreta management: how could that be planned better, so that investments are more likely to generate the needed health and environmental

Opinions of stakeholders are taking into account as early on as possible in:

- identifying problems

- defining Terms of Requirement (TOR) of the technologies used - analysing possible solutions.

HCES is intended for urban settings, by placing the household and its neighbourhood or the community at the core of the planning process.

Stakeholders are involved in phases of:

- launching the planning process - assessing the current sanitation

status

- assessing user priorities.

There is recognition that

stakeholders in each domain have their own interest. The key step in the framework is finally to select a system based on its ability to meet the objectives and management capacity defined by the stakeholders.

Stakeholders are involved almost in all planning stages. The planning framework employs both expert and community knowledges.

Principals of technology assessment

The terms of requirement (ToR) are used for assessing sustainable sanitation alternatives. Criteria for ToR are provided in the framework.

However, the framework emphasizes the need of developing a contextual ToR together with the stakeholders.

HCES proposes a combination which includes the connectivity of the existing service in higher levels (i.e: municipalities) and the

proposed service (i.e: at a household level). The various technical combinations can then be matched with various institutional options.

List of criteria for selecting a technology is provided.

The tool highlights the importance of the compatibility of the

technology across domains for sustainability. A list of criteria for technology assessment is not provided. Eight generic sanitation systems are offered for further consideration (functionality, operation, maintenance, and basic management requirement of the systems)

The selection of technology refers to an informed-choice catalogue.

However, technology implications (financial, management) become the important consideration in selecting a technology

Theoretical Background____________________________________________________________________

24

The result of this comparison reveals that all reviewed planning tools cover five basic steps (McCoville, 2010): problem identification, define objectives, design options, selection process, action plan for implementation. The main differences between the frameworks lie in the emphasis of each step and whether or not the planning framework includes action planning after the selection of technology.

 In this dissertation, the proposed planning tool covers step 1-4. The proposed steps are designed to be applicable for other context (generic steps). Each step is equipped with a ’tool kit’ to conduct the analysis.

All four sanitation planning tools acknowledge the importance of involving stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries in the decision making process. However, the level of stakeholders’ involvement varies from one planning framework to another.

 In this dissertation, stakeholders involvement is designed by taking into account the local culture, local planning approach, roles and capability of each stakeholder group. HCES approach which considers spatial, institutional and decision-making “domains” necessary for planning is adopted in the proposed tool.

The four planning tools provide different framework to select a technology. Open Planning and HCES are equipped with a list of technology selection criteria- and Sanitation 21 and CLUES prescribe generic analysis on several sanitation systems to assist the decision makers. Although the technology selection criteria are provided by some tools, there is no clear indication of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to meet these criteria. Specifically, there is no reference to what is meant by sustainable technology in a particular context and how to comprehensively assess the sustainability of different technology options.

 This dissertation offers a set of technology assessment indicators to guide the decision makers in selecting the most sustainable technology for their specific context. This indicator set (as one of the ‘tool element’) is integrated in the proposed planning tool. Each indicator is equipped with a clear indication of the conditions to be fulfilled to meet the criteria, using three scales: low-medium-high fulfillment.

3.2. Sustainability-based Technology Assessment: Shaping Technology with