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

2. 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)

4. 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

5. Economic cost of poor sanitation
1.749 billion people

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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…

10. …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.

11. 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.

12. THANK YOU Ravikumar Joseph rjoseph1@worldbank.org

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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