Shifting from traditional infrastructure planning to a collaborative approach: lessons from the Freetown sanitation master plan

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 673 million people continue to live without access to basic sanitation services (Atangana & Oberholster 2022; UNICEF & WHO 2023). While many plans and programs have been implemented to address this, efforts and investments have not translated into actual service improvements (Mtika & Tilley 2020; Conaway et al. 2023). Sanitation conditions in urban SSA have only improved two percentile points from an already low baseline over the past 25 years (Buckley & Kallergis 2019). As of 2019, only 11% of urban dwellers in SSA had access to sewerage and 41% had access to household-level latrines (Buckley & Kallergis 2019). To achieve universal access to sustainable sanitation, effective sanitation planning is crucial. Despite substantial investments in water and sanitation infrastructure over the last three decades, urban sanitation services have seen slow and limited progress, especially in SSA (Manga et al. 2020; Schertenleib et al. 2021).

Planning frameworks are established by governments in many countries to define investments that will contribute to national, sectoral, and subnational development. Governments typically use these ‘blueprints’ for investment as a key tool in mobilizing funds, budget appropriation, and engaging in investment negotiations with Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) (Garriga et al. 2015; Narayan et al. 2021; Muoghalu et al. 2023). Investing in urban sanitation through engineering firms has been supported by MDBs since the 1970s when sanitary sewer systems were considered ‘the technology of choice’ in cities (Schertenleib et al. 2021). In recent years, this conventional approach has evolved into ‘water supply and sanitation master plans’, which focus on establishing a framework for investment and providing technical direction (Gambrill et al. 2020; Schrecongost et al. 2020; Mitra et al. 2022).

Traditionally, master plan development processes were typically guided by engineering and technical methodologies, and involved a limited number of stakeholder iterations and participation (Barnes et al. 2011). A top-down, traditional approach has proven rigid and ineffective, indicating that local issues are not always understood (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller 2023). In addition, traditional sanitation planning prioritizes sewer systems over non-sewered sanitation technologies and puts little emphasis on sanitation infrastructure management and operation (Manteaw 2020; Manga et al. 2022).

The development of an urban sanitation master plan in resource-limited contexts requires a participatory approach, but few studies have discussed how to implement it.

Where participatory sanitation planning has been successfully implemented, the active involvement of the community and peer-led investigation of the sanitation challenges in the community ensure that the master plan aligned with the specific needs, preferences, and aspirations of stakeholders (Voinov & Gaddis 2008; Wates 2014). In the Mukuru informal settlement in Kenya, for example, a federation of slum dwellers partnered with academics and professionals to form eight consortia to identify, along with the inhabitants, the pressing issues in the settlements that needed planning interventions (Horn 2021; Corburn et al. 2022; Ouma 2023). These interventions were then co-produced with the inhabitants. In Uganda, capacity building workshops empowered community stakeholders to actively contribute to the plan and take ownership of sanitation initiatives (Murphy et al. 2009; O'Donovan et al. 2020). Community-based workshops involving knowledge sharing enabled participants in a Uganda-based case study to recognize common challenges and allowed them to share low-cost solutions from different communities (O'Donovan et al. 2020). The use of videos during workshops was particularly helpful for circulating findings, as it communicated information to people with a wide variety of community roles and to all age groups. An important approach used in participatory sanitation planning processes is benchmarking, which compares sanitation interventions with established standards and best practices in neighboring countries, providing a comprehensive assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and improvement opportunities (Giannetti et al. 2022). The framework has been tested in informal settlements in Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, where officials from water and sanitation utilities responded to surveys on observed aspects of service delivery (Murungi & Blokland 2016). One of the key advantages of this approach is the increased ability to easily compare findings from different countries, thus making it possible to identify performance gaps and share successful practices. There are few documented cases of participatory planning in the sanitation sector despite their success.

This article examines the use of collaborative planning approaches for the development of an urban sanitation master plan and presents a case study of its implementation in Freetown, Sierra Leone. We describe practical approaches for shifting from traditional sanitation infrastructure planning predominantly driven by an engineering consulting firm to a highly participatory and evidence-based approach. The objectives of the study were (a) to propose a participatory framework to guide the development of an urban sanitation master plan, (b) to describe the application of this framework in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and (c) to provide reflections on how future master plan development processes can be improved. By highlighting the fundamentals of a collaborative planning process, this research offers urban planners, sanitation stakeholders, and governments a guide to sustainable sanitation planning.

In this case study, we present a systematic account of the experiences of different stakeholders and participants, as well as lessons learned during implementation of this planning process. Because of the interesting lessons learned from this CWIS approach, Freetown's masterplan development was chosen as a case study. This case study did not involve human participants for research purposes, so no ethical approval was sought.

As part of the effort to provide sustainable sanitation to all, the Government of Sierra Leone (GOSL) received financing from the African Water Facility under the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency – Develop2Build program to undertake the preparation of an Integrated Water Supply and Sanitation Masterplan and Investment Projects for the medium-term for Freetown. The planning process was executed by the Guma Valley Water Company (GVWC) on behalf of the GOSL. The initiative was launched in June 2021, and the CWIS technical assistance hub was responsible for providing technical support for the preparation of the sanitation master plan. The technical assistance hub facilitated a collaborative process for the identification of strategic project entry points, stakeholder mapping, and the development and implementation of the new master plan. CWIS principles and the framework for participatory planning were used to improve upon the development of the master plan. Several strategies were used to implement the planning process, including technical support, peer-to-peer learning, targeted capacity building, and change management.

There is significant complexity and overlap in policy and institutional arrangements for sanitation service provision in Sierra Leone. The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) is entrusted with the country's water resources management and provision of public water supply infrastructure and services. Through a legal instrument for delegation of powers, and the GVWC Act, MoWR gave the mandate and responsibilities for provision of water supply and sanitation infrastructures and services in Freetown and surrounding areas to GVWC. The Ministry of Health and Sanitation is responsible for sanitation infrastructure and services. However, through the Local Government and Rural Development Act, provision of sanitation (wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater) management is under the FCC in WAU (Freetown), while WARDC covers WAR.

The executing agency for the integration of CWIS principles in the development of Freetown's water supply and sanitation master plan was the GVWC, a parastatal water and sanitation utility owned by the government. A technical committee with representatives from the institutions responsible for the outcomes of the project maintained regular oversight of the project implementation. The technical committee reported to the mayor of the Free Town City Council and the general manager of the GVWC, who were accountable to the project steering committee for policy oversight during the case study preparation. Stakeholders included the Project Technical Committee (PTC), the FCC, community members, relevant government agencies such as the WARDC, the Project Steering Committee, the GVWC, and project management consultants. In addition, the AfDB managed contracts, reviewed, and approved deliverables. A detailed table mapping out the stakeholder relationships and responsibilities is available in the supplementary material.

The technical assistance hub facilitated several CWIS strategic meetings and dialogues to articulate the mission's objective, gain a deeper understanding of key stakeholder roles and aspirations, and contribute to improving access to safely managed sanitation for all. Based on the meeting outcomes, it was determined that the technical assistance hub would provide ongoing support to complete the master plan development process and ensure seamless integration of CWIS. The identification of additional follow-up support was deemed essential, particularly in facilitating capacity building, mentorship, peer-to-peer learning, and benchmarking to achieve participatory development and consensus-building regarding the identification of priority infrastructure and service improvement investments. During the participatory dialogues and strategic meetings, potential opportunities for leveraging stakeholder partnerships to optimize coordination, resource allocation, and implementation synergies were identified and integrated into the sanitation master plan.

A field mission was conducted to provide technical and strategic advisory services, facilitate change management workshops on the CWIS framework and tools, and undertake backstopping support activities regarding citywide sanitation planning. Transect walks and field visits were conducted to rapidly profile the sanitation service delivery landscape and to identify areas for reform. A semistructured survey, key informant interviews, and focus groups were used to assess the sanitation landscape as well. For the surveys, totally 170 men, women, and children were randomly selected, equally from each community. The key informant interviews were used to explore key questions about existing sanitation infrastructure, service delivery models, and the enabling environment. The focus group discussions collected data from households, schools, hospitals, and industries regarding their current sanitation practices, preferences, and aspirations. Purposive sampling of communities was used to identify the participants of the focus group discussions – done through (i) approaching individuals in the community and requesting them to participate in the discussions, and (ii) contacting referrals through community leaders. For each focus group, a predetermined number of 10 men, women, or children were selected to participate.

The surveys, focus groups, and interviews with key informants revealed that almost all households shared toilets with others, which limited their privacy and increased their risk of sanitation-related diseases. Some households did not have access to toilets at all and resorted to open defecation. Vacuum tankers for emptying latrines were often inaccessible in many places. In addition, the number of tankers available was insufficient to meet the current latrine emptying demand. Findings showed that households faced difficulty in operating and maintaining their sanitation systems and that it cost a lot of money to empty the system when full, and therefore, open dumping of excreta into the environment was a common practice. Due to the limited ability to pay for sewer connections and a lack of wastewater treatment plants in the case study area, sewage overflows frequently occurred. Even though well designed, the fecal sludge treatment plant in Freetown did not treat all generated fecal sludge adequately. Therefore, fecal sludge was disposed of without proper treatment, posing increased public health risks and environmental pollution.

Technical backstopping, peer-to-peer learning, and capacity building were used to integrate the CWIS principles and framework into the planning process. The purpose of these activities was to (1) strengthen baseline data, information, and evidence; (2) conduct iterative engagements with clients for consensus building and understanding; and (3) use CWIS approach to address needs of the entire landscape.

Technical backstopping support was provided to improve the quality of the master plan outputs, including (1) updating baseline data and information used in planning, (2) developing and implementing diagnostic approaches to facilitate meaningful engagement of key stakeholders, and (3) ensuring a highly participatory planning process that addresses key technical aspects, enables environmental factors, and addresses demographic heterogeneity, social inequalities, and economic disparities in the city.

Peer-to-peer learning focused on providing opportunities to exchange knowledge and experiences on service delivery reforms between private and public sector institutions. This approach facilitated collective action learning of individuals from different institutions/organizations as ‘peers’ who, through sustained engagement, exchange knowledge and experiences, and mutual learning. The rationale for this approach was based on the motivation that it provides a strong foundation for urban authorities and utilities to learn about developing inclusive sanitation services from their peers who are also trying to provide solutions to similar challenges.

The technical assistance hub implemented workshops comprising seven sessions aimed at strengthening the capacity of different stakeholders and promoting a shift in mindset and approach towards urban sanitation programming and investment. Through the workshops, participants examined (a) the status and barriers to reaching the goals of safe sanitation as stipulated in Sustainable Development Goal 6, (b) the application of CWIS principles through case studies from Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, and South Africa, and (c) the use of a problem-solving approach to review and localize sanitation systems and technologies. The sessions used group work, plenary presentations, and Q&A sessions to instill these lessons in participants. This workshop facilitated reflection on existing challenges, and identification of investment priorities, and guided the consultants in structuring the master plan to address local pressing needs.

In addition, participants gained a deeper understanding of diagnostic and programming tools used in the sanitation sector and their application to the master plan development. These tools included the Shit Flow Diagram (SFD), the Time-Technology tool (T-T tool), and the City Service Delivery Assessment (CSDA). The SFD is a technical graphic used to display how excreta moves through a location. The T-T Tool is a participatory analysis of existing technology and service levels and a projection of desired technical and service delivery outcomes for short-, medium-, and long-term planning. The CSDA is an analysis of the enabling environment that also produces action points for reform for improved sanitation service delivery. The diagnostic tools helped to better understand the sanitation landscape and identify areas for improvement. Details about the tools are provided in the Supplementary Material.

According to the information collected during the participatory planning process, 51% of the households in WA-R and 54% in WA-U used shared pit latrines. Private latrines were less common, used by 19% of the households in WA-R and 12% in WA-U. A total of 8 and 3% of the households in rural and urban areas, respectively, lacked any access to a sanitation facility and thus practiced open defecation. Communal latrines were common in congested areas and areas with no adequate space for individual sanitation facilities. There were approximately 31 public latrines in WAU (most privately owned), and of these latrines, 55% were functional and 39% were not functional. In addition, there were three public latrines in Western Area Rural.

Since most latrines were inaccessible to larger vehicles, they were manually emptied when full. Several of the latrines were unlined, making them prone to collapse when desludged by motorized equipment. Latrine owners hired small unregulated pit emptying businesses, most of whom were former FCC employees, for latrine emptying services. Upon removal, the sludge was often buried within the latrine owner's compound, posing significant health and environmental hazards, especially during floods.

Western Area has around 11 vacuum trucks at the time of sanitation planning. Seven of the 11 vacuum trucks were operated by private companies, two were operated by the military, and two were purchased by the FCC to be rented on credit to private companies. Two or three commercial operators operated in the city, but most served large commercial, institutional, and affluent residential properties. In 2019, FCC installed Freetown's first-ever fecal sludge management plant at the Kingtom dumpsite.

Based on analysis of the existing sanitation system baseline situation involving a series of assessment methods and techniques such as desktop review of existing studies and reports, interaction with local stakeholders, the following were identified as the key sanitation issues and concerns in Western Area districts:

• Open defecation: It is noted that around 5% of the population in the Western Area did not have access to any type of sanitation facility and were therefore regularly openly defecating.

• Latrine lining system: Most latrines and septic tanks were built without proper lining around the wall and floor, which allowed seepage of pollutants to the sub-surface soil and water systems.

• Manual handling of fecal sludge (emptying and transportation) is not considered to be acceptable as part of a long-term strategy of fecal sludge management.

• Environmental pollution is primarily caused by effluents from nonregularly de-sludged septic systems and latrines.

• Indiscriminate dumping of sludge: Large volumes of fecal sludge were removed regularly from sanitation facilities and dumped indiscriminately into the environment due to inadequate disposal facilities.

• Inadequate treatment of sludge: Fecal sludge is used in unhygienic ways in agriculture because no sludge treatment infrastructure is available.

• Inadequate institutional capacity: There is an insufficient capacity to carry out community mobilization, public awareness campaigns, and implementation of behavior change interventions by the district council offices.

Proposals were made to respond to the immediate-, medium-term, and short-term needs of the community. Immediate interventions were needed to respond to the immediate sanitation needs of the city until the proposed medium-term intervention was implemented. Relatively simple interventions were considered as immediate interventions. During this time, it was determined that the sanitation needs for the whole population of the city will continue to be covered by onsite sanitation facilities. Proposals for immediate intervention included:

• New public toilets construction and rehabilitation of existing ones as needed.

• New communal toilet construction in areas where the availability of sanitation facilities was low and/or where more households shared the same facility.

• Additional fleet of vacuum trucks for pit emptying.

• Public awareness campaigns to prepare the population for such incremental changes in their sanitation status, with the aim of raising the acceptance of the envisaged works (e.g., the wastewater treatment plants to be constructed).

• In areas where open defecation was practiced, mobilize communities to recognize the health implications and support communities to develop collective solutions.

For the sewerage system, the following are specific recommendations:

• Investigate the reasons why the sewerage system was never connected to the sea outfall at government wharf, followed by a plan for subsequent connection.

• Rehabilitate the sea outfalls.

• Developing a database of customers and identifying illegal connections.

• Developing an appropriate tariff structure.

The medium-term and long-term goals of the Master Plan were as follows:

• •

  Improve fecal sludge and septage collection service coverage and sludge treatment

• • ○

    Target up to 60% coverage and treatment by the year 2035.

  • ○

    Target up to 100% coverage and treatment by the year 2050.

• •

  Increase wastewater sewer network coverage and introduce wastewater treatment facilities.

• •

  Deliver high-quality, and cost-effective service solutions to users of different sanitation facilities.

• •

  Monitor and assess service providers' performance to ensure customer satisfaction and service delivery.

• •

  Promote sustainable business models for the entire sanitation service chain, onsite, and offsite solutions.

• •

  Onsite sanitation facilities shall be managed by well-organized and effective institutions.

Proposals to address the medium-term and long-term sanitation goals included converting uncontrolled, traditionally constructed latrines to ventilated improved latrines. It was recommended that Western Area District Councils consider provision of grants to low-income households to construct improved latrines and toilets.

Different sanitation technologies for use in different contexts were recommended in the master plan, as well as consideration of user ability to pay. For example, the gulper technology, a manually operated latrine emptying pump was recommended for hard-to-reach areas with narrow access. Payment plans for low-income households were included in the master plan similar to the recommendation that sanitation and hygiene improvement programs be designed for low-income areas. The field mission report recommended that community-led awareness and cleanup campaigns should also be promoted. The master plan stated that awareness of the harms of fecal waste and how to use technologies should be spread, communities should be mobilized to participate in cleaning of streets, and composting should be encouraged. In addition, decentralized waste collection and treatment systems are advocated for in both the master plan.

The impacts of the participatory process were manifested through the masterplan. This is evident from how recommendations from the field mission report, a document compiling recommendations from key informant interviews, focus groups, field visits, as well as the CWIS training workshop, were seen reflected in the masterplan. For example, CWIS principles are explicitly mentioned, emphasized, and integrated into the masterplan. The promotion of appropriate technologies for toilet emptying (e.g., the gulper technology) that suit the local context is recommended in the master plan.

In the Freetown case study, government agencies in charge of the provision and regulation of sanitation services (i.e., the GVWC, FCC, and the National Water Resources Management Agency (NWRMA)) were collectively responsible for steering the planning process. The master plan preparation was under the supervision of GVWC. Sanitation services in Sierra Leone are mandated by the MoWR, which is the main public institution entrusted with the country's water resources management and provision of public water supply infrastructure and services. The Ministry of Health and Sanitation is responsible for sanitation infrastructure and services but, through the Local Government and Rural Development Act, provision of sanitation (wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater) management is under the FCC in Freetown while the Western Area District Council. All agencies were involved because the actions proposed in the master plan will be done at a macro planning scale.

There were several obstacles to the process. GVWC and FCC did not have experience with comprehensive urban sanitation reform programming and/or reforms based on the CWIS principles and framework, which hampered the process. Consequently, these implementing agencies were unable to review, critique, and provide comprehensive technical and strategic feedback and input to structure and influence the sanitation component outputs based on CWIS principles and frameworks. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, key stakeholders did not have enough opportunities to engage and participate actively. In India, Ghana, and Ethiopia, similar shortcomings have been identified as inadequate sanitation knowledge, large capacity deficits in water and sanitation agencies, and limited funds for encouraging engagement (Kelly et al. 2003; Kennedy-Walker et al. 2013; Crocker et al. 2017).

A major limitation to this case study is that its process and impact evaluation were conducted retrospectively. A plan to analyze the development of Freetown's masterplan was not decided upon from the outset. Thus, the information that could be gleaned from this process was limited. Many insights into this process may have been overlooked due to limited information. In addition, master plans are implemented over multiple years, so data on the impact of this more inclusive master plan are unavailable at the time of writing this article. Thus, it is impossible to truly understand the impact of the more inclusive process Freetown implemented.

Findings from this work highlight the importance of aligning financing strategies with the CWIS approach promoted by MDBs. A key role that financing institutions can play in capacity building and technical assistance is their role in providing capital, conducting risk assessment and mitigation, exploring innovative financing mechanisms, implementing robust monitoring and evaluation, and fostering partnerships for effective implementation. By considering these implications, financing institutions can contribute to the effective implementation of government-led sanitation master plans and promote sustainable financing for comprehensive water, sanitation, and hygiene initiatives. MDBs planning to finance similar projects can benefit from ensuring that there is an established investment policy framework and the required technical capacity to support CWIS functions. The sanitation planning process highlighted the need for pro-poor sanitation interventions. There is a need to identity and test pro-poor strategies. in resource-constrained urban areas within low- and middle income countries (LMICs). There should be an investigation of innovative funding mechanisms to support the provision of sanitation services to the poor. In the future, research may examine the impact of participatory sanitation planning processes compared to nonparticipatory approaches, and how long these benefits will last.

The Freetown case study showcases a successful turnaround of an urban sanitation master plan development process from an engineering and highly technical blueprint – driven by a consulting firm, to a government-led participatory and evidence-based approach. The proposed framework to apply collaborative planning to the master plan development should lead to master plans that are more inclusive and consider the needs of all stakeholders. Findings highlight the importance of applying the CWIS framework and using participatory tools to deepen government-led sanitation planning. The participatory approaches used in this case study such as technical backstopping, capacity building, and peer-to-peer learning were instrumental in creating a master plan that improved upon past master plans. Government commitment, funding institutions that prioritize sanitation, participatory planning, and evidence-based decision-making were instrumental in the development of the new master plan. The new plan was more participatory and included pertinent input from all relevant stakeholders. This work can be used as a guide for sanitation actors and stakeholders to achieve highly participatory sanitation planning process.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.