In Khulna, Bangladesh, mechanical faecal sludge (FS) emptying and transport (E&T) service is provided by community development committees (CDCs) and the Khulna City Corporation (KCC). Without considering capital expenditure and depreciation, financial analysis for one year revealed that a CDC-1 m³ vacutug made a profit of Bangladeshi taka (BDT) 145,780 (USD $1746) whereas a KCC-2 m³ vacutug was in the loss of BDT 218,179 (USD $2613). There is a need to engage the private sector for sustainable service provision. Some of the key elements of enabling the environment for private sector engagement are policy/strategy, institutional and regulatory framework, implementation capacity, and financial viability. Existing policy/strategy/frameworks acknowledged the need and suggested plans for private sector engagement, and decentralised authority to city corporations. With increasing private-public partnership projects and collaboration in the sanitation sector, capacity of the KCC and the private sector are increasing. Financial viability of the FS E&T business is primarily dependent on the number of trips and the emptying fee. For the E&T business to be financially viable, a 2 m³ vacutug should make six trips/day (internal rate of return (IRR)—13%, discount rate—6.5%) with an emptying fee of BDT 750 (USD $9)/m³. Despite the lack of operative guidelines for faecal sludge management (FSM), enabling the environment for private sector engagement in FS E&T business in Khulna seems favourable.

Various business models for fecal sludge emptying and transport have been developed to address challenges and their advantages have been documented; however, their evaluation has not been investigated. This study developed an evaluation framework, which was tested in informal settlements in Kampala for sustainable business models of fecal sludge emptying and transport. Through key informant interviews and stakeholder consultations, service delivery challenges from informal settlements in Kampala were identified and included in the framework, which were: high cost of emptying services, spillages, access to facilities, high operational costs and social stigma. The evaluation framework adopted six service criteria: Financial, Institutional, Environmental, Technological, Social and Scalability; these were further defined by fifteen service sub-criteria. The criteria were tested separately on eight business models—for mechanized (cesspool) and semi-mechanized (gulper) technologies. The key output of the evaluation framework (business model scorecard) revealed that two models (scheduled desludging and call center) for cesspool technology and three models (mobile transfer stations, scheduled desludging and call center) for gulper technology have high potential for service improvement in informal settlements. Scheduled desludging and mobile transfer stations can effectively optimize emptying services and subsequently reduce emptying charges, whereas the call center is critical for bridging service delivery.

Although faecal sludge (FS) co-compost contains vital nutrients, there are several barriers limiting adoption and reuse of FS co-compost in agriculture. This study in Bhubaneswar found that health risk and bad odour were the two topmost negative perceptions of FS co-compost reuse. The main factors influencing farmers’ negative perceptions of FS co-compost were bad odour and fear of infection, whereas socio-cultural/religious beliefs and bad odour were the key factors influencing the negative perceptions of urban households practising kitchen gardening (UHPKG). Fear of infection and bad odour were the key factors influencing fertiliser retailers’ negative perceptions, while inadequate information, unavailability, and lack of government policy on FS co-compost reuse were the key factors influencing Farmer Producer Organisations’ negative perceptions. The majority of farmers (95%) and UHPKG (72%) were unwilling to consume food crops grown with FS co-compost, mainly because of feelings of disgust, fear of infection, and religious and socio-cultural beliefs.

A majority of the world's population use onsite sanitation systems, which store or treat excreta close to where it is generated. Sludge from these systems needs to be managed through a series of stages, known as the sanitation value chain. There is a huge diversity of service providers, not only within each part of the chain, but also along the chain bridging the different components. These service providers are linked not only by the flow of materials, but also by the transfer of money. Therefore for this system to be considered financially sustainable all services from the toilet to reuse or disposal need to be considered. A tool has been developed (eSOSView™) to simulate, evaluate, and optimise the financial flows along and within the sanitation value chain. In this paper eSOSView™ was tested, validated (using existing data), and piloted (including data collection). This paper demonstrates how eSOSView ™ can be used to evaluate different financial flow models, to assess financial sustainability in different parts of the sanitation value chain and optimise the financial sustainability along the sanitation value chain.

To achieve SDG 6.2.1 (a) on safely managed sanitation services, several financial flow models (FFMs) and business models for the sanitation value chain have been implemented in Bangladesh and elsewhere; however, there is limited research on financial viability and sustainability of business models. Bangladesh has attained 99% sanitation coverage, mostly with onsite sanitation systems; however, the country is facing a second-generation sanitation challenge, fecal sludge management, encompassing the entire sanitation chain. Kushtia Municipality in Bangladesh is entirely served by onsite systems; the fecal sludge emptying service is provided by the municipality, and the fecal sludge treatment plant is managed by a private entity. This study investigated sustainability of FFMs in Kushtia by using the financial, institutional, environmental, technical, and social (FIETS) sustainability approach and applying the financial flow simulator (eSOSView™) tool to analyze financial viability. Several criteria in each aspect of the FIETS approach were developed, scored, and validated by stakeholders to determine sustainability. The study found that the financial aspect is the most important criteria for sustainability and “modified parallel tax and discharge fee” is the most sustainable business model for Kushtia.