Manual SFD

SFD Manual – Volume 1 and 2
Version 2.0 I Last updated: April 2018
©Copyright
All SFD Promotion Initiative materials are freely available following the open-source concept for capacity development
and non-profit use, so long as proper acknowledgement of the source is made when used. Users should always give
credit in citations to the original author, source and copyright holder.
The complete Manual for SFD Production and SFD Reports are available from: www.sfd.susana.org
Contents
Volume 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Purpose of this manual ..................................................................................................... 3
2. Key definitions of the SFD-PI ................................................................................................... 3
3. Levels of SFD Report ............................................................................................................... 5
3.1. ‘Level 1’ - Initial SFD ......................................................................................................... 6
3.2. ‘Level 2’ - Intermediate SFD ............................................................................................. 6
3.3. ‘Level 3’ - Comprehensive SFD ........................................................................................ 6
3.4. SFD Lite ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.5. The SFD production process ............................................................................................ 7
4. Assessing the enabling environment ...................................................................................... 10
4.1. Urban context .................................................................................................................. 10
4.1.1. Policy, legislation and regulation ............................................................................. 11
4.1.2. Planning ................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.3. Equity ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.4. Service outputs ........................................................................................................ 12
4.1.5. Expansion of services.............................................................................................. 13
5. Producing the SFD: Sanitation service chain analysis ........................................................... 13
5.1. Terminology..................................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Service outcomes............................................................................................................ 13
5.2.1. Containment (on-site and off-site sanitation) .......................................................... 15
5.2.2. Emptying and Transport .......................................................................................... 17
5.2.3. Treatment (of wastewater and/or faecal sludge)..................................................... 17
5.2.4. Disposal and end-use .............................................................................................. 18
5.3. Performance data............................................................................................................ 18
5.3.1. Dealing with uncertainty in the data ........................................................................ 20
5.4. SFD Graphic Generator .................................................................................................. 21
5.4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 21
5.4.2. Step One: Enter general city information and select sanitation systems ............... 22
5.4.3. Estimating risk of groundwater pollution ................................................................. 23
5.4.4. Step two: Create SFD Matrix................................................................................... 25
5.4.5. Step Three: Draw SFD graphic ............................................................................... 26
6. Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 27
6.1. Data Management........................................................................................................... 27
7. Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................... 28
7.1. Principles of stakeholder engagement............................................................................ 28
7.1.1. Principle 1: Stakeholder identification ..................................................................... 28
7.1.2. Principle 2: Early engagement ................................................................................ 30
7.1.3. Principle 3: Respecting opinions ............................................................................. 30
7.1.4. Principle 4: Communication ..................................................................................... 30
7.1.5. Principle 5: Ethical considerations .......................................................................... 31
7.2. Stakeholder engagement for each method of data collection ........................................ 31
7.2.1. Literature review of existing secondary data ........................................................... 32
7.2.2. Key Informant Interviews ......................................................................................... 32
7.2.3. Observations ........................................................................................................... 34
8. Evaluating credibility of data sources ..................................................................................... 36
8.1. Self-assessment.............................................................................................................. 36
8.2. Reviewing Process.......................................................................................................... 36
9. Reporting ................................................................................................................................ 37
9.1. Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 37
10. Key resources ..................................................................................................................... 38
Volume 2
Glossary.......................................................................................................................................... 40
Part 1 – Master SFD Graphic .................................................................................................... 41
Part 2 - Definition of SFD variables ............................................................................................ 44
Part 3 - Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................................... 78
Part 4 – sanitation containment systems: SFD schematics ....................................................... 94
Annexes
Annex 1: Literature review of existing secondary data ................................................................ 108
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 108
Literature from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other ‘external’ agencies ........ 109
Annex 2: Key Informant Interviews .............................................................................................. 110
Quality control ........................................................................................................................... 110
Data Management .................................................................................................................... 111
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 111
Annex 3: Observations ................................................................................................................. 112
Sampling for observations ........................................................................................................ 113
Annex 4: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ................................................................................ 114
Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 115
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 115
Quality control ........................................................................................................................... 116
List of tables
Table 1: Components of an SFD Report ................................................................................................. 5
Table 2: Data requirements and recommendations for different types of SFD Report ........................... 8
Table 3: Summary of data collected ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Questions and data collection methods to analyse the range of sanitation service chain ...... 14
Table 5: Quantitative performance data ................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Qualitative performance data .................................................................................................. 20
Table 7: Stakeholders working on different parts of the sanitation service chain ................................. 29
Table 8: Stakeholder Groups................................................................................................................. 32
Table 9: Example of phasing ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 10: SFD Variables Table ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 11: Topics for FGDs with community representatives ............................................................... 114
Table 12: Questions to be addressed during the FDGs ...................................................................... 114
List of figures
Figure 1: SFD Graphic Example ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Stakeholder influence-interest matrix ..................................................................................... 29
Abbreviations
FGD Focus group discussion
KII Key informant interview
SFD Shit Flow Diagram: a graphic tracking the flow and management of all
excreta within a city, from source to final fate (or destination
SFD-PI SFD Promotion Initiative

SFD Manual
VOLUME 1
1. Introduction
A Shit Flow Diagram (SFD) is an easy-to-understand advocacy and decision-support tool

comprising a report (SFD Report) which contains a graphic (SFD Graphic). An SFD summarises
service outcomes in terms of the flow and fate of excreta in urban areas. It includes a qualitative
assessment of the context in which service delivery takes place and a complete record of data
sources. The process of developing the report is as important as the report itself. Use of the SFD
method enables a standardised assessment of excreta flows in urban areas. Due to the sensitivity
around the term "shit", the following terms are often used interchangeably: Excreta Flow Diagram
or Faecal Waste Flow Diagram.
The SFD Graphic is a visual representation that enables stakeholders to identify service outcomes
in terms of the flow and fate of excreta produced by the population. Excreta which is safely
managed and move along the sanitation service chain are represented by green arrows moving
from left to right in the graphic, while excreta which are unsafely managed are represented by red
arrows. Unsafely managed flows discharging to the environment are represented by red arrows
turning towards the bottom of the graphic. The width of each arrow is proportional to the percentage
of the population whose excreta contribute to that flow.
Figure 1: SFD Graphic Example
SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 2

1.1. Purpose of this manual
This manual identifies and describes the process followed within the SFD Promotion Initiative (SFD-
PI) for the production of an SFD Report and includes guidance on how to use the SFD Graphic
Generator. Volume 1 of this manual is a guide for the data collection and analysis and should be
read in conjunction with the accompanying Volume 2 that includes the Master SFD Graphic; the
Definitions of SFD Graphic Variables; the Definitions of Terms and Sanitation Containment System:
SFD Schematics.
The aim of the full manual is to guide readers through the methodological process, developed by
the SFD-PI, for collecting and analysing data on the service delivery context in a city or urban area
in order to generate the SFD Report. By using a standardized methodological approach, credible
SFD Reports will be produced that are based on data from reliable sources that are assessed and
documented.
2. Key definitions of the SFD-PI
The following definitions are used to describe the SFD production process and the tools that have
been developed to support this:
 SFD Manual: describes the methods for the production of a SFD Report and provides
guidance on the use of the tools.
 SFD Report: the output from the SFD production process. It contains the SFD Graphic,
an assessment of the service delivery context and a record of the data sources used.
 SFD Graphic Generator: the tool used to generate the SFD Graphic and the SFD Matrix.
It contains the SFD Selection Grid and Assessment of the risk to groundwater
pollution.
 Master SFD Graphic: the visual representation of the excreta flows across a town or city
that shows the pathways taken by all excreta from defecation to disposal along the
sanitation service chain.
 SFD Matrix: a table which contains the means to calculate the variables for each of the
sanitation systems chosen in the SFD Selection Grid.
 SFD Selection Grid: enables the user to define the set of sanitation containment systems
present in the city and forms the basis of the SFD Matrix.
 Assessment of the risk of groundwater pollution: the means to assess the risk
associated with people drinking water that is potentially contaminated by the sanitation
systems used in the town or city. It is estimated from data on drinking water and
groundwater sources, geology and the distance between drinking water sources and
sanitation facilities.

Excreta/Shit: consists of urine and faeces combined with any flushing water.
Enabling environment: is the range and inter-relationships of non-technical elements that are
needed to support service delivery. For urban sanitation services, the enabling environment is likely
to consist of aspects relating to policy (including legislation and regulation), strategy and direction,
institutional arrangements, programme methodology, implementation capacity, availability of
products and tools, financing, cost-effective implementation, and monitoring & evaluation.
Faecal sludge (FS): is undigested or partially digested slurry or solids containing mostly excreta
and water, in combination with sand, grit, metals, solid waste and/or various chemical compounds.
Faecal sludge comes from on-site sanitation technologies, resulting from the collection and storage
of excreta or black water, with or without greywater.
Sanitation service chain: for on-site sanitation systems, this typically comprises excreta capture
and storage in a latrine pit or septic tank; emptying of the pit or tank; transport of the contents;
sludge treatment; end-use or final disposal of the resulting products.
For off-site sanitation systems this typically comprises wastewater from a flush toilet transported
through sewers to a wastewater treatment facility and end-use or final disposal of the treated
wastewater or by-products.
Service delivery context: this addresses aspects of the policies, legislations and regulations used
to guide the design and operation of sanitation services delivered by the different stakeholders all
along the sanitation service chain. The service delivery context is also the setting in which the
institutional capacities and tools are arranged to provide the delivery of those services.
Stakeholder: is any group, organisation or individual that can influence or be influenced by the
sanitation services under consideration and that has a vested interest in the sanitation sector
(covering off-site or on-site sanitation services). Stakeholders may be grouped into the following
types of categories: international, national, local, political, public / private sector, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) / civil society, operators and users / consumers.

3. Levels of SFD Report
Completing an SFD Report, including service delivery context information and the SFD Graphic,
involves two broad aspects (see Table 1). These are to:
1. Collect information about the service delivery context in order to assess the status of sanitation
services within the defined area;
2. Using this information, assess the situation with regards to all sanitation services and
management of excreta, from which an SFD Graphic will be prepared
Table 1: Components of an SFD Report
Aspects to Assess Objective Output
Service Delivery Context To identify the status of sanitation Narrative sections of the
service delivery within the urban area SFD Report
Management of excreta through To identify the proportions of excreta

the sanitation service chain that are safely or unsafely managed SFD Graphic
through the sanitation service chain
There are four levels of SFD Report that can be produced and they differ on the basis of four main
criteria:
1. The purpose of the SFD,

2. The resources required,
3. The extent of data collected,
4. The extent of stakeholder engagement and
5. The depth of data analysis.
The process requires assessment of the Enabling Environment for sanitation to varying degrees
for each level of SFD. The extent of data required and depth of analysis for an Initial SFD is less
than that for a Comprehensive SFD. The data to be collected will relate to the key components of
the Enabling Environment for sanitation service delivery (refer to Section 2, Key Definitions of the
SFD-PI). Table 2 that follows shows how criteria 2 and 3 relate to the amount of data required for
each level of SFD.

3.1. ‘Level 1’ - Initial SFD
An Initial SFD is appropriate when limited amounts of secondary data are available and there is
limited access to stakeholders due to time, logistics or resources. The same reporting format is
used as in an Intermediate SFD, but any data gaps are clearly identified and the assumptions made
are clearly justified. This level of SFD may be suitable as an advocacy document, to generate
interest and initiate a conversation with relevant stakeholders about the situation in the city. The
initial level can support the identification of data gaps and assess the need for conducting a more
detailed report. An Initial SFD Report can be upgraded to an Intermediate SFD when additional
secondary data and improved access to other relevant stakeholders is obtained.
3.2. ‘Level 2’ - Intermediate SFD
An Intermediate SFD is appropriate when extensive secondary data are available and a range of
stakeholders can be interviewed, either in-person or remotely. Primary data, from interviews
observations or measurements, may be included and will allow you to validate your assumption
based on other experts’ opinions. An Intermediate SFD implies that data has been triangulated and
inconsistencies could be identified. An Intermediate SFD will provide you will a broad understanding
of the service delivery situation in the city and can be upgraded to a Comprehensive SFD with the
systematic collection of primary data.
3.3. ‘Level 3’ - Comprehensive SFD
A Comprehensive SFD requires at least the same amount of secondary data as for an Intermediate
SFD, but with additional stakeholder engagement and systematic primary data collection. A
Comprehensive SFD requires data from in-person interviews, informal and formal observations and
direct measurements in the field, to verify data accuracy. This level will be appropriate to inform the
planning of service improvement options or investment decisions.
The main methods adopted for data collection are:
 A literature review of secondary data, including published and grey literature, government
documents, performance reports and previous field studies carried out by others. Annex 1
for further guidance. Literature alone is unlikely to provide sufficient detailed, up-to-date
information about the realities of sanitation services that are actually experienced by the
population on a day to day basis. For this reason it is valuable to identify further details
relating to the current realities. Such information can help to produce a more credible SFD
Graphic as well as provide qualitative data and perhaps additional quantitative data relating
to the service delivery context.
 Collection and interpretation of primary data as a means of fact-checking and triangulation

of secondary data. This may consist of:
 Qualitative data, that can be obtained through, for example:

- Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) – either conducted in person or remotely. Key
informants may include community leaders, people in charge of different aspects of
sanitation in the city (i.e. utilities, FS truck operators), government agencies (i.e.
planning, regulators) amongst other (see Annex 2)
- Observation of service provision and facilities through the sanitation service

chain (see Annex 3)
- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with community representatives or service

providers (see Annex 4)
 Quantitative data: direct measurements of service provision and facilities through the
sanitation service chain (see Annex 3)
3.4. SFD Lite
An SFD Lite report allows you to prepare an SFD Graphic with a minimum amount of supporting
data and referenced sources for that data. The data to be collected focuses on the management
of excreta through the sanitation service chain to identify the Service outcomes, without the
supporting service delivery context information. Such a report may prove to be a valuable starting
point from which to then develop a more detailed SFD Report at a later stage.
3.5. The SFD production process
The process for developing Level 1, 2 or 3 SFD Reports starts by getting a broad understanding
of the urban area and assessing the enabling environment for sanitation where the SFD is going
to be developed (and country when national policies and legislation affect sanitation services).
The process focuses on the collection of data needed to develop the SFD Report through an
analysis of each stage of the sanitation service chain. Often there are regional variations to the
term referring to specific technologies; therefore, it is important that the terminology used is
consistent with that of the SFD terminology (see Volume 2 of the manual). Additionally, the sources
of data used, as well as any assumptions made, need to be carefully explained. This allows the
SFD to be reproduced and complemented when new data becomes available and also refutable.
All of these aspects are vital to ensure good quality standards for any SFD Report that is developed
using the methodology of the SFD-Promotion Initiative.
Stakeholder engagement is a critical part of the SFD production process in that it serves as a
means of gaining wider acceptance and support for the process. Experience has proven that the
better the level of stakeholder engagement, the more likely the SFD Report and accompanying
SFD Graphic will be accepted and used by decision makers.

Table 2: Data requirements and recommendations for different types of SFD Report
Data collection
 = required  = not required If collected = recommended, where available
Enabling KII = Key Informant Interview
environment Data collected at all stages of the service chain:
to service containment to end-use or disposal
delivery Level of SFD
Possible sources of data
(primary and secondary)
Lite Initial Intermediate Comprehensive
Policy: To what extent is provision of sanitation services

enabled by appropriate, acknowledged and available policy Policy documentation    
documents (National/Local or both)?
Institutional roles: To what extent are the institutional roles Policy / strategy documents   
and responsibilities for sanitation service delivery clearly defined Existing reports    
Policy, and operationalized? KIIs with lead institutions If collected If collected 
legislation
and Service provision: To what extent do the policy, legislative and Policy / strategy documents
  
regulation regulatory framework enable investment and involvement in Existing reports
   
sanitation services by appropriate service providers (public or KIIs with public and private
If collected If collected 
private)? institutions
Standards: To what extent are norms and standards for each Existing reports   
part of the sanitation service chain systematically monitored and 
KIIs with lead institutions If collected If collected 
reported?
Targets: To what extent are there service targets for each part City/national development Include if
of the sanitation service chain in the city development plan, or a 
plans   data is
national development plan that is being adopted at the city 
KIIs with city authorities collected
level?
Planning Investment: How much was invested in sanitation services in
the last investment plan and how much has been incorporated City investment plans
Include if 
into the next approved investment plan? What has been Investment plans of donors,
  data is 
achieved as a result of the last level of investment (including private sector, etc.
collected 
investing in human resources, Technical Assistance, etc. as KIIs with lead institutions
well as infrastructure)?

Choice: To what extent is there a range of affordable, Include if
KIIs with lead institutions 
appropriate, safe and adaptable technologies for sanitation   data is
Observations 
services available to meet the needs of the urban poor? collected
Equity
Reducing inequity: To what extent are there plans and Include if
City authority reports 
measures to ensure sanitation serves all users, and specifically   data is
KIIs with lead institutions 
the urban poor? collected
Quantity / capacity: Is the capacity of each part of the Include if

sanitation service chain growing at the pace required to ensure Studies / reports 
Outputs   data is
access to sanitation meets the needs/demands and targets that KIIs with lead institutions 
collected
protects public and environmental health?
Quality: To what extent are the procedures and processes for Policy documentation
monitoring and reporting access to sanitation services applied,   
Reports
to ensure safe and functioning facilities and services through   
KIIs with lead institutions 
the service chain? Is the quality of the facilities and services If collected  
Observations or
sufficient to ensure they protect against risk throughout the  If collected 
measurements
service chain?
Demand: To what extent has government (National or Local) Include if
developed any policies and procedures, or planned and KIIs with lead institutions   data is 
undertaken programs to stimulate demand for sanitation collected
services and behaviours by households?
Expansion
Sector development: To what extent does the government Include if
have ongoing programs and measures to strengthen the role of KIIs with lead institutions   data is 
service providers (public or private) in the provision of sanitation collected
services, in urban or peri-urban areas?
Policy documentation
Quantity: To what extent is the excreta generated from on-site    
Reports
Service and off-site sanitation technologies effectively managed within    
KIIs with lead institutions
outcomes each part of the service chain? If collected If collected  
Observations or
  If collected 
(Note: This information is used to generate the SFD Graphic ) measurements

4. Assessing the enabling environment
4.1. Urban context
Whatever level of study is going to be developed, the process requires the report to include certain
general facts and characteristics related to the urban area. The minimal information to be included
in any SFD Report is:
Location of the town / city and country, urban boundaries1, boundaries of the area that the SFD
Report is representing (if different) and a map highlighting significant areas and aspects (districts,
zones, etc.)
 Climate: type of climate, average temperature (minimal and maximum), rainy/dry

seasons, etc.
 Key physical and geographical features: topography (a general range within the area
of the study), geology, rivers, extent of frequent floods, etc. Data about groundwater
levels has to be included in this section (details of the data needed to assess the risk
to groundwater pollution can be found in Section 5.4.3).
 Population and population growth rate, including any significant variations in population
sizes/movements/patterns (e.g. diurnal, seasonal), distribution (poor vs. wealthy
settlements) and density. If possible include information about:
o Diurnal variation of the population: the difference in the number of people during
the working day and during the night;
o Weekly variation of the population: the difference in the number of people
between different days of the week (e.g. weekdays and weekends);
o Seasonal variation of the population: the extent to which the number of people
can vary during specific times of year, affected for example by national public
holidays or tourism.
 Economics: principal economic activities within the area.
This information may be available through carrying out a literature review of the secondary data
(see Table 2 and Annex 1). The use of additional data sources, such as Key Informant Interviews,
may be a helpful in filling in any gaps in information.
The following sections identify the information to be collected, analysed and documented about
the enabling environment for sanitation for a Comprehensive SFD.
Table 2 shows the guiding questions that should be answered based on the collected information.
The questions in the table should be considered and responded to in relation to all sanitation
1Note that the physical urban boundary may not be the same as political or administrative urban boundaries. It is
useful to define and identify differences, as they can have an effect on the operating areas of service providers.

technologies, systems and services (centralised and decentralised, off-site and on-site, formal and
informal) operating in an area. The response to each question should also consider all stages of
the sanitation service chain (from containment to end-use / disposal), with relevant information
documented for each question at each stage.
4.1.1. Policy, legislation and regulation

The following information is required:
 Overview of policies affecting all stages of the sanitation service chain: consider national,
regional and local policies, legislation and regulatory frameworks that will affect excreta
management in the area:
o National documents such as the Constitution, Laws, or decrees affecting
environmental aspects, water resources, drainage, sewerage and on-site sanitation
services, wastewater and faecal sludge (FS) treatment, disposal and reuse.
o Regional or local bylaws, regulations or master plans affecting environmental
aspects, water resources, drainage, sewerage and on-site sanitation services,
wastewater and FS treatment, disposal and reuse, waste management (including
solid waste) services.
 Institutional roles, including the formal (de jure) and informal (de facto) roles played by
public and private institutions engaged in the sanitation service chain are to be considered
in relation to:
o National level: Ministries and agencies that are involved in excreta management;
such as Water, Works, Environment, Education, Finance, Regulatory Agencies,
National Standard Bodies (for technologies and procedures)
o Regional level: any functions regarding excreta management, such as setting
bylaws, enforcing regulations, or service provision.
o Local government: responsibility for sanitation service provision.
It can be helpful to prepare a table showing a summary of collected information (see Table 3):
Table 3: Summary of data collected
Level Institution Role(s) Formal responsibilities (de Informal, or developed responsibilities (de
jure) facto)
National
Regional
Local

 Data on service provision, which relates to those providing services along the sanitation
service chain. Where data is available, it can help to assess the extent to which policies
and regulations enable investments and involvement of a range of appropriate service
providers – either public or private providers, or through public-private partnerships.
 Standards and norms affecting the services, such as water quality standards and
monitoring systems, Service Performance Indicators (those existing and those monitored)
and infrastructure design standards related to sanitation. Any records held by the water
utility or within the different levels of government relating to standards of sanitation services
and installations along the sanitation service chain will be a valuable source of information.
4.1.2. Planning
This aspect of the analysis considers the different national, regional and local plans or strategies
from which the following data is required:
 Service development targets and specific actions. A comparison of these targets can be
made by institution or by considering city-level, or national, development plans.
 Current and future investments. Recent expenditure or budgets allocated to investment
in sanitation services, including:
o Budget distribution in the WASH sector (national, regional and local).
o Percentage of the budget going to each stage of the sanitation service chain.
o Results of recent expenditure on services through the sanitation service chain
(including human resource allocation and technical assistance).
4.1.3. Equity
This considers the sanitation technologies and services that are present in a city and how they
meet the needs of the urban poor. In particular, information should be collected about:
 Which technologies the urban poor rely on.

 Plans and measures to ensure services are available for all: priority actions, budget
allocation to reducing inequity or prioritising sanitation.
 Levels of access and affordability for excreta containment, emptying and conveyance
(sewerage or otherwise) technologies, and the extent to which they are serving low-income
communities.
4.1.4. Service outputs

Information to collect should consider:
 Capacity through the service chain to meet the needs and demands of the population –
with consideration of the urban growth rate and how this will affect future service provision.
 Procedures for monitoring and reporting on access to services and the extent to which the
resulting services can be considered as safe.

4.1.5. Expansion of services
The expansion of services takes into consideration the extent to which policies, procedures, plans
and/or programs are considering the increasing demand for services and responding to that
demand through plans and investments for strengthening supply chains.
5. Producing the SFD: Sanitation service chain analysis
It is important to be aware that uncertainties in the data may occur at any stage of the sanitation
service chain. It is expected that each SFD Report will identify any discrepancies between reported
conditions and the local reality.
5.1. Terminology
A key aspect to consider while analysing the sanitation service chain is the terminology to be used
in order to achieve standard information in all SFD Reports.
Experience suggests that there may be little, if any, global consensus amongst stakeholders for
terms used to define the different technologies or concepts. For example, the term septic tank is
frequently used to describe a range of technologies (including unlined or semi-lined ‘septic’ tanks,
cesspits (sealed tanks with no outflow) or aqua privies. Discussions with stakeholders will be
necessary in order to reach a level of agreement.
The Definition of Terms, as used for this methodology, can be found in SFD Manual Volume 2:
Glossary.
5.2. Service outcomes
This aspect focuses on collecting the data and making the assumptions that are needed to develop
the SFD Graphic. Identify the range of off-site and on-site sanitation technologies and systems in
use (refer to SFD Manual Volume 2: Glossary for more information) and analyse the collected data
to produce the SFD Graphic. In addition, all assumptions that are used to select the types of
systems in use and to calculate values for the SFD Graphic are to be clearly stated. Refer to Table
4 for guiding questions.

Table 4: Questions and data collection methods to analyse the range of sanitation service chain
Possible sources of
System type Containment Emptying Transport Treatment End-use/disposal
information
Off-site - What methods are used
- What off-site sanitation
sanitation: - What methods are used to transport for end-use or disposal of Documented studies
technologies are used to
Wastewater the wastewater? the wastewater? and municipal, utility
connect the population to
direct to sewer - What percentage of this population - What methods are used - What percentage of the or private local
centralised/decentralised
(centralised) are actually connected to and to treat the wastewater? population served by service provider
sewers?
served by centralised/decentralised - What percentage of the decentralised/centralised records (secondary
System technologies and methods used in the city
- What percentage of the

Off-site sewers? wastewater is sewers has their data-see Annex 1)
population are using off-site
sanitation: - What percentage of the population considered to be wastewater disposed of
sanitation technologies that
Wastewater served by centralised/decentralised effectively treated? with/without treatment? Key Informant
connect directly to
direct to sewer sewers has their wastewater - What percentage of the Interviews (online or
centralised/decentralised
(decentralised) reaching treatment facilities? transported wastewater face to face) with city
sewers?
has a further end-use? authorities, local
- What on-site sanitation government
- What methods
On-site technologies are used that departments and
are used to
sanitation: contain excreta on-site? service providers
- What transport the
Excreta - What percentage of the (see Annex 2)
methods are faecal sludge
contained on- population are using on-site
used to empty that is emptied
site sanitation technologies that - What methods are used Observation (see
the faecal from these
contain excreta on site? - What methods are used for end-use/disposal of the Annex 3)
sludge from technologies?
- What on-site sanitation to treat the faecal faecal sludge? What
these - What
technologies are used where sludge? percentage of the Focus Group
technologies? percentage of
On-site excreta is not contained on- - What percentage of the transported faecal sludge Discussions with
- What the emptied community
sanitation: site? faecal sludge reaching a is disposed of with/without
percentage of faecal sludge is representatives
Excreta not - What percentage of the treatment plant is treatment?
this transported and/or service
contained on- population are using on-site considered to be - What percentage of the
population away from the providers (see Annex
site sanitation technologies that effectively treated? transported faecal sludge
have their on- containment 4)
do not contain excreta on has a further end-use?
site sanitation facility and what
site? technology percentage is
emptied? transported to a
What percentage of the
Open faecal sludge
population is practising open
defecation treatment
defecation?
plant?

Both off-site sanitation and on-site sanitation systems are analysed for each part of the sanitation
service chain.
 Off-site sanitation: Considers how many people are connected to sewerage networks
and the type of sewerage system they are connected to (centralised or decentralised
and separate or combined.
 On-site sanitation: Considers the complete range of technologies and services that
exist at all stages of the sanitation service chain.
Where variations in characteristics affecting where excreta is produced and managed through the
sanitation service chain can be identified, they should be explained clearly within the SFD Report.
For instance, seasonality is likely to be important, as the management of excreta often changes
during the year. This may be affected by, for example, households or institutions having on-site
containment emptied during the rainy season if pits and tanks fill more rapidly with the ingress of
rising groundwater or storm water. Similarly, this may occur where families have on-site
containment emptied before major festivals, when visitors are expected.
The following sections consider the information to be collected for each stage of the sanitation
service chain
5.2.1. Containment (on-site and off-site sanitation)

A complete description and analysis is to be made of the different technologies that exist in the
area. The range of technologies that can be considered by the SFD Graphic Generator is provided
in SFD Manual Volume 2: Glossary (see the SFD Selection Grid in the SFD Graphic Generator:
http://sfd.susana.org/data-to-graphic). The technologies identified in the SFD Graphic Generator
are:
 No on-site container. Toilet discharges directly to a specific destination

 Septic tank
 Fully lined tank (sealed)
 Lined tank with impermeable walls and open bottom
 Lined pit with semi-permeable walls and open bottom
 Unlined pit
 Pit (all types), never emptied but abandoned when full and covered with soil
 Pit (all types), never emptied, abandoned when full but NOT adequately covered with
soil
 Toilet failed, damaged, collapsed or flooded
 Containment (septic tank or tank or pit latrine) failed, damaged, collapsed or flooded
 No toilet. Open defecation

These containment technologies may be connected to one or more of the following (although not
all options are applicable in all cases):
 to a centralised or decentralised combined sewer
 to a centralised or decentralised foul/separate sewer
 to a soak pit
 to an open drain or storm sewer
 to a water body
 to open ground
 to 'don't know where'
 no outlet or overflow
Firstly, the author needs to identify the range of technologies within the area (note: where
technologies are identified that are not included in this list, the author needs to decide which are
the most similar technologies on the SFD Graphic Generator that can be used as an equivalent).
Next, the author must identify their features and whether they are properly constructed and/or
located in areas where there is a low or significant risk of groundwater contamination (see Section
5.4.3 for details on how to assess the groundwater contamination risk).
Categories of origin (of excreta flows)
This refers to the percentage contribution of excreta from each sanitation technology or system,
accounting for different settings, as listed below:
 Households/domestic facilities: this includes individual occupancy households,

multiple-occupancy households (e.g. high-rise apartment blocks and compounds) and
multiple households sharing one system
 Shared or communal toilets (i.e. not open to the general public)
 Public toilets (e.g. on-street, in public transit areas, at markets or bus stations)
 Institutions: including schools and universities, prisons and military barracks
 Commercial areas: including businesses, offices, shopping areas
 Industrial areas: (includes domestic excreta coming from sanitation facilities in
factories, but not industrial effluent)
 Restaurants and hotels.
Comprehensive knowledge about the use of non-household facilities, and how this relates to the
use of the main sanitation facility that someone uses, is required if this information is to be included,
in order to avoid a misrepresentation of excreta flows in the SFD Graphic.

Usage level
Having analysed and described all of the containment technologies, what they are connected to
and the categories of origin of the excreta, the percentage of people that use each technology
needs to be assessed and indicated.
At this stage, it is recommended to prepare a table to summarise, for each type of technology, how
the information will be captured by the SFD Selection Grid in the SFD Graphic Generator and the
percentage of the population using each technology that will be captured by the SFD Matrix in the
SFD Graphic Generator (see Section 5.4 for further details)
If a specific technology or category of origin is used by less than 1% of the population, it is

recommended that this is not considered when generating the SFD Graphic.
5.2.2. Emptying and Transport

Off-site sanitation
Consider information on sewer coverage (centralised and decentralised), and the functionality of
transport through the sewers (i.e. the percentage of wastewater delivered to a treatment facility and
the percentage identified (or considered) to be lost through leakage in the sewers).
On-site sanitation
Consider the percentage of each type of on-site sanitation technology that is emptied (either by
manual or motorised means). For each method used, information is needed about the quality,
effectiveness and functionality of operations – for private or public sanitation facilities and by formal
or informal service providers.
For the transport stage, the capacity of transport infrastructure (including numbers and volumes of
trucks, tankers, etc. and the scale of operations or service coverage), as well as the quality,
effectiveness and functionality of services (e.g. how much removed faecal sludge is delivered to a
treatment plant and how much is not) is to be identified.
5.2.3. Treatment (of wastewater and/or faecal sludge)

Consider a description of all treatment facilities (wastewater and faecal sludge), including influent
and effluent volumes of wastewater treatment, input and output volumes of faecal sludge treatment,
scale (capacity of the treatment plant – as compared to the volumes received and treated),
operation and maintenance issues, and extent of treatment provided (that is the percentage of
wastewater or faecal sludge that is considered as treated). In addition, a general assessment of
the quality, effectiveness, and functionality and performance standards of treatment facilities is to
be included, where appropriate to the context.

5.2.4. Disposal and end-use
Consider information about the use (both informal and formal) of output products from treatment
plants, the location of all disposal points for wastewater and faecal sludge (including transfer
stations), scale (capacity of end-use – as compared to the volumes treated), operation and
maintenance affecting their use. Again, a general assessment of the quality, effectiveness, and
functionality and performance standards of different types of end-use and disposal facilities is to
be included, where appropriate to the context.
5.3. Performance data
A comprehensive SFD should allow time for the collection of performance data, which aims to
identify the extent to which sanitation services are effective, reliable, achieve performance
standards and targets, respond to existing demand for services and address future demand.
Performance data may be obtained by interviewing people face to face, through Focus Group
Discussions (FGDs) or observations. Including performance data will help prepare a strongly
evidence-based SFD.
Performance data should include both quantitative and qualitative data, as shown in the following
tables (Table 5 and Table 6 respectively).

Table 5: Quantitative performance data
Stage of the Data to collect Data sources

service chain
Emptying services  Customer base  Community representatives and

 How often people have on-site sanitation representatives of non-domestic institutions
technologies emptied (e.g. schools, business)
 Volume (or percentage) of on-site  Emptying and transportation service
sanitation technologies emptied each providers (formal/informal)
time  Organisations supporting emptying/transport
service providers
Transport (by  Types and capacities of vehicles used to  Emptying and transportation service
vehicles) transport faecal sludge from on-site providers (formal/informal)
sanitation technologies (an ‘inventory’ of  Organisations supporting emptying/transport
service providers; manual and service providers
motorized)  Licensing authorities for transportation of
 Number of vehicles used to transport waste
faecal sludge from on-site sanitation  Municipality
technologies  Sanitation authorities
Transport (sewers)  Average water consumption  Sewer pumping stations
(litres/person/day) and percentage of  Inlets to treatment works
population connected to sewers
 Volumes of wastewater transported to
and arriving at treatment plants / disposal
sites through sewer networks (pump
readings / flow meters)
Treatment  Quantities of wastewater or faecal sludge  Inlet to treatment works
received for treatment at each location  Stages through the treatment works
(pump readings / flow meters / volume  Final effluent outlet
gauge)  Design reports and records
 Capacity (design and operating), type  Records of number and capacity of emptying
and condition of facilities used to treat and transportation service providers
wastewater and faecal sludge (pump delivering faecal sludge to treatment facilities
readings / flow meters)
End-use  Quantities of faecal sludge, wastewater,  Scale of resource recovery practices
treated faecal sludge or treated sewage
sludge received, at each location
 Quantities of faecal sludge or sewage
sludge that get reused; how it is reused
and who manages the process
Disposal  Quantities of wastewater and faecal  Observation
sludge being disposed of, at each  Community representatives
location  Emptying and transportation service
providers (formal/informal)

Table 6: Qualitative performance data
Stage of the Data to collect Data sources

service chain
Containment  Level and ease of access to containment  Emptying and transportation service
for emptying providers (formal/informal)
 Community representatives
 Households
Emptying services  Extent to which emptying services  Emptying and transportation service
operate in particular localities providers (formal/informal)
 Whether different income groups use  Organisations supporting emptying/transport
different emptying services businesses
 Practices and equipment used to remove
faecal sludge from on-site sanitation
technologies in different parts of the area
Transport (by  Performance targets  Emptying and transportation service
vehicles)  Geographic coverage providers (formal/informal)
 Destination of vehicles transporting  Organisations supporting emptying/transport
faecal sludge service providers
 Licensing authorities for transportation of
waste
Transport (sewers)  Performance targets  Observation
 Geographic coverage  Treatment plant operators
 Leakage records / reports of pollution
incidents
Treatment  Location of treatment facilities  Observation
 Performance standards of treatment  Treatment plant operators
processes
End-use  Destination / final use of faecal sludge,  Observation
wastewater, treated faecal sludge or  Discussion with organisations involved with,
treated sewage sludge, at each location or supporting, end-use operations
 Evidence of the nature of resource
recovery practices
 Demand for end-use products
Disposal  Locations and scale of official and  Observation
unofficial disposal sites (e.g. after  Disposal site operators
treatment or with no treatment)
 Management of disposal sites
5.3.1. Dealing with uncertainty in the data

During the data collection process, it is important to be aware that local realities will vary from data
that is reported through more formally documented routes (such as local authority reports of the
percentage of septic tanks emptied and the extent to which faecal sludge is taken to registered
treatment facilities). Uncertainties in the data may occur at any stage of the sanitation service chain.
Each SFD Report should identify any areas of uncertainty, where this is thought to have a
significant impact on the resulting SFD Report and Graphic.

Provided below are a few examples of where the difference between reported and actual data may
be significant:
 Containment: the range of sanitation technologies in use (refer to SFD Manual volume
2: Glossary for more details), the quality of construction and in what numbers they exist
(e.g. reports may show 100% coverage of septic tanks in certain areas, when many are
in fact partially-lined tanks fundamentally operating as soak pits);
 Emptying: the number of households using informal manual (and motorized) emptying
and transport service providers;
 Transport: the number of sludge truck journeys occurring over a given period (the
generally accepted numbers may not reflect the actual reality), or the volumes of
wastewater actually conveyed in sewers, compared to reported values;
 Treatment: the reported performance of treatment plants compared with performance
based on measurements, or conversations with plant operators; and
 End-use/disposal: how end-use arrangements cope with changes in the weather or
fluctuating demand for end products (e.g. linked to crop growing seasons), extent of
end-use or disposal at recognised sites compared with arrangements not officially
recognised or reported.
5.4. SFD Graphic Generator
5.4.1. Introduction
This section provides guidance on how to use the SFD Graphic Generator to draw an SFD Graphic
for any city or urban area. The SFD Graphic Generator is available at [http://sfd.susana.org/data-
to-graphic].
This section and the SFD Graphic Generator should be used in conjunction with the SFD Manual
Volume 2: Glossary.
On the SFD Graphic Generator landing page there are three options:
 Start new SFD graphic – this is the place to start if you are making a new SFD graphic.
 Choose one of your own SFD files – use this to load an SFD Graphic file you previously
created and saved, this is stored in ‘json’ (JavaScript Object Notation) format.
 Select from the SFD library – use this to select and then load an SFD Graphic file stored
on the SFD Webportal.
The Start new SFD graphic button allows the user to create a new SFD graphic by entering data
for any city in three steps:

Step One: Provide general information about the city, the level of SFD, date of production and
author’s name (these information will be added to your graphic). Then, select the sanitation systems
in use in the city.
Step Two: Enter data about the proportion of people using each type of system and the proportion
of each system that is emptied, transported and treated.
Step Three: Draw the SFD Graphic and save data for sharing and/or using in reports and
publications.
Clicking one of the icons will prompt a pop-up window with more detailed instructions on how to
use the SFD Generator.
Clicking on one of the two the icons will delete all input data, allowing the user to start again or
start an SFD Graphic for a new city.
5.4.2. Step One: Enter general city information and select sanitation systems
After clicking the Start new SFD graphic, in Step One users are required to enter general
information about the city and select the sanitation systems in use in the city.
That following information should be entered in the boxes provided:
 Name of city or urban areaProvince or state

 Country
 Population of city or urban area SFD Level
 Date on which data was entered
 Name of person and/or organisation entering the data
The SFD Selection Grid enables the user to define the set of sanitation containment systems
present in the city. It consists of a matrix showing each possible sanitation containment system
described in terms of the place to which the toilet discharges (for instance a sewer or containment
technology) and the place to which the containment technology discharges (for instance a soak pit
or open drain). The SFD Matrix comprises:
List A (first column of the matrix), which shows the list of possible technologies:
1. No onsite container, toilet discharges directly to destination given in List B.

2. Septic tank.
3. Fully lined tank (sealed).
4. Lined tank with impermeable walls and open bottom.
5. Lined pit with semi-permeable walls and open bottom.
6. Unlined pit.
7. Pit (all types), never emptied but abandoned when full and covered with soil.

8. Pit (all types), never emptied but abandoned when full and NOT adequately covered
with soil
9. Toilet failed, damaged, collapsed or flooded.
10. Containment (septic tank or tank or pit latrine) failed, damaged, collapsed or flooded
11. Open defecation.
List B (top row of the matrix), which shows the list of all possible places to which the containment
technology could be connected (i.e. where the outlet or overflow discharges to, if anything):
1. To centralised combined sewer.

2. To centralised foul/separate sewer.
3. To decentralised combined sewer.
4. To decentralised foul/separate sewer.
5. To soakpit.
6. To open drain or storm sewer.
7. To water body.
8. To open ground.
9. To 'don't know where'.
10. No outlet or overflow.
The term Not applicable on the Selection Grid indicates that the combination of technologies is not
possible. These cells cannot be selected and are permanently white.
As the user moves the cursor over each grid square, the containment technology (from List A) and
what it is connected to (from List B) is highlighted. The system is selected by clicking on the chosen
cell. The selected cell will turn green. The system can be deselected by clicking again.
Some systems require the assessment of the risk of groundwater pollution. A split cell in the system
selection grid represents these systems. For these systems, the user can select:
 The top half of the split cell if there is a Significant risk of groundwater pollution. If
selected, the cell will turn blue.
 The lower half of the split cell if there is a Low risk of groundwater pollution. If selected,
the cell will turn yellow.
5.4.3. Estimating risk of groundwater pollution

The risk of groundwater pollution can be estimated from data on drinking water from groundwater
sources, hydrogeology and the distance between groundwater sources and sanitation facilities.
After clicking the icon and then clicking on the Risk of groundwater pollution button, the user is
redirected to a web-based tool to identify areas of the city where the risk of groundwater pollution
is either low or significant.

The risk of groundwater pollution is assessed according to four criteria:
1. The vulnerability of the aquifer (Q1).

2. The typical lateral spacing between sanitation systems and ground water sources (Q2).
3. The degree to which drinking water supplies are provided from groundwater sources
inside the city (Q3).
4. The type of technology used to produce groundwater including the level of protection
that this provides (Q4).
-Question Q1: Vulnerability of the aquifer is divided into two sub questions:
A. What is the rock type in the unsaturated zone? Five options are provided:
 Fine sand, silt and clay.
 Weathered basement.
 Medium sand.
 Coarse sand and gravels.
 Sandstones/limestones fractured rock.
Supplementary information can be obtained by clicking on the Table 1 button.
B. What is the depth of the water table? In general this should be the depth to the
groundwater table during the wettest period of the year. Three options are displayed:
 <5m.
 5-10m.
 >10m.
Supplementary information can be obtained by clicking on the Figure 1 button.
-Question Q2: Lateral separation is divided into two sub questions:
A. What is the percentage of sanitation facilities that are located <10m from groundwater
sources? Two options are given:
 Greater than 25%.
 Less than 25%.
This data should be estimated. In a city, a good way to think about this question is to
consider whether there are large numbers of tube wells, wells and springs located within
densely populated areas.
Supplementary information can be obtained by clicking on the Figure 1 button.
B. What is the percentage of sanitation facilities, if any, that are located uphill of
groundwater source? Two options are displayed:
 Less than 25%.

-Question Q3: Water supply. What is the percentage of drinking water produced from groundwater
sources? Three options are given:

 Between 1% and 25%.
 0%.
-Question Q4: Water production. What is the water production technology used? Three options
are provided:
 Protected boreholes, protected dug wells or protected spring where adequate

sanitary measures are in place.
 Unprotected boreholes, dug wells or springs.
 No groundwater sources used.
Supplementary information can be obtained by clicking on the Table 2 button.
All answers are displayed as drop-down menus. When the user has provided answers to all
questions, the OVERALL RISK will be shown automatically. Answering these four questions will
give the user an estimate of whether the groundwater pollution presents Low risk or Significant risk.
Note: Different regions of the city may experience different levels of risk of groundwater pollution
depending on hydro-geological conditions, and variations in the way in which water supply is
provided. It is possible for one city to have several areas using the same sanitation containment
systems, some which have low risk of groundwater pollution and some which have significant risk
of groundwater pollution.
5.4.4. Step two: Create SFD Matrix

In Step Two users enter data for each selected sanitation system on the SFD Matrix. Where onsite
sanitation systems are used, users are required to enter the proportion of the contents of each type
of onsite container (either septic tanks; or fully lined tanks (sealed); or lined tanks with impermeable
walls and open bottom and all types of pits), which are faecal sludge. Clicking the icon will open
a pop-up window with more detailed instructions to help the user enter the numerical values for
these proportions.
Clicking the Create SFD Matrix button will reveal the SFD Matrix so that the user can enter the data
for each selected sanitation system.
This SFD Matrix consists of all the sanitation systems selected in the SFD Selection Grid. The first
column (system description) contains all the systems selected and the first row (system label)

shows the additional data regarding the performance of each system that is required to be entered.
The values to be entered are expressed as a percentage of the preceding variable.
For detailed descriptions and definitions of the various sanitation systems and labels, the user is
referred to the SFD Manual Volume 2: Glossary.
Note: If the percentages for the proportion of population using all types of system do not add
up to 100%, a warning message appears in a pop-up window to indicate that the total
population does not sum to 100%. The user should correct this by changing the "Population"
entries in the SFD matrix.
5.4.5. Step Three: Draw SFD graphic

In Step Three, by clicking the Draw SFD Graphic, the SFD Graphic Generator uses the input data
to draw an SFD Graphic for the city. If changes are required, the user can go back and make
changes to data input on the SFD Selection Grid and/or on the SFD Matrix. Any unchanged data
will not be lost.
Finally, users can save data and/or create outputs, which can be shared or uploaded into reports
and publications, using the following options:
 Download Data: This button will create a .json file of the data in the user’s Download
folder. This file format can be uploaded to the generator if you would like to edit the
data entry or generate another SFD based on the same data.
 Download the selected file: using the drop-down menu, users can choose to save
different outputs to their Download folder:
o SFD Graphic as png: This will create a .png file of the SFD Graphic.
o SFD Matrix as png: This will create a .png file of the SFD Matrix.
o SFD Selection Grid as png: This will create a .png file of the SFD Selection
Grid.
o SFD Data as csv: This will create a .csv file of the data.
o SFD Graphic as svg: This will create a .svg file of the SFD Graphic.
 Attach to SFD Report button. The SFD Graphic will be automatically attached to the
report in the SFD Helpdesk.
Clicking the icon will prompt a pop-up window with more detailed information on saving data and
downloading outputs.

6. Ethical Considerations
The main ethical considerations to bear in mind during data collection are described below:
 Informed voluntary participation: Informed oral consent must be obtained from

participants before data collection is conducted. Participants are to be informed about
the purpose, methods, risks, benefits and intended possible uses of the results of the
study.
 Right to refuse or withdraw: The participants will be informed that they are free to
refuse to answer any questions. They will also have the right to ask questions at any
point before, during or after the study is completed.
 Confidentiality and privacy: No personal identifiers will be used in any form of
reporting or dissemination. Personal identifications will be linked with a unique identifier
(e.g. id code) and kept securely. No information will be published that could identify the
respondents. Paper copies of collected data will be stored for three years in a secure
location; only the study team should be able to access them. While confidentiality
cannot always be guaranteed (especially where data is collected in a group, or public
setting), participants are requested not to disclose details of what was discussed.
 Risks and benefits: The risk of participation in the study is considered minimal. The
respondents will not be directly benefited by participating, however the information that
they will provide may give some important information to the policy makers to improve
the overall sanitation condition of their city and they may eventually have an indirect
benefit from that.
 Payment: There will be no compensation payment to the participants and nor will they
have to pay to participate in the study.
6.1. Data Management
Good data collection and quality control must be followed-up by sound data management. An SFD
Report is to be prepared using the available template (refer to the SFD Report template), to
consistently capture the significant issues raised during data collection.
 All details shared during interviews, focus group discussions or observations need to
be adequately recorded by a note-taker. This may be done in hard copy or soft copy
format.
 All word documents should be allocated a unique identification name/label that will
clearly identify the location of the activity and nature of the data collection method
used. Copies of original write-ups (in soft and/or hard copy) must be kept securely
throughout the duration of the study.
Findings from a review of literature should be included in the SFD Report, with good citation of
sources of data and a full reference list of both published and grey literature.

7. Stakeholder Engagement
Engaging with other stakeholders in your city is important to the success of any study. It is a
valuable aspect of any report as it ensures transparency, involves stakeholders in decisions and
also helps to better understand the many perspectives of sanitation provision. A wide range of
stakeholders exist around the provision of urban sanitation services and it is important to know
which stakeholders to engage with at each stage of the study.
Identifying and accessing credible data for each study requires a clear process of engagement with
the key stakeholders who have influence and/or are involved in sanitation services. It is important
to adopt a clear and consistent process for engaging these key stakeholders during the study, to
gain both acceptance and support for the work.
7.1. Principles of stakeholder engagement
Six principles of stakeholder engagement were identified by (Sharma, 2008) for the context of
Supply Chain Management. The following five principles are based on this publication and have
been adapted to the urban sanitation context, to follow when planning or managing a study.
7.1.1. Principle 1: Stakeholder identification

It is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of who stakeholders are, what their
interests are, and how they relate to the study. When performing this initial step, it helps to view
stakeholders from two different perspectives: vertically and horizontally.
The vertical perspective includes all stakeholders from within an organisation’s highest position
(where budget and policy decisions are made) down to individuals (those directly impacted). An
effective outreach strategy can only be implemented if key players at each level of the organisation
are identified.
The horizontal dimension includes stakeholders across an organisation (or organisations), which
is likely to include many people whose roles relate to the study in different ways. Each level of
stakeholder(s) across organisations represents a different perspective and type of expertise.
Additionally, it is recommended to consider internal and external stakeholders. Internal

stakeholders can be the city authority or utility having responsibility for providing sanitation and
FSM services, while external stakeholders may include the national government, which has a direct
interest in the study. Stakeholders can then be classified into four different groups:
1. High Influence Challengers;

2. High Influence Champions;
3. Low Influence Challengers; and
4. Low Influence Champions.

These can then mapped into a stakeholder influence-interest matrix, which helps to identify the
primary focus of stakeholder engagement efforts (see Figure 2). It is recommended to perform this
stakeholder mapping activity for every SFD Report.
Figure 2: Stakeholder influence-interest matrix
Source: adapted from Sharma (2008) and Strande et al. (2014)
Additionally it is recommended to identify in which part of the sanitation service chain the
stakeholders are working as illustrated by an example in Table 7.
Table 7: Stakeholders working on different parts of the sanitation service chain
Group Part of the sanitation service chain the stakeholders are working in
(depending on
Stakeholder the influence-
interest Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse/Disposal
matrix)
Institution High Influence

example 1 Champions
Institution Low Influence

example 2 Champions.
Institution Low Influence

example 3 Challengers
Institution High Influence

example 4 Challengers

According to this, and depending on the level of SFD that is going to be developed (see Section
3), the author has to decide which stakeholders to contact ensuring the representativeness of the
sanitation service chain in the city. When a high influence stakeholder could not be contacted has
to be clearly stated in the report.
7.1.2. Principle 2: Early engagement

It is important to contact stakeholders at the beginning of a study, not just present the final
deliverable as “the solution”. Throughout the study it is important to continuously encourage
participation, where appropriate. This approach achieves three main objectives:
1. It gives key stakeholders a sense of involvement and ownership in the process, and
shows that their expertise and opinions are valued.
2. It starts to sensitise stakeholders about the potential benefits of the study.
3. It allows the team carrying out data collection to gain additional, potentially valuable,
information and insights that may or may not support the findings compiled through
data alone.
Depending on the group outlined under principle one, some stakeholders require more active
engagement than others and identifying an appropriate level of involvement (based on experience,
judgement and common sense) is necessary to save time and resources.
7.1.3. Principle 3: Respecting opinions

When conducting interviews, having FGDs or having any other type of direct conversation with
stakeholders, it is always important to ensure that the stakeholder’s opinions are being considered.
If this cannot be achieved, the following outcomes can be expected:
 Stakeholders tell the interviewee what they believe she/he wants to hear, but not what
they really think. The conversation, and ultimately the study, will be dismissed.
 Stakeholders tell the interviewee their honest opinion, but have mistrust towards the
study.
 Stakeholders simply don’t participate.
When taking the time to ask stakeholders for their opinions or when creating space for participation,
it should be ensured that the participation is serious and meaningful. Effective stakeholder
engagement must be valued by all parties involved.
7.1.4. Principle 4: Communication

Regular communication helps to ensure that stakeholders are aware of the study’s existence and
purpose, and additionally to ensure that a clear understanding of the study’s goals and benefits is
provided. In particular, in cities where the resulting service delivery context analysis and
corresponding SFD Graphic will show rather negative results, appropriate communication is of
major importance.

Appropriate communication can be achieved in many different ways, some of which are:
 Providing background material that informs about the basics of the study and serves
as a source of reference for the stakeholder (e.g. factsheets in hard- and soft-copy);
 Informing stakeholders about the study’s status, communicating decisions and
providing updates (e.g. through a newsletter or email updates); and
 Transfer of knowledge through compiling findings, lessons learned and best practices,
which can be shared among appropriate stakeholder groups.
Before engaging with stakeholders on a city level, it is recommended that a simple communication
strategy should be developed to outline how communication will be practised amongst the city and
study partners.
7.1.5. Principle 5: Ethical considerations

The following points should be addressed during interviews or focus group discussions with, or
observation of, stakeholders, to ensure the collection of data meets with ethical standards:
 State the purpose of the interview, focus group discussion or observation and use of
findings, before starting.
 Offer anonymity – and ensure it is followed if requested.
 Only use a voice-recorder with the prior knowledge and consent of all those involved.
 Gain verbal consent to start the interview, focus group discussion or observation and
note this in the write-up.
 Allow the participants to “pass” on specific questions and the opportunity to stop the
interview at any time they wish.
 Provide a write-up of the interview, focus group discussion or observation, if requested.
 Indicate the next steps or possible follow up, if appropriate.
Besides providing a necessary level of respect towards those involved, these standards have to be
followed to produce credible results, which ultimately contribute towards higher quality service
delivery context analysis and description, as well as enhancing the quality of the related SFD
Graphic.
7.2. Stakeholder engagement for each method of data collection
For each method of data collection a different type of stakeholder engagement is required
depending on the purpose of the method.
The methods of data collection required to follow the process include (but are not limited to)
literature reviews (secondary data reviews), key informant interviews, observations and focus
group discussions.

7.2.1. Literature review of existing secondary data
During the initial literature review, it is suggested to use the Stakeholder influence-interest matrix
(see Figure 2) as a tool for stakeholder mapping and identification of key stakeholders. Contact
details that cannot be obtained through existing literature or websites may need to be collected
through Key Informant Interviews, which are likely part of the group identified in Table 8.
Table 8: Stakeholder Groups
No. Stakeholder group

1 City council / Municipal authority / Utility
2 Ministry in charge of urban sanitation and sewerage
3 Ministry in charge of urban solid waste
4 Ministries in charge of urban planning, environmental protection/ health, finance and
economic development, agriculture
5 Service provider for construction of on-site sanitation technologies
6 Service provider for emptying and transport of faecal sludge
7 Service provider for operation and maintenance of treatment infrastructure
8 Market participants practising end-use of faecal sludge end products
9 Service provider for disposal of faecal sludge (sanitary landfill management)
10 External agencies associated with FSM services: e.g. NGOs, academic institutions,
donors, private investors, consultants
When establishing contact with the stakeholder, the process (date and purpose) of engagement
should be documented, as well as a short summary of the outcomes.
7.2.2. Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews can be held with all stakeholders having a role or interest in sanitation
services within the city. They are likely to include:
 City council/ Municipality/ Utility

 Government Ministries/ Departments with responsibility for: urban sanitation/ sewerage
(liquid waste), urban solid waste collection, urban water supply, urban planning,
environmental health/ protection, finance, economic development and agriculture.
 Service providers (private and/or public) covering: manual and mechanised emptying
and transportation services, public sector operation of faecal sludge and wastewater
treatment and disposal sites, private sector operation of faecal sludge and wastewater
end-use sites (including re-use for agriculture and industry)
 NGOs and other ‘external’ agencies providing support to sanitation services. In this
context, ‘external’ refers to individuals and agencies that are not service providers but
have interests related to sanitation management and service delivery. In addition, key
informants could include those who are not key stakeholders (i.e. those with a direct
interest or ‘stake’ in sanitation services) but perhaps more ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’

observers of the sector, including academics or researchers with expertise and relevant
knowledge in sanitation and faecal sludge management or, in some cases, even the
media.
It may help to phase the timing of interviews, to build-up the level of understanding about the context
and extent of sanitation services in the City. This will depend to some extent on existing experience
and any existing relationships developed with the stakeholders involved.
An example of phasing is shown below:

Table 9: Example of phasing
Phase Type of stakeholder
External agencies associated with sanitation services (to also feed into sampling of other sets of key
1st set
informants and stakeholders)
City council/ Municipality/ Utility

2nd set Ministry responsible for sanitation and faecal sludge management services
Ministry responsible for solid waste management
Ministries responsible for:

 urban planning,
3rd set  environmental protection,
 health,
 finance and economic development,
 agriculture
Emptying / transportation service providers (following household interviews)

4th set
Treatment plant / end-use / disposal site service providers
Phase Type of stakeholder

The identification, prioritisation and sampling of respondents from each stakeholder group may be
based on an initial quick assessment of institutional responsibilities. This will help identify key
stakeholders and the potential perspectives and responsibilities they may have, to help focus on
appropriate questions for particular respondents.
Key informants and stakeholders with different positions and perspectives bring their own sets of
interpretive biases and analysis. For some of the study areas, there may be no single absolute truth
and it can be useful to understand differences of opinion (rather than expect standardisation).
Trustworthiness in interpretation can nonetheless be strengthened by cross-checking – or
triangulating – the views and analysis of different key informants (and focus groups). It is important
to remember that these may include people who might not normally be talked to, in order to ensure
multiple and different perspectives are gathered. It is critical that women are interviewed and that
the gender of each respondent is recorded on all interview reports.

The total number of interviews required, as well as the range and extent of questioning, will also
be influenced by the availability of current and reliable data from other sources, as well as
constraints on time and resources. The actual range of stakeholders and interviewees should be
determined following an initial stakeholder mapping activity.
The final list of stakeholders and proposed interviews should ensure appropriate representation
from a range of government ministries and service providers, as well as external agencies.
Representation of service providers through the sanitation service chain should reflect the
percentage of roles and responsibilities that each plays in sanitation and faecal sludge services for
the study city. For example, in a city where manual emptying service providers are dominant, they
must account for the majority of those observed and interviewed during emptying and transportation
procedures; likewise, where private companies carry out mechanised emptying and transportation
services for most areas of the city, they should account for the majority of providers observed and
interviewed during emptying and transportation procedures.
7.2.3. Observations
Observations can be undertaken at each stage of the sanitation service chain to identify actual
practices that take place day to day in a given city. It is therefore expected that most observations
will take place during an emptying and transport event, from containment to potential treatment
and/or disposal and end-use.
Engagement with emptying and transportation service providers, in particular, requires a certain
level of discretion from the initial contact and throughout the process of data collection.
Possible scenarios for emptying and transporting faecal sludge that can be expected include:
1. Emptying and transportation services are completely formalised and a public service;
2. Emptying and transportation services are completely formalised and undertaken by
both public and private service providers;
3. Emptying and transportation service are formal and informal, and undertaken by both
public and private service providers; and
4. Emptying and transportation service are completely informal and undertaken by private
service providers.
Each of these situations requires different principles when engaging with stakeholders performing
emptying and transportation services. In line with the four groups described above, the following
principles should be followed:
1. Emptying and transportation services are completely formalised and a public service:
With the stakeholder engaged directly at the municipal level, an agreement needs to
be reached with the responsible authority to allow observation of the process from

emptying and transportation to treatment and/or disposal and end use. Due to the
formality of the sector, it could be assumed that all collected faecal sludge is transported
to a designated treatment and/or disposal site, which should be confirmed through
observations and Key Informant Interviews.
2. Emptying and transportation services are completely formalised and undertaken by
both public and private service providers: Engaging with private emptying and
transportation service providers differs from engaging with public service providers, as
those running a business can be expected to be more cautious about having someone
join and observe the team providing emptying and transportation services. It is
important to identify how the private emptying and transportation service provider sector
is structured, in order to identify key stakeholders who may be responsible for managing
the logistics of the service providers. Often, emptying and transportation service
provider associations exist, of which some are managed by one or two single persons
(heads of association). Those individuals are not necessarily the owners of the trucks;
and the drivers themselves may not own the trucks that they drive. Depending on which
data are to be collected, it is recommended to first consult with the head of a potential
association to gain interest and acceptance, before directly consulting owners or
drivers. Due to the formality of the sector, it could be assumed that all collected faecal
sludge is transported to a designated treatment and/or disposal site. However, this
should be cross-checked through Key informant interviews.
3. Emptying and transportation service are formal and informal, and undertaken by both
public and private service providers: Where emptying and transportation services are
managed informally, discretion is required when engaging with stakeholders. It can be
expected that some amount of faecal sludge is illegally dumped directly into the urban
environment, either because no designated treatment and/or disposal sites exist, or
due to the fact that discharge fees can be saved rather than spent and higher revenues
generated by service providers. It is probable that service providers will not agree to
observers joining the process of emptying and transporting faecal sludge due to the
illegal nature. It is important not to antagonise or alienate the service providers.
Information about the sector should be obtained from the other key stakeholders
through Key informant interviews.
4. Emptying and transportation service are completely informal and undertaken by private
service providers: The same applies as for point three.

8. Evaluating credibility of data sources
As literature is identified, the credibility of each source should be assessed. Before assessing the
information, it is vital to ascertain the integrity and authority of the source. Good judgement will be
needed as to the accuracy and reliability of the information. Bias in information may be deliberate
or it may be due to an observer’s cultural, educational and social background. Be aware of likely
sources of bias.
Interpreting ‘grey’ / unpublished literature needs more care: look at who “owns” the data, how and
when it was collected, who carried out a survey, how they were trained and what their experience
was. This can all help to give an indication of its reliability. The principle of triangulation or cross-
checking, allows for two independent sources of information to be used to corroborate and support
each other. If there is a discrepancy, then further investigation and seeking additional views and
sources of information are required.
All literature included in the final study must be cited and referenced consistently, comprehensively
and according to an approved standard format (such as Harvard referencing).
8.1. Self-assessment
The procedure on how to assess credibility of the sources used to produce the SFD Report and
Graphic is presented in the SFD Review Procedure document. The idea of this stage in the process
is to consider the credibility of sources used in a quantitative way by creating a source assessment
ranking that identifies one of three outcomes: Poor, Medium and High.
8.2. Reviewing Process
A prepared SFD Report can be submitted for review by the SFD Promotion Initiative through the
helpdesk (http://sfd.susana.org/toolbox/sfd-helpdesk), once the self-assessment has been
completed. This process will allow for classification, consistency and improvements in the quality
of an SFD Report whilst providing informed comments to the authors and constructive criticism to
help improve the report. This is done through:
 Reviewer checklist
 Recommendation on whether the report is suitable for publication on the SFD
Webportal.

9. Reporting
The SFD Report should be written using the process described in the SFD Reporting Template and
SFD Lite Template - Guidance Note documents. In this way, a record can be kept of the information
collected, gaps in data identified, and all assumptions made as analysis of the sanitation service
chain is being carried out.
9.1. Guidelines
The main guidelines to produce the report are the SFD Reporting Template Document and the SFD
Lite Template - Guidance Note. Guidance is provided about which data to report and to what level.
The SFD report (Level 1, 2 or 3) is defined by three parts:
1. Executive summary: a 4 page document in which the key outcomes and conclusions,
as well as the major assumptions that have been made, are clearly presented.
2. Detailed report: this includes all of the information collected, covering all the relevant
and credible information. It should not be longer than 20 pages with additional details
provided in the appendices. At the end of the report the references must be included,
with all literature cited and referenced consistently, comprehensively and according to
an approved standard format (such as Harvard referencing).
3. Appendices: Relevant information to understand the sanitation situation in the area
should be included in the appendices in addition to the Stakeholder Identification, (see
Section 7), the SFD Selection Grid and SFD Matrix (see Section 5.4) and the Evaluation
of the Quality and Credibility of data (see Section 8)
The detailed report can be uploaded to the SFD website portal using the standard agreed format
after being subject to the procedure for quality assurance through the SFD helpdesk.

10. Key resources
Blackett, I., Hawkins, P. and Heymans, C. (2014). The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery. 1st
ed. [ebook] Washington D.C.: World Bank WSP. Available at:
http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/2-2037-wsp-fecal-sludge-12-city-review-
research-brief.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2017].
Fernández-Martínes, L. (2016). Using the Shit/Excreta Flow Diagrams (SFDs) for modelling future
scenarios in Kumasi, Ghana. 1st ed. [ebook] Loughborough: Loughborough University, p.132.
Available at: http://sfd.susana.org/resources/recommended-readings?details=2688 [Accessed 3 May
2017].
Furlong, C., Mensah, A., Donkor, J. and Scott, R. (2016).
http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/3-2264-22-1434719256.pdf. WEDC
International Conference, [online] 39(2567). Available at:
http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/3-2659-7-1478270204.pdf [Accessed 3 May
2017].
Landscape study on Fecal Sludge Management. (2015). 1st ed. [ebook] New Delhi: Population
Services International. Available at: http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/3-2264-22-
1434719256.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2017].
Peal, A. and Evans, B. (2013). A Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities. 1st ed. [ebook]
Washington D.C.: World Bank WSP. Available at:
2017].
Rohilla, S., Watwani, J., Luthra, B., Varma, R., Padhi, S. and Yadav, A. (2016). URBAN SHIT. 1st ed.
[ebook] New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. Available at:
2017].
Strande, L., Ronteltap, M. and Brdjanovic, D. (2014). Faecal sludge management. 1st ed. London:
IWA Publishing.
Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Luthi, C., Reymond, P. and Zurbrugg, C. (2017). Compendium of Sanitation
Systems and Technologies. 2nd ed. [ebook] Duebendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of
Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Available at:
2017].
Williams, A. and Overbo, A. (2015). Estimates for the Unsafe Return of Human Excreta to the
Environment. 1st ed. [ebook] Chapel Hill: The Water Institute at UNC. Available at:
2017].

SFD Manual
VOLUME 2: Glossary
Glossary
This Volume contains four parts:
 Part 1: Master SFD Graphic

o This locates all the possible variables used in the SFD Graphic Generator and
shows how they are connected.
 Part 2: Definition of SFD Graphic Variables
o This describes and defines all the variables used in the SFD Graphic Generator.
 Part 3: Definition of Terms
o This defines all the terms used in the SFD Graphic Generator, and provides
examples of commonly used regional variations.
o Terms in each definition starting with a Capital Letter are also defined within this
document.
 Part 4: Sanitation Containment System: SFD Schematics
o These schematic drawings show all of the possible sanitation containment systems
defined on the selection grid within the SFD Graphic Generator.
This Glossary should be used in conjunction with the SFD Graphic Generator (SFD GG), which is
a tool for drawing SFD Graphics.
Guidance on how to use the SFD Graphic Generator is given in SFD Manual Volume 1, Section
5.4.
All the definitions contained in the Glossary are provided for use with the SFD Graphic Generator
and for the purpose of the SFD Promotion Initiative only.

Part 1 – Master SFD Graphic
Notes:
1. This document should be read in conjunction with Section 5.4 of the SFD Manual Volume 1
and with the three other parts of this Volume 2:
 Part 2 - Definition of SFD Variables
 Part 3 - Definition of Terms
 Part 4 – Sanitation Containment System: SFD Schematics
2. The Master SFD Graphic (see over) locates all the possible variables used in the SFD Graphic
Generator and shows how they are connected.
3. Using relevant input data for a given city, the SFD Graphic Generator assigns values to the
appropriate variables and draws an SFD Graphic for the given city.

Part 2 - Definition of SFD variables
Notes:
and the three other parts of this Volume 2:
 Part 1 – Master SFD Graphic
 Part 3 - Definition of Terms; and
 Part 4 - Sanitation Containment System: SFD Schematics.
2. This document describes and defines all the variables used in the SFD Graphic Generator and
shown on the Master SFD Graphic.
3. The System Selection Grid (see below) shows the variable group labels (e.g. L7) and individual
references (e.g. T1A2C5) for each sanitation containment system.
4. The SFD Variables Table (see over) shows all the variables used in the SFD Graphic Generator
and shown on the Master SFD Graphic, and are listed the order in which they are defined in
the following pages.
5. Refer to Part 3 – Definition of Terms for full explanations of all the technical terms used.
System Selection Grid

SFD Variables Table
Table 10: SFD Variables Table
Description on Master SFD Graphic SFD variable number and name Page no.
Containment step
WW contained (W2 + W3) W2 - Wastewater contained centralised (offsite) 45
W3 - Wastewater contained decentralised (offsite)
WW not contained: W15 W15 - Wastewater not contained (offsite) 46
SN contained: S6 S6 - Supernatant contained (onsite) 47
SN not contained: S7 S7 - Supernatant not contained (onsite) 54
FS contained: F2 F2 - Faecal sludge contained (onsite) 47
FS not contained: F10 F10 - Faecal sludge not contained (onsite) 54
Open defecation: OD9 OD9 - Open defecation 64
Emptying and transport steps
WW contained delivered to treatment W4a - Wastewater delivered to centralised treatment 65
(W4a + W4b) W4b - Wastewater delivered to decentralised treatment 65
WW not contained delivered to treatment: W4c – Wastewater not contained delivered to treatment 65
W4c plants
W11: WW not delivered to treatment W11a - Wastewater contained not delivered to 66/67
(W11a + W11b +W11c) centralised treatment plants
W11b – Wastewater contained not delivered to
decentralised treatment plants
W11c – Wastewater not contained not delivered to
treatment plants
SN contained delivered to treatment: S4d S4d - Supernatant contained delivered to treatment 67
SN not contained delivered to treatment: S4e S4e - Supernatant not contained delivered to treatment 67
S11: SN not delivered to treatment S11d - Supernatant contained not delivered to treatment 68
(S11d + S11e) S11e - Supernatant not contained not delivered to 68
treatment
FS contained not emptied: F8 F8 - Faecal sludge contained - not emptied 69
FS contained – emptied: F3a F3a – Faecal sludge contained - emptied 69
FS not contained – emptied: F3b F3b – Faecal sludge not contained - emptied 70
F15: FS not contained F15 - Faecal sludge not contained - not emptied 70
FS delivered to treatment: F4 F4 - Faecal sludge delivered to treatment 70
F11: FS not delivered to treatment F11a - Faecal sludge contained – emptied, not delivered 71
(F11a + F11b) to treatment plants
F11b - Faecal sludge not contained – emptied, not
delivered to treatment plants
Treatment step
W5: WW treated (W5a + W5b + W5c) W5 - Wastewater treated 72
W12: WW not treated (W12a + W12b + W12 - Wastewater not treated 72
W12c)
S5: SN treated (S5d + S5e) S5 - Supernatant treated 74
S12: SN not treated (S12d + S12e) S12 - Supernatant not treated 74
F5: FS treated F5 - Faecal sludge treated 75
F12: FS not treated F12 - Faecal sludge not treated 75

Variable No: W2 - Wastewater contained centralised (offsite)
Variable Reference Description Definition

group (See System (See System Selection Grid
(See System Selection Grid in in Part 4)
Selection Grid in Part 4)
Part 4)
L1 T1A1C1 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to a correctly designed, properly
directly to a centralised constructed, fully functioning centralised combined sewer. The excreta is raw,
combined sewer untreated and hazardous, but since it is captured in the sewer, all the excreta in this
system will contribute to variable W2.
directly to a centralised constructed, fully functioning centralised foul/separate sewer. The excreta is raw,
foul/separate sewer untreated and hazardous, but since it is captured in the sewer, all the excreta in this
system will contribute to variable W2.
Variable No: W3 - Wastewater contained decentralised (offsite)

Part 4)
directly to a constructed, fully functioning decentralised combined sewer. The excreta is raw,
decentralised untreated and hazardous, but since it is captured in the sewer, all the excreta in this
combined sewer system will contribute to variable W3.
directly to a constructed, fully functioning decentralised foul/separate sewer. The excreta is raw,
decentralised untreated and hazardous, but since it is captured in the sewer, all the excreta in this
foul/separate sewer system will contribute to variable W3.

Variable No: W15 - Wastewater not contained (offsite)

Part 4)
L4 T1A1C6 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to an open drain or storm sewer.
directly to open drain or The excreta is raw, untreated and hazardous and since it discharges directly to an
storm sewer open drain or storm sewer, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT
contained; contributing to variable W15.
L5 T1A1C7 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to a water body. The excreta is
directly to water body raw, untreated and hazardous and since it discharges directly to a water body, all the
excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; contributing to variable W15.
L5 T1A1C8 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to open ground. The excreta is
directly to open ground raw, untreated and hazardous and since it discharges directly to open ground, all the
excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; contributing to variable W15.
L5 T1A1C9 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to 'don't know where'. The excreta
directly to 'don't know is raw, untreated and hazardous and since it discharges directly to 'don't know
where'. where', all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; contributing to
variable W15.

Variable No: F2 - Faecal sludge contained (onsite); and S6 - Supernatant contained (onsite)

Part 4)
directly to soak pit, constructed, fully functioning soak pit. The excreta is raw, untreated and hazardous,
where there is a ‘low but since it is captured in the soak pit, all the excreta in this system is considered
risk’ of groundwater contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
pollution.
L6 T1A2C1 Septic tank connected This is a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning septic tank with
to a centralised an effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
combined sewer functioning centralised combined sewer. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the
tank is only partially treated and is still hazardous, but since it is captured in the
sewer, all the excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal sludge
fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes
to variable S6.
to a centralised an effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
foul/separate sewer functioning centralised foul/separate sewer. The supernatant/effluent flowing from
the tank is only partially treated and is still hazardous, but since it is captured in the
to variable S6.

Part 4)
to a decentralised an effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
combined sewer functioning decentralised combined sewer. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the
tank is only partially treated and is still hazardous, but since it is captured in the
to variable S6.
to a decentralised an effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
foul/separate sewer functioning decentralised foul/separate sewer. The supernatant/effluent flowing from
the tank is only partially treated and is still hazardous, but since it is captured in the
to variable S6.
to soak pit, where there an effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
is a ‘low risk’ of functioning soak pit. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank is only partially
groundwater pollution treated and is still hazardous, but since it is captured in the soak pit, all the excreta
in this system is considered contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
L6 T1A3C1 Fully lined tank (sealed) This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained fully lined tank
connected to a with impermeable walls and base. It includes poorly designed and/or constructed
centralised combined and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
sewer performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
the excreta is potentially more toxic than the excreta in a septic tank). Since the tank
is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a correctly designed,
properly constructed and fully functioning centralised combined sewer, the excreta in
this system is considered contained; the faecal sludge fraction contributes to variable
F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to variable S6.

Part 4)
centralised foul/treated and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
faecal sludge performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
properly constructed and fully functioning centralised foul/separate sewer, the
excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal sludge fraction contributes
to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to variable S6.
decentralised combined and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
sewer performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
properly constructed and fully functioning decentralised combined sewer, the excreta
in this system is considered contained; the faecal sludge fraction contributes to
variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to variable S6.
decentralised and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
foul/separate sewer performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
properly constructed and fully functioning decentralised foul/separate sewer, the
faecal sludge fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction
contributes to variable S6.

Part 4)
L7 T1A3C5 This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained fully lined tank
with impermeable walls and base. It includes poorly designed and/or constructed
Fully lined tank (sealed) and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
connected to a soak pit, performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
where there is a ‘low the excreta is potentially more toxic than the excreta in a septic tank). Since the tank
risk’ of groundwater is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a correctly designed,
pollution. properly constructed and fully functioning soak pit the excreta in this system is
considered contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
L10 T1A3C10 Fully lined tank This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained fully lined tank
(sealed), no outlet or with impermeable walls and base. It includes poorly designed and/or constructed
overflow and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently
the excreta is potentially more toxic than the excreta in a septic tank). However, since
the tank is NOT fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow this system is considered
contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
L6 T1A4C1 Lined tank with This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained lined tank with
impermeable walls and sealed, impermeable walls and an open, permeable base, through which infiltration
open bottom, can occur. It includes wall-lined but open bottomed tanks and containers which are
connected to sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since
centralised combined the tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a centralised
sewer, where there is a combined sewer, the excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal
‘low risk’ of sludge fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction
groundwater pollution. contributes to variable S6.

Part 4)
centralised the tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a centralised
foul/separate sewer, foul/separate sewer, the excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal
where there is a ‘low sludge fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction
risk’ of groundwater contributes to variable S6.
pollution.
decentralised combined the tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a decentralised
sewer, where there is a combined sewer, the excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal
‘low risk’ of sludge fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction
groundwater pollution. contributes to variable S6.
decentralised the tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a decentralised
foul/separate sewer, foul/separate sewer, the excreta in this system is considered contained; the faecal
where there is a ‘low sludge fraction contributes to variable F2, and the supernatant/effluent fraction
risk’ of groundwater contributes to variable S6.
pollution.

Part 4)
connected to a soak pit, sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since
where there is a ‘low the tank is fitted with an effluent overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly
risk’ of groundwater constructed and fully functioning soak pit the excreta in this system is considered
pollution. contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
open bottom, no outlet can occur. It includes all lined but open bottomed tanks and containers which are
or overflow, where sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia).
there is a ‘low risk’ of However, since the tank is NOT fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow this system
groundwater pollution. is considered contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
L11 T1A5C10 Lined pit with semi- This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained pit with semi-
permeable walls and permeable, honeycombed lined walls and an open, permeable base, through which
open bottom, no outlet infiltration can occur. The tank is NOT fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow so
or overflow, where this system is considered contained; contributes to variable F2 only.
there is a ‘low risk’ of
groundwater pollution.
L11 T1A6C10 Unlined pit, no outlet or This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained unlined pit with
overflow, where there is permeable walls and base, through which infiltration can occur. The tank is NOT fitted
a ‘low risk’ of with a supernatant/effluent overflow so this system is considered contained;
groundwater pollution. contributes to variable F2 only.

Part 4)
L12 T1B7C10 Pit (all types), never This is a pit latrine that when full will be abandoned and completely covered and
emptied but abandoned sealed with soil (or earth, mud, local aggregate or similar material etc.). Since the
when full and covered excreta is entirely confined or buried under the fill material it is considered contained;
with soil, no outlet or contributes to variable F2 only.
overflow, where there is
a ‘low risk’ of

Variable No: F10 - Faecal sludge not contained (onsite); and S7 - Supernatant not contained (onsite)

Part 4)
S1 T2A1C5 Toilet discharges This is a fully functioning toilet discharging directly to a correctly designed, properly
directly to soak pit, constructed, fully functioning soak pit. The excreta is raw, untreated and hazardous and
where there is a it is captured in the soak pit. However, since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
‘significant risk’ of pollution, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; contributes to
groundwater pollution. variable F10 only.
S2 T2A2C5 Septic tank connected This is a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning septic tank with a
to soak pit, where supernatant/effluent outlet connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed,
there is a ‘significant fully functioning soak pit. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank is only partially
risk’ of groundwater treated and is still hazardous, since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater pollution
pollution and the effluent is captured in a soak pit, all the excreta in this system is considered
NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
L8 T1A2C6 Septic tank connected This is a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning septic tank with an
to open drain or storm outlet connected to an open drain or storm sewer. The supernatant/effluent flowing from
sewer the tank is only partially treated and is still hazardous, therefore all the excreta in this
system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge fraction contributes to variable
F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to variable S7.
to open water body outlet connected to an open water body. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank
is only partially treated and is still hazardous, therefore all the excreta in this system is
considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
to open ground outlet connected to open ground. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank is only
partially treated and is still hazardous, therefore all the excreta in this system is

Part 4)
to ‘don't know where’ outlet connected to 'don't know where'. The supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank
is only partially treated and is still hazardous, therefore all the excreta in this system is
S2 T2A3C5 Fully lined tank This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained fully lined tank
(sealed) connected to with impermeable walls and base. It includes poorly designed and/or constructed
a soak pit, where there and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
is a ‘significant risk’ of performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently the
groundwater pollution excreta is potentially more toxic than the excreta in a septic tank). The tank is fitted with
a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed
and fully functioning soak pit but since the supernatant/effluent flowing from the tank is
untreated and since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater pollution all the excreta
in this system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
an open drain or storm and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
sewer performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently the
excreta is potentially more toxic than the excreta in a septic tank). Since the tank is
fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to an open drain or storm sewer
the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge fraction
contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to variable
S7.

Part 4)
a water body and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting as sealed vaults (consequently the
fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a water body the excreta in this
system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
open ground and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to open ground the excreta in this
system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
‘don't know where’ and/or maintained septic tanks that, because of these faults or deficiencies, are NOT
fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to 'don't know where' the excreta

Part 4)
S3 T2A4C1 Lined tank with
This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained lined tank with
impermeable walls and
sealed, impermeable walls and an open, permeable base, through which infiltration can
open bottom,
occur - the excreta is therefore likely to be partially treated. It includes wall-lined but
connected to a
open bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as
centralised combined
septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent
sewer, where there is a
overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed and fully functioning
‘significant risk’ of
centralised combined sewer but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
pollution, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge
fraction contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to
variable S7.
S3 T2A4C2 Lined tank with
This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained lined tank with
impermeable walls and
sealed, impermeable walls and an open, permeable base, through which infiltration can
open bottom,
occur - the excreta is therefore likely to be partially treated. It includes wall-lined but
connected to a
open bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as
centralised
septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent
foul/separate sewer,
overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed and fully functioning
where there is a
centralised foul/separate sewer but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
pollution, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge
variable S7.

Part 4)
S3 T2A4C3 Lined tank with This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained lined tank with
impermeable walls and sealed, impermeable walls and an open, permeable base, through which infiltration can
open bottom, occur - the excreta is therefore likely to be partially treated. It includes wall-lined but
connected to a open bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as
decentralised septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent
combined sewer, overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed and fully functioning
where there is a decentralised combined sewer but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
‘significant risk’ of pollution, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge
groundwater pollution. fraction contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to
variable S7.
connected to a open bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as
decentralised septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent
foul/separate sewer, overflow connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed and fully functioning
where there is a decentralised foul/separate sewer but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
‘significant risk’ of pollution, all the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge
groundwater pollution. fraction contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to
variable S7.

Part 4)
connected to a soak open bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as
pit, where where septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent
there is a ‘significant connected to a correctly designed, properly constructed and fully functioning soak pit
risk’ of groundwater but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater pollution, all the excreta in this
pollution. system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
open bottom, occur. It includes wall-lined but open bottomed tanks and containers which are
connected to an open sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since the
drain or storm sewer. tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to an open drain or storm
sewer, the excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; the faecal sludge
variable S7.
connected to a water sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since the
body. tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to a water body, the excreta

Part 4)
connected to open sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since the
ground. tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to open ground, the excreta
connected to 'don't sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). Since the
know where' tank is fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow connected to 'don't know where', the
excreta in this system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
open bottom, no outlet occur - the excreta is therefore likely to be partially treated. It includes all lined but open
or overflow, where bottomed tanks and containers which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic
there is a ‘significant tanks (e.g. cubluks in Indonesia). The tank is NOT fitted with a supernatant/effluent
risk’ of groundwater overflow but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater pollution this system is
pollution. considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
S4 T2A5C10 Lined pit with, semi- This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained pit with semi-
permeable walls and permeable, honeycombed lined walls and an open, permeable base, through which
open bottom, no outlet infiltration can occur. The tank is NOT fitted with a supernatant/effluent overflow but
or overflow, where since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater pollution this system is considered NOT
there is a ‘significant contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
risk’ of groundwater
pollution.

Part 4)
S4 T2A6C10 Unlined pit, no outlet or This is a correctly designed, properly constructed and well maintained unlined pit with
overflow, where there permeable walls and base, through which infiltration can occur. The tank is NOT fitted
is a ‘significant risk’ of with a supernatant/effluent overflow but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of groundwater
groundwater pollution. pollution this system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable F10 only.
S5 T2B7C10 Pit (all types), never This is a pit latrine that when full will be abandoned and completely covered and sealed
emptied but with soil (or earth, mud, local aggregate or similar material etc.). The excreta will be
abandoned when full entirely confined or buried under the fill material but since there is a ‘significant risk’ of
and covered with soil, groundwater pollution this system is considered NOT contained; contributes to variable
no outlet or overflow, F10 only.
where there is a
L13 T1B8C10 Pit (all types), never This is a pit latrine that when full will be abandoned but NOT covered over or sealed
emptied but with soil (or earth, mud, local aggregate or similar material etc.). Since the excreta is
abandoned when full NOT confined or buried under a fill material it is considered NOT contained; contributes
but NOT adequately to variable F10 only.
covered with soil, no
outlet or overflow,
where there is a ‘low
risk’ of groundwater
pollution.
L14 T1B9 Toilet failed, damaged, The toilet has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded; it may or may not
C1 TO C10 collapsed or flooded, be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained and will contribute to variable F10 only.
connected to sewer,
soak pit, open drain or
storm sewer, water
body, open ground or
'don't know where'.

Part 4)
L15 T1B10 Containment (septic The containment technology has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded;
C1 TO C4 tanks, fully lined tanks, it may or may not be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained; the faecal sludge
partially lined tanks fraction contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to
and pits, and unlined variable S7.
pits) failed, damaged,
collapsed or flooded -
connected to any
sewer type.
L16 T1B10C5 Containment (septic The containment technology has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded;
tanks, fully lined tanks, it may or may not be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained and will contribute to
partially lined tanks variable F10 only.
and pits, and unlined
connected to soak pits.
L17 T1B10C6 Containment (septic The containment technology has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded;
tanks, fully lined tanks, it may or may not be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained; the faecal sludge
partially lined tanks fraction contributes to variable F10, and the supernatant/effluent fraction contributes to
and pits, and unlined variable S7.
connected to open
drain or storm sewer.

Part 4)
L18 T1B10 Containment (septic The containment technology has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded;
C7 TO C9 tanks, fully lined tanks, it may or may not be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained and will contribute to
partially lined tanks variable F10 only.
and pits, and unlined
connected to water
bodies, open ground or
‘don’t know where’.
L19 T1B10C10 Containment (fully The containment technology has failed, become damaged, collapsed or been flooded;
lined tanks, partially it may or may not be still in use. The excreta is NOT contained and will contribute to
lined tanks and pits, variable F10 only.
and unlined pits) failed,
damaged, collapsed or
flooded - with no outlet
or overflow.
Variable No: OD9 - Open defecation

group (See System (See System Selection Grid in
(See System Selection Grid in Part 4)
Part 4)
L20 T1B11 Open defecation With no toilet, users defecate in water bodies, on open ground and to don’t know
C7 TO C9 where; consequently the excreta is NOT contained. Excreta from this practice will
contribute to variable OD9.

Variable No: W4a and W4b - Wastewater contained delivered to treatment
Reference Description Definition
(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
W4a Wastewater delivered to Wastewater discharges into a sewer which is connected to and discharges to a centralised
centralised treatment plants treatment plant
W4b Wastewater delivered to Wastewater discharges into a sewer which is connected to and discharges to a decentralised
decentralised treatment plants treatment plant
Variable No: W4c - Wastewater not contained delivered to treatment

(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
W4c Wastewater from open drains or Wastewater discharges into a open or storm sewer which is connected to and discharges to a
storm sewers delivered to treatment plant
treatment plants (the treatment
plant is most likely to be a
centralised treatment plant)

Variable No: W11 - Wastewater not delivered to treatment
(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
W11a Wastewater contained not Wastewater discharges into a sewer which is connected to and discharges to a centralised
delivered to centralised treatment sewer network and a treatment plant but due to leakage and/or failed pumping systems, a
plants known (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:
 Discharges to underground soil structures.
 Discharges to the environment (to an open drain, to a water body, to open ground).
 Is applied to land (for illegal use without treatment); or
 Discharges to ‘don't know where’.
Or where wastewater discharges into a sewer which is not connected to a centralised treatment
plant, instead a known (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:
W11b Wastewater contained not Wastewater discharges into a sewer which is connected to and discharges to a decentralised
delivered to decentralised sewer network and treatment plant but due to leakage and/or failed pumping systems, a known
treatment plants (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:
Or where wastewater discharges into a decentralised sewer network which is not connected to
a treatment plant, instead a known or estimated percentage of the wastewater:

W11c Wastewater not contained not All wastewater from toilets discharges going directly to water bodies, open ground or to don’t
delivered to treatment plants know where.
And where wastewater discharges into an open drain or storm sewer, which is connected to
and discharges to a treatment plant (either centralised or decentralised), but due to leakage
and/or failed pumping systems, a known (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:
 Discharges to the environment (to a water body, to open ground).
 Is applied to land (for illegal use without treatment).
 Discharges to ‘don't know where’
Or where wastewater discharges into an open drain or storm sewer which is not connected to a
treatment plant, instead a known (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:
Variable No: S4d - Supernatant contained and delivered to treatment

(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
S4d Supernatant contained and Supernatant contained by an onsite technology that discharges into a sewer which is connected
delivered to treatment to and discharges to a centralised or decentralised treatment plant.
Variable No: S4e - Supernatant not contained and delivered to treatment

S4e Supernatant not contained and Supernatant not contained by an onsite technology that discharges into an open drain or storm
delivered to treatment sewer which is connected to and discharges to a centralised or decentralised treatment plant.

Variable No: S11 - Supernatant not delivered to treatment
(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
S11d Supernatant contained – not Supernatant discharges into a sewer which is connected to and discharges to a centralised or
delivered to treatment decentralised sewer network and treatment plant but due to leakage and/or failed pumping
systems, a known (or estimated) percentage of the supernatant:
Or where supernatant discharges into a sewer which is not connected to a treatment plant,
instead a known (or estimated) percentage of the supernatant:
S11e Supernatant not contained – not Supernatant discharges into an open drain or storm sewer, which is connected to and discharges
delivered to treatment to a treatment plant but due to leakage and/or failed pumping systems, a known (or estimated)
percentage of the supernatant:
 Is applied to land (for illegal use without treatment).
Or where supernatant discharges into an open drain or storm sewer which is not connected to a
treatment plant, instead a known (or estimated) percentage of the wastewater:

(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)

Variable No: F8 - Faecal sludge contained- not emptied

(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
F8 Faecal sludge contained- not Faecal sludge that is contained within an onsite sanitation technology and not removed.
Depending on the sanitation technology type, the faecal sludge may remain in the container
emptied
and/or infiltrate to the ground.
Variable No: F3a - Faecal sludge contained - emptied

(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
F3a Faecal sludge contained – Faecal sludge is removed from an onsite sanitation technology where FS is contained, which
emptied can be emptied, using either motorized or manual emptying equipment.

Variable No: F3b - Faecal sludge not contained - emptied
(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
F3b Faecal sludge not contained - Faecal sludge is removed from an onsite sanitation technology where FS is not contained, which
emptied can be emptied, using either motorized or manual emptying equipment.
Variable No: F15 - Faecal sludge not contained- not emptied

(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
F15 Faecal sludge not contained- not Faecal sludge that is not contained within an onsite sanitation technology and not removed.
emptied Depending on the sanitation technology type, the faecal sludge may remain in the container
and/or infiltrate to the ground.
Variable No: F4 - Faecal sludge delivered to treatment

(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
F4 Faecal sludge delivered to Is faecal sludge that is transported to a treatment plant site (without leakage or spillage) by
treatment plants manual or motorized transport.
Or, that is dumped in a functioning sewer which is connected to and discharges at a treatment
plant (without any leakage or spillage from either the transport to the sewer or from the sewer
during transport within it).

Variable No: F11 - Faecal sludge not delivered to treatment
(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
F11a Faecal sludge contained – Is faecal sludge that is transported to a treatment plant site by manual or motorized transport,
emptied, not delivered to but due to leakage or spillage, a percentage of the removed faecal sludge does not reach the
treatment plants treatment plant, instead it either:
 Discharges to underground soil structures;
 Discharges to the environment (to an open drain, to a water body, to open ground);
F11b Faecal sludge not contained –  Discharges to ‘don't know where.’
emptied, not delivered to
treatment plants or; is faecal sludge that is dumped in the local area (within 500m from emptied onsite sanitation
technology) and it either:
 Is applied to landfill;
or; is faecal sludge that is dumped in the neighbourhood (over 500m from onsite sanitation
technology) and it either:
or; is faecal sludge that is dumped in a sewer which is not connected to a treatment plant and it
either:

Variable No: W5 - Wastewater treated
(See Master
SFD Graphic in
Part 1)
W5a Wastewater treated at centralised Wastewater in sewer system treated at a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
treatment plants functioning centralised wastewater treatment plant.
W5b Wastewater treated at Wastewater in sewer system treated at a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully
decentralised treatment plants functioning decentralised wastewater treatment plant.
W5c Wastewater treated at Wastewater not contained in open drains but treated at a correctly designed, properly
centralised/decentralised constructed, fully functioning centralised/decentralized wastewater treatment plant.
treatment plants
Variable No: W12 - Wastewater not treated
Ref Description Definition Comment

(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
W12a Wastewater not treated at a Wastewater in sewer system discharged without Delivered to non-functioning treatment
centralised treatment plants treatment from a non-functioning wastewater plant and discharged without treatment
treatment plant and it either:
 Discharges to the environment (to an open
drain, to a water body, to open ground);
 Is applied to land (for illegal use without
treatment); or

Ref Description Definition Comment
(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
W12b Wastewater not treated at a

decentralised treatment or; wastewater discharged without treatment from a
plants correctly designed, properly constructed wastewater
treatment plant functioning sub-optimally and it
Delivered to treatment plant functioning
either:
sub-optimally (e.g. over capacity, poor
 Discharges to the environment (to an open maintenance, breakdown or other
drain, to a water body, to open ground); constraint) and discharged without
 Is applied to landfill; treatment.
treatment); or
or; wastewater discharged with only partial treatment

from a correctly designed, properly constructed Delivered to treatment plant functioning
faecal sludge treatment plant (or a wastewater sub-optimally (e.g. over capacity, poor
treatment plant designed to receive faecal sludge) maintenance, breakdown or other
functioning sub-optimally and it either: constraint), therefore some WW remains
 Discharges to the environment (to an open partially treated and discharged without
drain, to a water body, to open ground); further treatment.
treatment); or
W12c Wastewater not treated at a Wastewater not contained in open drains discharged Delivered to non-functioning treatment
centralised/decentralised without treatment from a non-functioning wastewater plant and discharged without treatment.
treatment plants treatment plant.

Variable No: S5 - Supernatant treated
(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
S5d Supernatant contained, delivered Supernatant in sewer system that is delivered to treatment plants, which is treated at a correctly
to treatment and treated designed, properly constructed, fully functioning centralised or decentralised wastewater
treatment plant.
S5e Supernatant not contained, Supernatant in open drain or storm sewer system that is delivered to treatment plants, which is
delivered to treatment and treated at a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning centralised or
treated decentralised wastewater treatment plant.
Variable No: S12 - Supernatant not treated

(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
S12d Supernatant contained, Supernatant in sewer system that is delivered to centralised or decentralised treatment plants,
delivered to treatment but not which is not treated (refer to W12a and W12b for full definition).
treated
S12e Supernatant not contained, Supernatant in open drain or storm sewer system that is delivered to treatment plants, which is
delivered to treatment but not not treated (refer to W12c for full definition).
treated

Variable No: F5 - Faecal sludge treated
Ref Description Definition

(See Master SFD
Graphic in Part 1)
F5 Faecal sludge treated Faecal sludge treated at a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning faecal
sludge treatment plant.
Or; Faecal sludge treated at a correctly designed, properly constructed, fully functioning
Wastewater treatment plant that is designed to receive faecal sludge.
Variable No: F12 - Faecal sludge not treated
Reference Description Definition Comment

(See Master
SFD Graphic
in Part 1)
F12 Faecal sludge not treated Faecal sludge discharged without treatment from a Delivered to non-functioning treatment
non-functioning faecal sludge treatment plant (or plant and discharged without treatment
from a non-functioning wastewater treatment plant)
and it either:
treatment); or

Reference Description Definition Comment
(See Master
SFD Graphic
in Part 1)
or; Faecal sludge discharged without treatment Delivered to treatment plant functioning
from a correctly designed, properly constructed sub-optimally (e.g. over capacity, poor
faecal sludge treatment plant (or a wastewater maintenance, breakdown or other
treatment plant designed to receive faecal sludge) constraint) and discharged without
functioning sub-optimally and it either: treatment.
treatment); or Delivered to treatment plant functioning
 Discharges to ‘don't know where’ sub-optimally (e.g. over capacity, poor
or; Faecal sludge discharged with only partial maintenance, breakdown or other
treatment from a correctly designed, properly constraint), therefore some faecal sludge
constructed faecal sludge treatment plant (or a remains partially treated and discharged
wastewater treatment plant designed to receive without further treatment.
faecal sludge) functioning sub-optimally and it
either:
treatment); or

Part 3 - Definitions of Terms
Notes:
and the three other parts of this Volume 2:
• Part 1 - Master SFD Graphic;
• Part 2 - Definition of SFD Variables; and
 Part 4 - Sanitation Containment System: SFD Schematics
2. This document defines all the terms used in the SFD Graphic Generator, and provides
examples of commonly used regional variations. The definitions are provided for the purpose
of the SFD Promotion Initiative only.
3. Terms in each definition shown in italics are also defined within this document.

KEY TERMS
Term Definition Comments and Regional References

Examples
Contained Sanitation technology and/or system which ensures Re-worded from

safe level of protection from excreta i.e. pathogen
WHO, 2001 “Water Quality: Guidelines,
transmission to the user or general public is limited.
Standards and Health: Excreta-related
infections and the role of sanitation’,
pg107
Containment First part of the sanitation service chain, also referred -

system to as ‘containment’ on the excreta flow diagram.
For offsite sanitation it includes a) the toilet and b)
what the toilet is connected to (typically a pipe to the
sewer network)
For onsite sanitation, it includes a) the toilet, b) the
onsite sanitation technology that the toilet discharges
to and c) the second stage technology (if anything)
that the onsite sanitation technology is then connected
to (e.g. soak pit or sewer)
Containment A single sanitation infrastructure immediately

technology downstream of the toilet into which excreta is
discharged.
Discharge Distinct and different to disposal. Used to describe the

flow of faecal sludge, effluent and wastewater
between sanitation technologies and the illegal
practice of using or returning faecal sludge, effluent or
wastewater to the environment, without full treatment.
See also disposal.

Examples
Disposal The methods by which the treatment plant output In some locations, disposal occurs Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
products (which should be now reduced-risk with or without treatment Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg138-
materials) derived from a sanitation system are
ultimately returned to the environment. Where there
is an end-use for the product, they can be applied or
used.
Disposal is distinct and different to discharge and
refers only to the end fate of treated wastewater or
faecal sludge. Any untreated wastewater or faecal
sludge is considered discharged not disposed of.
See also discharge.
Effluent The general term for the liquid that leaves a Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
technology, typically after blackwater or faecal sludge
Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg 11
(see also has undergone solids separation or some other type
Supernatant) of partial treatment. Effluent may be completely
Note: added ’faecal’ before sludge
sanitized or may require further treatment before it can
be used or disposed of.
Emptying The manual or motorized removal of faecal sludge See: motorized emptying and Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
from onsite sanitation systems. manual emptying. Management” Pg 4.
Note: compared to original: changed
‘mechanical’ to ‘motorized’ and
‘collection’ to ‘removal’
End-use The utilisation of treatment plant output products Application to land, fish pond, Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
derived from a sanitation system. groundwater recharge, proteins, Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition,
biofuels, building materials Glossary
Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
Management” Pg 99

Examples
Not contained Sanitation technology and/or sanitation system which Re-worded from
does not ensure safe level of protection from excreta.
WHO, 2001 “Water Quality: Guidelines,
i.e. pathogen transmission to the user or general
Standards and Health: Excreta-related
public is likely.
infections and the role of sanitation’,
pg107
Offsite A sanitation system in which excreta (referred to as In some cases excreta is collected Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
sanitation wastewater) is collected and transported away from in open drains, this is usually Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition,
the plot where they are generated. An offsite considered an illegal practice. Glossary
sanitation system relies on a sewer technology for However, there are some examples
transport. where excreta in open drains
discharges to a functioning
treatment plant.
Onsite A sanitation technology or sanitation system in which Single pit, ventilated improved pit, Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
sanitation excreta (referred to as faecal sludge) is collected and fossa alterna, twin pit, dehydration Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition,
stored and emptied from or treated on the plot where vaults, septic tank, anaerobic Glossary
they are generated. baffled reactor, biogas reactor.
Safely managed A service delivery outcome which results in a - -

combination of hazard (excreta in the environment)
and population exposure which is likely to result in a
low public health risk.
Sanitation The toilet or user interface where people defecate and

facility urinate and, where used, the onsite sanitation
technology that it discharges to; e.g. a pan with an
unlined pit.

Examples
Sanitation A context-specific series of sanitation technologies Adapted from: Tilley et al, 2014
system (and services) for the management of faecal sludge “Compendium of Sanitation Systems”
and/or wastewater through the stages of containment, 2nd Edition, pg 10
emptying, transport, treatment and end-use/disposal.
Sanitation The specific infrastructure, methods, or services e.g. urinals, pans, septic tanks, Adapted from: Tilley et al, 2014
technologies designed to support the process of managing faecal vacutug, drying bed, reed bed “Compendium of Sanitation Systems”
sludge and/or wastewater through the stages of 2nd Edition, pg 13
containment, emptying, transport, treatment, and end-
use/disposal.
Supernatant The general term for the liquid in an onsite Adapted from Tilley et al, 2014
technology (e.g. tank or pit) lying above the faecal
“Compendium of Sanitation Systems”
(see also sludge, typically after blackwater or faecal sludge has
effluent) undergone solids separation or some other type of 2nd Edition, pg 11
treatment.
(If the supernatant leaves the technology it is generally
referred to as effluent, which may be completely
sanitized or may require further treatment before it can
be used or disposed of).
Toilet Refers to any type of toilet, pedestal, pan, or urinal Dry toilet, urine- diverting toilet,
that is the user interface with the sanitation system. urinal, pour flush toilet, cistern flush
toilet, urine- diverting flush toilet

Examples
Transport For offsite sanitation this refers to the conveyance of See; sewers, manual emptying and
wastewater using a sewer network. motorized emptying
For onsite sanitation this refers to the manual or May also utilise transfer stations
motorized conveyance of faecal sludge emptied from (both fixed and mobile).
onsite sanitation technologies.
In some cases excreta is collected
in open drains, this is usually
considered an illegal practice.
However, there are some examples
where excreta in open drains
discharges to a functioning
treatment plant.
Treatment Process/es that changes the physical, chemical and See: wastewater treatment plant David Blockley, 2005 “The New
biological characteristic or composition of faecal and faecal sludge treatment plant Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering”
sludge or wastewater so that it is converted into a
product that is safe for end-use.
Management” Pg 98
.
Unsafely A service delivery outcome which results in a - -

managed combination of hazard (excreta in the environment)
and population exposure which is likely to result in a
significant public health risk.
User interface The type of toilet, e.g. pedestal, pan, or urinal used by Dry toilet, urine- diverting toilet, Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
the user. urinal, pour flush toilet, cistern flush Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition pg 42
toilet, urine- diverting flush toilet

GENERAL TERMS

Examples
Abandoned pit A pit which is never emptied but instead, once full, e.g. Arbor loo
latrine the content is covered over with soil and the pit
abandoned.
Applied to land Wastewater: May be applied to agriculture, home Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
gardening, forestry, sod and turf growing, Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, p148
landscaping, parks, and golf courses.
Faecal sludge: May be applied to agriculture, home
gardening, forestry, sod and turf growing,
landscaping, parks, golf courses, mine reclamation,
as a dump cover, or for erosion control.
Blackwater Blackwater is the mixture of urine, faeces and Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
flushwater along with anal cleansing water (if water Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, p10
is used for cleansing) and/or dry cleansing materials
Centralised sewer A system used to collect, treat, discharge, and/or In some locations, sewer systems Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
system reclaim wastewater from large user groups (i.e. do not discharge to a centralised Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, p98
municipal and city level applications). treatment plant but instead
discharge untreated wastewater
direct to a water body.
Combined sewer Sewer network where blackwater and stormwater David Blockley, 2005 “The New
runoff are carried by the same sewers. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering”
Decentralised A system used to collect, treat, discharge, and/or In some locations, sewer systems Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
sewer system reclaim wastewater from a neighbourhood, small do not discharge to a Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, p98
community or pilot service area. decentralised treatment plant but
instead discharge untreated
wastewater direct to a water body.

Examples
Excreta Consists of urine and faeces that is not mixed with Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
any flushwater. Excreta are small in volume, but Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition pg 11
concentrated in both nutrients and pathogens.
Depending on the quality of the faeces, it has a soft
or runny consistency.
Faecal sludge Faecal sludge comes from onsite sanitation In many countries (e.g. India) Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
technologies or systems, i.e., it has not been faecal sludge is commonly Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg12
transported through a sewer. It can be raw or referred to as septage, although
Note have changed ‘systems’ to
partially digested, a slurry or semisolid, and results this usage is often limited to
‘technologies’
from the collection and storage/treatment of excreta describe the contents of septic
with or without greywater. tanks only.
Faecal sludge Infrastructure designed to convert faecal sludge into Sedimentation/thickening Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
treatment plant a product that is safe for end-use whether it is used tanks/ponds, drying beds, solar Management” Pg 99
or not. drying, incineration, anaerobic
digestion, co-composting with
organic solid waste, vermi Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
composting, LaDePa, thermal Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition , pg98
drying, co-treatment with
wastewater
Flushwater The water discharged into the toilet to transport the Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
content and/or clean it. Freshwater, rainwater, Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition ,pg11
recycled greywater, or any combination of the three
can be used as a flushwater source.

Examples
Fully lined tank A correctly designed, properly constructed and well Dehydration vaults; composting
(sealed) maintained fully lined tank with impermeable walls chambers.
and base. It includes poorly designed and/or
For the purposes of this analysis
constructed and/or maintained septic tanks that,
removable containers (such as
because of these faults or deficiencies, are not
those used by ‘Clean Team’ in
performing as septic tanks, instead they are acting
Ghana); and bucket latrine
as sealed vaults (consequently the faecal sludge
containers (as used in India) are
and effluent is potentially more toxic than the faecal
considered as fully lined tanks
sludge and effluent in a septic tank).
(sealed) with no outlet or overflow
– see the ‘L10’ type sanitation
containment system.
Greywater All water generated from washing food, clothes and Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
dishware, as well as from bathing and house Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg11
cleaning, but not from toilets.
Groundwater Water located beneath the earth’s surface in soil Centre for Science and Environment
pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations. (CSE),” Catch water where it falls -
Toolkit on urban rainwater harvesting”
It can be found in sand, gravel, silt, clay,
sedimentary rocks, limestone beds or even in
impermeable rocks such as granite when such rocks
are weathered or fractured. On the surface of the
earth, it can be seen in wells and as springs. The
water percolates downward in response to gravity or
differences in pressure.

Examples
Groundwater The level below the earth’s surface where the Tilley et al, 2014 "Compendium of
table ground is saturated with water. It corresponds to the Sanitation Systems" 2nd Edition,
level where water is found when a hole is dug or Glossary
drilled into the ground. A groundwater table is not
static and can vary by season, year or usage.
Landfill Relates to the disposal of solid waste. Methods used The World Bank, 1999 “Observations of
can include: Solid Waste Landfills in Developing
Countries: Africa, Asia, and Latin
 Open dump: indiscriminate disposal of waste
America document”, pg 4
and limited measures to control operations,
including those related to environmental
effects of landfill.
 Operated or semi-controlled dump: these
operate with some form of inspection and
recording of incoming wastes, practice
extensive compaction of waste and control
the tipping front and application of soil cover.
However, only limited measures to mitigate
environmental impacts are undertaken e.g.
leachate, landfill gas management.
 Sanitary landfill: those landfills that engage in
waste compaction and apply daily soil cover
to reduce nuisances.
Lined pit with A correctly designed, properly constructed and well Single pit latrine, ventilated pit
semi-permeable maintained pit with semi-permeable lined walls and latrine, twin pit latrine, fossa
walls and open an open, permeable base, through which infiltration alterna.
bottom can occur.

Examples
Lined tank with A correctly designed, properly constructed and well Indonesia: Cubluks
impermeable maintained lined tank with sealed, impermeable
walls and open walls and an open, permeable base, through which
bottom infiltration can occur. It includes all lined but open
bottomed tanks and containers which are
sometimes mistakenly referred to as septic tanks.
Manual emptying Refers to the emptying of faecal sludge from onsite Shovels, buckets, ropes, the
sanitation technologies, where humans are required MAPET, the Gulper, the Rammer,
to manually lift the sludge. Manual emptying can be the MDHP.
Management” Pg 86
used with either manual transport or motorized
transport.
Manual transport Refers to the human-powered transport of faecal Hand-drawn cart or animal drawn Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
sludge emptied from onsite sanitation technologies. cart controlled by humans, Management” Pg 86
Manual transport can be used with manual emptying consisting of a load-bed mounted
or motorized emptying. on a single axle with one or more
wheels
Motorized Refers to the use of motorized equipment for the Vacuum tanker with pump and Variation of: Tilley et al, 2014
emptying emptying of faecal sludge from onsite sanitation holding tank. The Vacutug, Molsta, “Compendium of Sanitation Systems”
technologies. Humans are required to operate the Dung Beetle, Mini-trucks and 2nd Edition, Pg 88
equipment and manoeuvre the hose, but the faecal Kedoteng all carry a pump and a
sludge is not manually lifted. Motorized emptying is small holding tank; these are all
most commonly followed by motorized transport, but designed to negotiate narrow
it is also used with manual transport. roads or pathways. Small, light
petrol driven pumps carried by
humans are also used.

Examples
Motorized Refers to the use of motorized equipment for the See motorized emptying, plus
transport transport of faecal sludge from onsite sanitation trailer mounted holding tanks
technologies. Humans are required to operate the pulled by tractor or other
equipment, but the faecal sludge is not manually motorized vehicles.
transported. Motorized transport can be used with
either motorized emptying or manual emptying.
Open defecation Situation where no toilet is in use; people defecate Sanitation for All website (sanitation the
(OD) in fields, forests, bushes, bodies of water or other drive to 2015)
open spaces.
http://sanitationdrive2015.org/faqs/what-
Note: where people defecate into bags that are left do-we-mean-by-open-defecation/
in the environment (including added to solid waste)
then this is defined as OD; but where the bags are
put into a sanitation technology then this is not OD.
Open drain Open channel used to carry greywater, surface Also known as a storm drain David Blockley, 2005 “The New
water or stormwater. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering
In many locations, open drains
also receive flows direct from
toilets or from onsite sanitation
technologies. Depending on the
technology and its functionality,
this may be in the form of raw
excreta, or a mix of partially or
untreated faecal sludge and
partially or untreated supernatant.
Open ground Solid surface of the earth. Park, farmland, forest, community David Blockley, 2005 “The New
square, vacated plot, road. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering

Examples
Outlet A pipe or hole through which wastewater is David Blockley, 2005 “The New
discharged or a gas may vent. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering
Overflow An outlet for excess wastewater. David Blockley, 2005 “The New
Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering
Pit latrine An onsite sanitation technology which is a pit dug Depending on the pit design, the WHO (adapted)
into the ground to contain excreta. toilet, and the anal cleansing
method, the pit may also contain
any of the following: anal
cleansing water, toilet paper, other
anal cleansing materials and pour
flushwater.
Sanitation service The containment, emptying, transport, treatment Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
chain and end-use or disposal of excreta. Management” Pg 4
Sealed vaults Watertight chambers which prevent external Dehydration vaults Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
moisture from entering. Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg.70
Foul/separate A sewer which may carry blackwater and greywater David Blockley, 2005 “The New
sewer but from which stormwater is excluded. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering

Examples
Septic tank A septic tank, if correctly built, is a watertight For Indian context see: Bureau of Adapted from: Tilley et al, 2014
chamber made of concrete, brickwork or blockwork, Indian standards, 1993 “Code of “Compendium of Sanitation Systems”
fibreglass, pvc or plastic, through which blackwater practice for installation of Septic 2nd Edition, pg.74
and greywater flows for primary treatment. Settling tanks” Part -1, Pg 4
and anaerobic processes reduce solids and
organics, but the treatment is only moderate. Septic
tanks should have at least two chambers. The first
chamber should be at least 50% of the total length,
and when there are only two chambers, it should be
two thirds of the total length. Most of the solids settle
out in the first chamber. A correctly designed septic
tank has an outlet from the second chamber to a
sub-surface infiltration system (such as a soak pit)
or to a sewer for further management of the liquid
effluent.
See also lined tanks with impermeable walls and
open bottom: these are often mistakenly identified
as septic tanks. They may be single- or multi-
chambered, with partially lined or fully lined walls
and an open bottom. This open bottom means that
they effectively operate as a soak pit, with little (if
any) treatment occurring in the tank itself.
Sewer An underground pipe that transports blackwater, Simplified sewer, solids-free Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
greywater and, in some cases, stormwater sewer, conventional gravity sewer. Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, Pg 94
(combined sewer) from individual households and
In some locations the sewer
other users to treatment plants, using gravity or
system does not discharge to a
pumps when necessary. The treatment plant and
treatment plant but discharges
sewer network can either be centralised or
untreated wastewater to an open
decentralised.
water body.

Examples
Soak pit A pit or chamber that allows effluent to soak into the Also known as a soakaway, leach David Blockley, 2005 “The New
surrounding ground. pit or infiltration trench. Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering”
For Indian context see:
S.K.Garg,1979 “Sewage Disposal
and Air pollution Engineering” Pg
394 and Central public health and
environmental engineering
organisation, 2013 “Manual on
sewerage and sewage Treatment
systems”, Part-A Pg 9-23
Stormwater The general term for the rainfall runoff collected from Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
roofs, roads and other surfaces before flowing Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition pg 12
towards low-lying land. It is the portion of rainfall that
does not infiltrate into the soil.
Surface water A natural or man-made water body that appears on Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
the surface, such as a stream, river, lake, pond or Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition,
reservoir. Glossary
Treated faecal Faecal sludge that has undergone a treatment Strande et al, 2014 “Faecal sludge
sludge process and has successfully been converted into a Management” Pg 98
Treated Wastewater that has undergone a treatment

wastewater process and has successfully been converted into a
Unlined pit A correctly designed, properly constructed and well- Single pit latrine, ventilated pit
maintained unlined pit with permeable walls and latrine, twin pit latrine, fossa
base, through which infiltration can occur. alterna

Examples
Wastewater Used water from sanitation technologies in Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
households and those within any combination of Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition,
domestic, industrial, commercial industrial, Glossary
commercial or agricultural premises, but not the
wastewater from these industrial, commercial or
agricultural activities; and surface water runoff or
stormwater and any sewer inflow/infiltration. In
domestic cases this is commonly made up of
blackwater, greywater and possibly stormwater,
depending on whether combined or separate
sewers are in use.
Wastewater Infrastructure designed to convert wastewater into a Anaerobic digestion, waste Tilley et al, 2014 “Compendium of
treatment plant product that is safe for end-use or disposal. stabilisation ponds, aerated ponds, Sanitation Systems” 2nd Edition, pg 98
constructed wetlands, trickling
filter, activated sludge
Water body Any significant accumulation of water, both natural Lake, pond, river, sea
and manmade (i.e. surface water)

Part 4 – sanitation containment systems: SFD schematics
Notes:
and with the three other parts of this Volume 2:
 Part 1 - Master SFD Graphic
 Part 2 - Definition of SFD Variables
 Part 3 - Definition of Terms
2. These schematic drawings show all of the possible sanitation containment systems defined on
the selection grid (see over).
3. For ease of reference, and to indicate which systems populate the same variables, the systems
have been grouped together and numbered L1 to L20 and S1 to S5.
4. Variable group L1 to L20 are for use when pollution of groundwater is a Low Risk.
5. Variable group S1 to S5 are for use when pollution of groundwater is a Significant Risk.

Annex 1: Literature review of existing secondary data
Literature review is necessary to achieve the following objectives:
 To gain an understanding of the general city context, including the scale of sanitation
services, range of off-site and on-site sanitation technologies in the city; and
 To identify key stakeholders responsible for sanitation and FSM services in the city. It
may be important to engage and consult with some of these stakeholders during the city
study, to gather more detailed information or to access other valuable documents.
Methodology
The literature review is likely to have two phases:
 The first phase can develop an understanding of the context of the study. During this phase
it is important to search for and collect relevant information in a systematic way. This
information is then summarized, synthesized and analysed to record the evidence and
arguments given by others, as contained in the literature.
 The second phase of the literature review can be carried out after collecting data from
other sources (such as through interviews, FGDs or infield studies), to fill in any remaining
information gaps. Where new sources of information have been identified during the
study, the literature review can be updated accordingly.
The process of preparing a literature review must be:
 Focused, based upon the questions to be addressed in the city study;
 Comprehensive, yet concise;
 Critical, analysing and commenting on information rather than just reproducing and
summarizing it; and
 A discussion of a range of different, reliable perspectives.
When written-up the literature review should:
 Describe the main factors of the study that the literature contributes to;
 Explain the similarities and differences between reported evidence and the arguments,
and compare and contrast the findings, opinions, options and approaches presented; and
 Identify any knowledge gaps recognized in the literature, including any supporting
evidence that other people have also identified this gap.

A range of existing information sources may be used for the literature review. These include:
 Published material: books, journals, conference proceedings, official records (statistics,

household surveys, etc.), government publications, newspapers;
 Unpublished material: project files (monitoring reports, accounts, etc.), internal reports
(e.g. issued by projects, organizations, donors, etc.), consultants’ reports;
 The internet / electronic media (some of which may be electronic copies of printed
literature): databases (e.g. Aqualine), search engines (e.g. Google scholar), CDs;
 Visual material: photographs/diagrams/drawings, films/video/Internet/DVDs;
 Audio material: taped or digitally recorded interviews/ telephone conversations/ Internet/

CDs and DVDs;
 Personal communications: written, emailed or verbal correspondence with key

informants.
Literature from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other ‘external’ agencies
A range of ‘external’ agencies may be engaged in supporting sanitation and FSM services within a
given city. These can include academic institutions, NGOs, donors, private investors or consultants.
In this context, ‘external’ refers to agencies that are not service providers, but have interests related
to sanitation services, including wastewater and faecal sludge management and service delivery
development. They may be well placed to contribute views, reports and data on a range of issues.
More ‘neutral’ key informants – i.e. those without a direct ‘stake’ or vested interest in sanitation
services – are also likely to be in a good position to help with understanding issues where they
have a particular neutral interest and/or influence in relation to current and future sanitation,
wastewater and faecal sludge management services.

Annex 2: Key Informant Interviews
Key informant interviews (KIIs) are the way in which primary information will be sought to address
key questions about how both the ‘enabling environment’ and the operating environment affects
sanitation and FSM services (past, current and future). KIIs with stakeholders having responsibility
or interest in sanitation and FSM services at city-level and beyond will allow the enabling and
operating environments to be better understood in relation to the influence within the city, or to
wider spheres of influence – such as State or National legislation.
KIIs are also a means to engage stakeholders in other aspects of the process, including to:
 Clarify the purpose, objectives and interests of each stakeholder, in relation to current
sanitation services and the likely outcomes of changes to those services; and
 Facilitate further data collection, including: providing specific documents/ ‘grey literature’,
granting access to localities, making contacts with other organizations or individuals,
triangulating data.
It is anticipated that one individual, with experience in conducting interviews with a broad range of
stakeholders, will carry out the interview. However, it is possible that on occasion it may be deemed
appropriate to have two people involved – one to facilitate the questions and the other (or both) to
take notes. The length of interviews will vary, but it is suggested to keep interviews to a maximum
of about 1 hour.
Quality control
Key informant interviews should follow commonly adopted good practice, particularly those outlined
in Section 6 under “Ethical Considerations”.
If the interviewee invites other participants to join the interview, be aware of their appropriateness
to the subject matter, whether their presence may inhibit the original interviewee in answering
questions, and any possible disruption this may cause to the exchange of information. If the other
participants have valid contributions to make to the interview, incorporate these into the notes, and
clearly identify in the write-up who gave which answers and participated in a broader discussion.
Comprehensive notes should be captured electronically (Typed directly into a Word document or
similar) – either during the interview itself or within 24 hours of the interview.
Key points relating to the main topic areas of the interview should be identified and summarised,
as soon as possible following the interview.

Data Management
A separate Word document should be developed for each interview write-up. The document file
name and any original interview forms (hand-written) should have a unique code that identifies the
document. It could use for example, a coding for the city, type of stakeholder (e.g. Government/
Private Sector/ NGO/ Development Agency/ International Financial Institutions), if appropriate the
organization interviewed (name of the institution, not the individual), date of the interview and, if
required a unique number to distinguish the document from others.
Data Analysis
After the completion of all the interviews, the write-ups can be revisited to ensure they present an
accurate reflection of the information from all respondents (i.e. not just the initial information from
external actors / agencies, or from a particular set of other stakeholders).

Annex 3: Observations
Observation of service providers and facilities may prove a useful tool to triangulate and/or confirm
the reliability and consistency of information collected from other means. Observation can be used
to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
The observation of service providers and facilities will help to assess the type of equipment used
and actions taken (by households and workers) in relation to containment, emptying, transport,
treatment, disposal or end-use of faecal sludge. Observations require making visual inspections
about how on-site sanitation technologies are managed. This may involve observing the emptying
process, as well as how the removed faecal sludge is transported either to a disposal site or
treatment plant. In this way, the stages of operation through the service chain can be identified and
reported. Observation can then provide information about the effectiveness of operations and
methods used at each stage.
To observe emptying and transportation practices, visits need to be planned, agreed and carried
out as and when on-site sanitation technologies are being emptied. Having gained approval to
conduct an observation (e.g. from households, those carrying out the emptying service, operators
or managers of treatment plants), details should be recorded about the on-site sanitation
technology (containment), the practices of the service provider emptying the system (emptying,
transportation and disposal), and the facilities handling the faecal sludge (treatment plant, disposal
and/or end-use site).
Gaining access to observe treatment plants and disposal sites will need to be arranged with those
responsible for managing them.
Observation will generate both quantitative and qualitative data. All information collected should
be recorded in note form and transferred into a document. Having a standard reporting format for
observations will help to ensure that relevant information is captured as far as possible during each
observation visit. Documents should clearly state the type, arrangement and location of services
and facilities observed.
A note on holding discussions or interviews with collectors and transporters of faecal sludge
Those who empty and transport faecal sludge from on-site sanitation technologies are not necessarily the same
people as the "owners" of the transport vehicles. They have different interests, opinions and knowledge which is
often missed during standard research processes.
Where possible, interviews (formal or less formal) should be arranged and held with those directly involved in
the emptying and transportation of faecal sludge. Manual collectors, as well as those who operate motorized
emptying equipment should be interviewed where possible. Such discussions can help to ensure that all
stakeholders are consulted on questions of direct relevance and purpose to the services they provide.
Language is an important factor to consider when talking with informal operators in the city. Use of local dialects
may be necessary, which might require the use of a local translator to support the process.

It is also important to be aware that the relationships and dynamics within a city can affect the willingness of
those who carry out emptying and transportation services to talk openly about their operations.
The Stakeholder engagement document provides more detailed guidance and some examples of the
different arrangements that may be encountered.
Sampling for observations
Observations should aim to look at services, facilities and procedures adopted through all stages
of the sanitation service chain. The observations should reflect the range of practices, i.e.
considering both manual and motorized emptying and transportation service providers.
To achieve this, the following need to be taken into account:
 Discuss emptying schedules with both manual and motorized service providers in
advance and identify a range of customers, income groups and types of on-site sanitation
technologies that they empty. This requires discussions with a number of service
providers, to achieve a representative range.
 Observations need to coincide with a household having their on-site sanitation technology
emptied. Information will need to be sought from the service providers, or households, to
know when emptying will take place and time visits accordingly. Note that observations of
manual emptying procedures may need to be done at night.
 Where possible, the observations should observe the full procedure of a “shift” by the
emptying and transportation service providers – following them through the stages of
emptying, transporting and disposing of the faecal sludge – to the extent that is possible.
 The visits will require careful thought and preparation to obtain representative results. It
may benefit to identify, in consultation with emptying and transportation service providers,
the times of day/ days of the week that they are busiest, and then match this against the
stage of work to be observed.

Annex 4: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
The objective of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with community representatives is to gather
qualitative data that will complement, validate, or perhaps challenge data collected during the
literature review and interviews. Questions will focus on emptying and transportation services and
how they affect communities. They will be likely to focus on obtaining information relating to:
 The range of emptying practices and emptying services within the city; and
 Levels of support received (or perceived as being needed) to improve services to areas
of the city.
In relation to the service delivery context, questions for FGDs focus on issues relating to the Quality
and Equity of emptying services provided. Suggested topic areas and questions to address through
FGDs are shown in Table 11 and Table 12 respectively.
Table 11: Topics for FGDs with community representatives
Component Issue Topics for discussion
- Extent to which functioning services are available or

Quality: provided, to support good emptying and transport of faecal
Service delivery sludge
context analysis
- Extent to which the city's emptying and transport
Equity:
technologies serve low-income communities
Table 12: Questions to be addressed during the FDGs
Suggested primary questions and ‘probing’ questions: to stimulate

discussion
Topic areas for

Primary questions Secondary questions Tertiary questions
discussion
Can families find suitable How reliable are the

latrine emptying services?
Who provides those
services, when they want How satisfied are
services?
to have their latrine families with these
Extent to which
emptied? services?
functioning services are
available: emptying and How reliable are the
transport services?
What are the functioning
Who provides those
transport services How satisfied are
services?
available in the city? families with these
services?
Extent to which the city Do families get any Who provides the What are the benefits, if
provides support to external support for support? any, of getting this
ensure services reach emptying latrines? How is the support support?
low-income provided? What are the
communities: emptying disadvantages, if any, of
and transport this support?

Specific questions to ask during the FGDs should be considered, that account for the local realities
and are prepared in appropriate vocabulary, as well as being translated into the appropriate
language to suit the local context and aid understanding. Once translated, the questions should be
pre-tested. This allows for the suitability and acceptability of questions to be checked – as well as
ensuring those running the FGDs clearly understand the nature of each question. Appropriate
modifications to the FGD questions can be made and the final questions used documented.
Sampling
The final selection of groups and areas in which to conduct FGDs should be discussed and agreed,
in advance, with the key contact for the city. Up to 10 FGDs with community representatives and
service providers is likely to be sufficient to add valuable information to the study.
Those living in informal settlements cannot be considered a homogenous group. A range of

perceptions, priorities, practices and challenges will face different residents, depending on various
factors. FGDs are a means by which participants can be selected for a specific reason, as a way
to help draw-out from the group issues particularly affecting different ‘types’ of residents in informal
settlements.
As a minimum, at least half of the FGDs should be gender-segregated (with similar numbers
attending men-only and women-only FGDs), to allow responses to be disaggregated by gender.
Other groups may be focused around different socio-economic factors, to suit the characteristics
of the population. For example:
 Household characteristics: all participants are tenants, or all are owner-occupiers, or all
are landlords
 Presence of a household latrine: all participants own a private household latrine, or all
manage a latrine that is shared by a number of families
 Use of shared, community or public toilets on a daily basis.
 Type of containment system: all participants have their on-site sanitation technology (pit
latrine, septic tank, etc.) emptied
 Use of service providers for emptying: all participants use manual operators for emptying,
or all rely on motorized services.
Methods
Those running the FGDs must have appropriate experience and skills to both facilitate and write-
up the discussion during the FGDs. Women interviewers are required to interview women-only
FGDs, to enable women to talk more freely, about (for example) the issue of disposal of menstrual
hygiene products, who makes decisions on sanitation within the household, etc.

Appropriate approvals to conduct the FGDs should be sought, prior to running them. This will be
with individuals invited to participate as a minimum, but may also require approval from officials
representing affected communities and households (if deemed necessary).
FGDs should be run by teams of two people. One person facilitates the discussion, while the other
person takes notes and observes non-verbal communication. Both team members should have
previous experience and suitable skills in running and/or documenting FGDs, as well as technical
knowledge in urban sanitation.
Relevant individuals or groups may be identified and invited to participate, but any ‘group selection’
needs careful discussion and agreement in advance, to ensure it is appropriate and will be effective
to the needs of the study.
FGDs should take place in a convenient, quiet and comfortable location for participants. The
availability and accessibility of women and other vulnerable groups must be considered when
planning all locations and times at which to hold the FGDs. FGDs typically last an hour or more but
the duration of each discussion may vary depending on the dynamic of the group and number of
participants. Participants should be notified of the expected duration and the facilitator should
ensure not to run over this time.
Focus groups are typically 4-10 participants however researchers need to anticipate likely ‘no-
shows’ and recruit accordingly, aiming for no more than 10 participants.
Quality control
The management of FGDs should follow commonly adopted good practice, including:
 Pre-plan: select and invite the right participants;

 Set an appropriate venue, time and duration;
 Explain the purpose of the FGD at the start and gain approval from participants to continue;
 Seek agreement of ground rules with participants (one person speaks at a time, everyone’s
views are important, there are no right or wrong answers, etc.);
 Only voice-record the FGD with prior knowledge and granted permission of ALL
participants;
 Allow participants to opt-out or leave at any time;
 Allow everyone the opportunity to participate and no-one to dominate;
 Summarise key messages received with participants before ending; and
 Re-state what will happen to the data they have supplied.

Comprehensive notes should be captured electronically – either during the FGD itself (typed
directly into word document or similar), or within 24 hours of the FGD. Where different languages
are used for the group discussion, note-taking and final write-up, the team needs to have adequate
language skills to ensure the quality and meaning of information being said, captured and reported
is maintained through the process.

Manual SFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual SFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual SFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SFD Manual – Volume 1 and 2

Version 2.0 I Last updated: April 2018

Table 3: Summary of data collected ...................................................................................................... 11

Table 5: Quantitative performance data ................................................................................................ 19

Table 6: Qualitative performance data .................................................................................................. 20

Table 8: Stakeholder Groups................................................................................................................. 32

Table 9: Example of phasing ................................................................................................................. 33

Table 10: SFD Variables Table ............................................................................................................. 45

Table 12: Questions to be addressed during the FDGs ...................................................................... 114

Figure 2: Stakeholder influence-interest matrix ..................................................................................... 29

FGD Focus group discussion

KII Key informant interview

SFD-PI SFD Promotion Initiative

A Shit Flow Diagram (SFD) is an easy-to-understand advocacy and decision-support tool

Figure 1: SFD Graphic Example

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 2

2. Key definitions of the SFD-PI

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 3

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 4

Table 1: Components of an SFD Report

Aspects to Assess Objective Output

Management of excreta through To identify the proportions of excreta

1. The purpose of the SFD,

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 5

3.2. ‘Level 2’ - Intermediate SFD

3.3. ‘Level 3’ - Comprehensive SFD

The main methods adopted for data collection are:

 Collection and interpretation of primary data as a means of fact-checking and triangulation

 Qualitative data, that can be obtained through, for example:

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 6

- Observation of service provision and facilities through the sanitation service

- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with community representatives or service

3.4. SFD Lite

3.5. The SFD production process

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 7

Policy: To what extent is provision of sanitation services

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 8

Quantity / capacity: Is the capacity of each part of the Include if

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 9

4.1. Urban context

 Climate: type of climate, average temperature (minimal and maximum), rainy/dry

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 10

4.1.1. Policy, legislation and regulation

Table 3: Summary of data collected

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 11

 Which technologies the urban poor rely on.

4.1.4. Service outputs

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 12

5. Producing the SFD: Sanitation service chain analysis

5.2. Service outcomes

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 13

- What percentage of the

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 14

5.2.1. Containment (on-site and off-site sanitation)

 No on-site container. Toilet discharges directly to a specific destination

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 15

Categories of origin (of excreta flows)

 Households/domestic facilities: this includes individual occupancy households,

SFD Manual Volume 1 and 2 16