Citywide Inclusive Sanitation: the case for faecal sludge management? Joseph Ravikumar Islamabad, April 12, 2018 Martin Gambrill Addis Ababa, February 19th 2018 Source: WSUP

South Asia - context Home to ¼ of the world’s population 50% of the population reside in urban areas Urban population to double by 2050 35% of the population reside in slums Most densely populated region Has four of the world’s largest mega cities 65% access to improved sanitation 18% connected to sewers 1.749 billion people Population density – 330 /km2 (India – 408, Sri Lanka – 320, Bangladesh – 1115, Maldives – 1260 and Pakistan 223)

Differential coverage – Poor suffer the most City-wide Informal settlements Treatment Reuse/ disposal Conveyance Emptying Containment Sewer 92% On-site covered 7% Open defecation 1% Treated Not treated Direct to sea 52% Receiving waters 18% 67% Local area 1% 3% 49% 4% 48% 25% On-site to drain 0.4% 0.4% Treatment Reuse/ disposal Conveyance Emptying Containment On-site, unlined pits, UDDT, septic tanks 95% To drain OD 5% 17% 70% Local area 83% 5% 16% Safely covered Not safely covered Emptied 1% 2% The city is largely sewered, although improvements are needed to reduce environmental pollution But if we look at the 8% of the population living in informal unsewered areas (and that is about a million people) we see a different set of problems around very poor latrines Judgement is therefore needed when applying these tools, and disaggregating low income areas can be useful to make sure we are addressing the needs of the poor

Economic cost of poor sanitation 1.749 billion people

Poorest in urban areas bear most impact Urban poor suffer highest per capita losses Urban households in the poorest quintile (Q1) bear the highest per capita economic impacts of inadequate sanitation of Rs.1700 (US$ 37.55) – more than double that of the richest quintile

Defining Citywide Inclusive Sanitation Comprehensive city wide approaches to safely manage human wastes along the whole sanitation service chain sanitation improvements needed, with long- term planning, technical innovation, institutional reforms and financial mobilization A diverse set of technical solutions that is adaptive, mixed and incremental Combines both onsite sanitation and sewerage solutions, in either centralized or decentralized systems, to better respond to realities faced in cities Needs to consider complementary services: water supply, drainage, greywater, solid waste Cities need long-term planning, technical innovation, institutional reforms and financial mobilization to realize city wide sanitation Everybody benefits from adequate sanitation service delivery outcomes Whereas sewerage is a tried and tested means of managing fecal waste… it is relatively costly (depending on density and other parameters) and requires minimal volumes of water in the household to function properly… A significant proportion of people fail to connect even where sewers are available. So they should (and often do!) coexist with other/complementary safe sanitation options… The other technical options involve onsite facilities combined with a fecal sludge management (FSM) service chain…but… FSM is largely invisible to policy makers, There is little ‘deliberate’ FSM – it tends to be informal, outside of public sector control. This is mostly because FSM is seen as a temporary, stop-gap solution and primarily for illegal or informal settlements Sewerage is seen as the “proper” solution; so even where sewerage serves a small proportion of the population, and often not the poor – it dominates policy, planning, budgets, etc. The level of data collected and available from city authorities is poor, is often contradictory, and is rarely disaggregated in a useful way. Despite this, its clear that FSM service delivery performance is generally low. Demand for FSM cannot be assumed but requires assessment Volumes generated depend on water table, amount of water added to pit/septic tank, amount of solid materials added (waste, anal cleansing, menstrual absorbents), soil permeability, pit size, overflow pipes, etc… Vacuum trucks are the default technology, but where road access is inadequate, or pits are unlined and susceptible to collapse if emptied by vacuum, other methods are needed, and may also involve transfer stations before final transport to treatment and reuse/disposal It is important to assess the real demand for services and waste flow before investing in the downstream infrastructure.

Getting priorities straight Treatment Reuse/ disposal Transport Emptying Containment WC to sewer On-site facility 87% safe 13% unsafe Open defecation 9% 90% Leakage Illegally discharged Legally discharged Conventional focus Effectively treated Not treated 3% Safely abandoned and covered when full Safely emptied Unsafely emptied New focus area 46% Visualizes how the fecal waste from the contributing population escapes from the service chain to become a public health/environmental hazard Example from Maputo, Mozambique Has proven highly effective in demonstrating to stakeholders why it is necessary to look beyond sewerage New focus area 43% 38% 5% 7% 2% 1% 54% 1% Residential environment Drainage system Receiving waters 7 Data from Maputo

Sewerage systems are part of the solution… Appropriate for: Denser residential areas (population densities - > 30,000/km2) Adequate water supply (min 135 lpcd) Where capital costs are affordable and users can pay the tariffs Where technical and management capacity is available or can be built Takes care of greywater and blackwater (Safe) wastewater reuse But: Land for treatment plant and pumping station Simpler pond systems require larger land areas Compact systems: more expensive, technically complex Hinderance when installing sewer pipes Higher operating costs House connections – often overlooked Sewerage is a tried and tested means of managing fecal waste… but is relatively costly, requires adequate technical resources A significant proportion of people fail to connect even where a sewer is available. So it must coexist with other/complementary safe sanitation options…

…onsite sanitation and FSM are the other part Containment (septic tank / pits) should be: Properly designed, constructed and maintained Easy to access and empty Emptying services: Informal and unregulated Must have hygienic sludge handling Must achieve cost-effective haulage (with transfer stations?) Safe treatment and disposal/end-use: Separate fecal sludge treatment – or mix with wastewater? Select end products for reuse by systematic market analysis Need to take care of greywater The other technical options involve onsite facilities combined with a fecal sludge management (FSM) service chain. These are some of the characteristics required of such systems …but… FSM is largely invisible to policy makers, little ‘deliberate’ FSM – tends to be informal , outside of public sector control, this is mostly because FSM seen as a “temporary” top-gap solution and primarily for illegal or informal settlements Sewerage is seen as the “proper” solution; so even where sewerage serves a small proportion of the population, and certainly not the poor – it dominates policy, planning, budge etc. The level of data collected and available from city authorities is poor, often contradictory and rarely disaggregated in a useful way. Despite this, its clear that FSM service delivery performance is generally low. Demand for FSM cannot be assumed but requires assessment Volumes generated depend on water table, amount of water added to pit, amount of solid materials added (waste, anal cleansing, menstrual absorbents), soil permeability, pit size, overflow pipes, etc… Vacuum trucks are the default technology, but where road access is inadequate, or pits are unlined and susceptible to collapse if emptied by vacuum, other methods are needed, and may also involve transfer for transport to disposal It is important to assess the real demand for services and waste flow before investing in the downstream infrastructure.

World Bank sanitation projects in South Asia India Urban National Mission for Clean Ganga Madhya Pradesh Urban Development Project Network / non-network and wastewater treatment Rural Swachh Bharat Mission Support Operations Water supply and sanitation in low income states Punjab Rural Water Sector Improvement Project Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project II Solid and liquid waste management & FSM Bangladesh Dhaka Sanitation Improvement Project Bangladesh water supply and sanitation project Network /non-network & wastewater treatment FSM – small towns Sri Lanka Increasing household access to domestic sanitation in Greater Colombo Water supply and sanitation improvement project Containment improvement / scheduled desludging – Hybrid PPP The other technical options involve onsite facilities combined with a fecal sludge management (FSM) service chain. These are some of the characteristics required of such systems …but… FSM is largely invisible to policy makers, little ‘deliberate’ FSM – tends to be informal , outside of public sector control, this is mostly because FSM seen as a “temporary” top-gap solution and primarily for illegal or informal settlements Sewerage is seen as the “proper” solution; so even where sewerage serves a small proportion of the population, and certainly not the poor – it dominates policy, planning, budge etc. The level of data collected and available from city authorities is poor, often contradictory and rarely disaggregated in a useful way. Despite this, its clear that FSM service delivery performance is generally low. Demand for FSM cannot be assumed but requires assessment Volumes generated depend on water table, amount of water added to pit, amount of solid materials added (waste, anal cleansing, menstrual absorbents), soil permeability, pit size, overflow pipes, etc… Vacuum trucks are the default technology, but where road access is inadequate, or pits are unlined and susceptible to collapse if emptied by vacuum, other methods are needed, and may also involve transfer for transport to disposal It is important to assess the real demand for services and waste flow before investing in the downstream infrastructure.

THANK YOU Ravikumar Joseph rjoseph1@worldbank.org

Full benefits of FSM can be achieved only if ….. Source: Census of India, 2011 and CDD, 2017

CAESB – Brasilia, Brazil CAESB has overall responsibility Treatment End-use/ Disposal Transport Emptying Containment Sewerage network Receiving body of water WWTP Household Condominial sewers Professionalized management Design interventions from household to trunk sewers to treatment, not the other way around Condominial sewers used to reach everyone – rich and poor alike Appropriate wastewater treatment taking full account of receiving water quality requirements, capital and running costs All water supply and wastewater costs – investment, depreciation, operation and maintenance – covered by tariff Close coordination/ participation ADASA, The Regulatory Agency for Water and Wastewater of the Federal District WSS Tariffs and Wastewater Effluent Discharge Standards

Maynilad/Manila Water – Manila, The Philippines Treatment End-use/ Disposal Transport Emptying Containment Household Maynilad/Manila Water (private utilities) Receiving body of water Sewerage network WWTP Septic tank Vacuum Tank Units Trucks Farmer FSTP Service provision split between the two private utilities based on geographic boundaries They operate under a concession agreement with term extension plan/option to extend Manila Water: Pyramid approach with ODF campaigns at the bottom; desludging for open (low-middle income) communities, SMEs; and sewered for CBDs, industrial parks and high-end gated communities. Septage management through desludging every 3-5 years; considered an interim solution with sewerage expanded depending on space availability over time, connecting septic tanks as the sewerage network is rolled out. Manila Water is now piloting a CBS service for hard-to-reach areas where onsite or sewerage-based solutions have proven difficult to implement. Maynilad: Provides both sewerage and onsite sanitation services Use mobile dewatering units to remove solids from septic tanks and treat at FSTP and at combined treatment plants Treated FS Metropolitan and Waterworks and Sewerage System regulates Oversight/quality control by: Laguna Lake Development Authority; Department of Environment and Natural Resources National Water Resources Board; Department of Health Per City, Municipal Health Department

South Asian countries response to FSM Policy Bangladesh Institution and regulatory framework for FSM India National Faecal sludge and septage management policy Several states enacted state septage strategy Nepal Septage management strategy Sri Lanka septage treatment facilities where population density and size do warrant implementing sewerage systems Afghanistan Urban water supply and wastewater sector policy (2016) – supports and provides guidelines on management of on-site sanitation systems Financing Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) provides capital for fecal sludge management infrastructure in 500 cities