Smarter Sanitation How To Clean Up Your Sanitation and Wastewater Mess

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation
This section, Attitudes and Misconceptions, identifies some of the

major trends in thinking that are holding back the sanitation and
wastewater management sector from making real progress. This
thinking is prevalent among leaders and practitioners at all levels,
and for various reasons. Perhaps these ways of thinking were
learned from previous leaders or through experiences. Attitudes and
beliefs can be contagious though, spreading either positive or
negative thinking. Any kind of thinking that prevents progress
deserves to be challenged. Are the prevailing ideas based on reality
and truth? If so, why? And the key question to make any genuine progress is: What must be done to
change either the misguided thinking itself or the realities that seem to accurately support such thinking?
Business as usual approach
OR
Business unusual approach
Keep the same attitudes.

Keep following the same
misconceptions.
Keep believing nothing will change
because the challenges are too
great.
One Major Attitude Problem

Major Misconceptions
Making Business Sense
file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]
Adopt new attitudes.

Realize that myths are not based
on truths.
Realize misconceptions are based
on wrong or incomplete information
or orientation.
Believe that change is possible with
a new outlook on the sector and
begin sharing this new outlook
within the workplace, with the
public, and partners in
development.
There is a major debate within the water sector as a whole that presents two attitudes, which determine
two different directions to proceed from. There are those who argue that water is a social goodthat all
people have a right to water because it comes from nature. There are others who oppose and argue that
water is an economic goodthat water brings value to homes and businesses, involving costs that must
be covered. Perhaps this debate is best summarized by an example:
Utility customer: My water bill is too high; besides, why should I pay for water when it
comes from the sky?
Utility employee: Yes, sir, you are right. The water that falls from the sky is free and you
are welcome to collect it or go out to the reservoir and take all you want. But, if you want to
have safe water delivered to your houseavailable every time you turn on the faucetthen
you will have to pay us to store, transport, treat, pump, and send it through the pipes.
Like water systems, sanitation and wastewater systems can become subjects of this kind of debate. For
example, people have the right to a clean and safe environment, and therefore, the government must
provide sanitation and wastewater treatment for free. The social good of these services is providing
people clean conditions. The economic good is saving people from costly, unnecessary diseases and being
able to attend school or work, in addition to averting wide-scale health epidemics.
The Asian Development Banks (ADB) water policy views water as both a social and economic good. This
is ADB's approved policy. Drinking water as a food/medicine, which should be bottled at treatment plants,
is the position of an ADB staff in a think piece which has not been peer reviewed or accepted as an ADB
position. Access to water is now recognized as a human right in many countries. ADB advocates that
governments and utilities ask people to pay for the cost of delivering water services, not the cost of
water as a resource. These services have high costs, and they need to be shared by the consumers.
Otherwise, the services cannot be effective and sustainable. On the cover of the book Asian Water
SuppliesReaching the Urban Poor by Arthur McIntosh, 1 is a picture of a household maid in Manila who
pays 900 pesos (P) monthly for water from itinerant vendors while her employer, who lives in a large
home, pays only P200 a month. This disparity led Mr. McIntosh to write a section in his book about
Myths, Misconceptions, and Realities in the water sector. One of the myths is that the poor cannot
afford to pay for piped water supplies and will not pay for piped water. Separate research by ADB on
water costs in 17 Asian cities supports the reality that the poor pay moreup to 10 times morefor
water from private water vendors than what people pay for piped water utilities.
OR
Continue the debate over water as either a

social or economic good.
Agree to disagree on the debate.

Water is both a social and economic good.
Agree to solutions that will accomplish three
goals:
1) expand sanitation coverage to poor,
unserviced areas;
2) contribute to the sustainability and
efficiency of utilities and facilities; and
3) contribute to the financial viability of
utilities.
________________________________
1 Arthur McIntosh, Asian Water Supplies: Reaching the Urban Poor , Asian Development Bank , 2003, ISBN: 971-561-380-2.
Some major misconceptions about sanitation and wastewater treatment prevent progress.
Major Misconception #1: Infrastructure is too costly to implement.

We often tell ourselves that sanitation and wastewater projects are too expensive to implement.
Sanitation and wastewater treatment expansion is expensivethat is true. Comparatively, we need five
times the financing as water supply projects do but that does not negate the need. Let us consider the
point that the World Banks John Briscoe makes in his article When the Cup is Half Full: In just the
first 10 weeks of the cholera epidemic in Peru, losses from reduced agricultural exports and tourism were
estimated at 1 billion dollars ($), or more than three times the amount invested in water and sanitation
services in the whole country during the 1980s.
The cholera epidemic that Briscoe refers to occurred in early 1991, beginning with a number of cases of
cholera reported in the coastal areas of Peru. Within a few weeks, the disease spread throughout Peru
and subsequently into numerous countries in the region. The suspected origin of the 1991-1992 cholera
epidemic was the bilge water of a Chinese freighter in Lima, Peru. From there, the following incidents
were recorded:
First cases reported near fish processing plant in Lima harbor;
12,000 cases reported in Peru within 2 weeks;
Rate of new cases reportedly increased to 2,500 per day within 12 weeks ;
Cholera extended to all neighboring countries within 6 months;
Cholera later also spread to Central America;
Public health and economic impacts of the cholera epidemic were dramatic as shown in the
statistics below:
506,000 cholera cases reported in Peru (942,000 in Latin America);
2,900 deaths (8,622 in Latin America); and
$1 billion lost in (fish and shrimp) exports and tourism. This represents about three times
the investment in water supply and sanitation infrastructure in Peru during the previous 10
years
Perus case of cholera epidemic illustrates how not investing in sanitation and wastewater can be a very
costly omission. They are not only investments that have an immediate impact on our environment, but
also provide a significant amount of prevention against future health and economic catastrophes.
It is too expensive to invest in sanitation and

wastewater treatment.
OR
First, commit to invest in these sectors and find

necessary financing. Not doing so could be more
expensive. For example, loss of productivity due to
water and sanitation-related illnesses and potential
outbreaks may result in additional healthcare costs.
Second, prior to investing in sanitation and
wastewater treatment projects, assess where
alternative approaches to major infrastructure may
be more suitable and sufficient.
Last, where new infrastructure truly is needed,
projects are always accompanied by "soft" or
social-based components that are fully resourced
to make the infrastructure sustainable.
Major Misconception #2: People are not willing to pay for the services they get.
Because the costs of living in unclean environments are the costs of diseasesadditional outlays for
medical services and medicine, inability to work and earn moneypeople will protect their health and
pay for that protection.
Oftentimes though, people resist the idea of paying for sanitation and wastewater treatment because
they do not understand the three-way relationship between a lack of these services, their environment,
and their personal health. Most often, they may only understand the relationship between the lack of
these services and their immediate environment. A sense of smell and sight is often all that is needed to
know that the waste we produce is having an effect on our environment.
But it is another thing to know how that waste in the environment is seeping into groundwater and
contaminating water supplies that people are using and, consequently, getting ill from, for example. The
poor can payand will be willing to payif they understand how a healthy environment will save them
money on medicine and be able to earn more money by being healthy. We should, however, ask
ourselves what we are asking the poor to pay for: is it an elegant solution that far exceeds their ability
to pay, or a solution that they can afford?
People are not willing to pay for sanitation and
wastewater treatment, so we cannot consider
charging for these services or raising existing
tariffs to finance our projects or operations and
the maintenance of services and facilities.
OR
Raise the public's awareness about the need for

sanitation and wastewater treatment as prevention
against dangerous diseases and harmful
environments that are risks to their health and
ability to earn. With greater public understanding,
people will agree to pay for services that save
them money by protecting their health and income.
Major Misconception #3: The real need is for more infrastructure to solve the
health and environmental problems caused by a lack of sanitation and wastewater
treatment facilities.
Because sanitation and wastewater treatment expansion is expensivefive times the amount needed for
water supply projectswhy are we depending so much on infrastructure for a solution? Over the last 50
years, development assistance has clearly preferred the hard approachor infrastructureto solve
water and wastewater challenges. Infrastructure alone, however, has failed much of the developing
world. Yet, soft approachesawareness, capacity development, and non-large infrastructure
investmentsare not taken seriously and invested in. The soft solutions are perceived and treated as
inferior to infrastructure. Infrastructure does not run itself though. People run infrastructure. They use it
and their skills are needed to maintain it. Perhaps, infrastructure projects would prove to be more
effective and sustainable, as evidenced in the ways that the community adopts the infrastructure, takes
care of it and see that it lasts if soft approaches were incorporated as valuable or invaluable
components of infrastructure projects.
Similar to the debate over whether water is a social or economic good, the debate here is between
engineers and social scientists. Engineers, believing in the goodness of their field, often tend to
concentrate on solving a problem by building infrastructure capacity. Social scientists and managers, also
believing in the goodness of their fields, think about solving a problem by building human capacity.
Major Misconception #4: That international experts are the best minds to resolve
our problems.
Successful outcomes depend, to a very large extent, on commitment by all stakeholders, including
government, civil society, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), the development community, and the
private sector. Commitment comes from understanding the problem and agreeing to the solution. If you
have been involved in overseas development projects, you are familiar with the top-down approach: a
development agency studies the situation and recommends a solution to government. All too often, a
choice is made with little or no input from end users and civil society. Sometimes, the development
agency mandates a particular solution even when the government may not totally agree. What happens?
There is no commitment or ownership by either the central government or at the local level. The project
eventually takes place but, to no surprise, the intended benefits do not fully materialize. Years pass and
the infrastructure fails due to lack of care and maintenance. This is a primary example of continuing to
do business as usual although the intended results are never achieved.
Development agency representatives and international consultants do have the international experience.
Outside experts can bring a fresh perspective and a wealth of information about approaches around the
world. Outside experts are also independent and not part of the hierarchy, so their opinions usually will
not be colored by local influences.
However, in order for their suggested solutions and recommendations to be better suited to local
situations, they have to work hand-in-hand with internal experts. So rather than reject their ideas
immediately, why not think about how you could modify them to work in your local context? If
development agency representatives and consultants are external experts, you are the internal experts!
They need your knowledge and active participation. Yet, both sides must seek and offer this to one
another.
Consider the following two scenarios of the same situation. They illustrate how working with a
development agency representative or consultant is usually handled (business as usual) and how it
should be handled (business unusual). There is a meeting between a development agency representative,
an international consultant, and the head of a government planning office in a developing country. A new
project is beginning, and it aims to reorganize the agency so that it can better achieve its strategic plan.
Here are two scenarios to that initial meeting to get the reorganization proposal report underway.
1. Accept a "top-down approach" of development
agencies in development and implementation projects.
2. Reject recommendations of international experts on the
grounds that they are "outsiders" and do not have
anything to contribute.

OR
1. Demand to be true partners in development.

2. Work hand-in-hand with international experts.
A successful business owner or manager will identify those attitudes, myths, and misconceptions that are
holding back progress. The owner or manager will try to understand where these ways of thinking come
from and how to overcome them. Perhaps, it is not by denying some truth that the thinking may hold,
but rather by building a consensus on how to move forward.
Keep the same attitudes.

Believe the same myths.
Keep following the same misconceptions.
Keep believing nothing will change because the
challenges are too great.
Adopt new attitudes.

Realize that certain long-standing beliefs may actually
be misconceptions, which come from incomplete
information or orientation.
Believe that change is possible with a new outlook on
the sector and begin sharing this new outlook within
the workplace, with the public, and with partners in
development.
Continue the debate over water as either a social or

economic good.
Agree to disagree on the debate.

Water is both a social and economic good. Agree to
solutions that will accomplish three goals:
1. expand sanitation coverage to poor, unserviced
areas;
2. contribute to the sustainability and efficiency of
utilities and facilities; and
3. contribute to the financial viability of utilities.
People are not willing to pay for sanitation and

wastewater treatment, so we cannot consider charging
for these services or raising existing tariffs to finance
our projects or operations and the maintenance of
services and facilities.
Raise the public's awareness about the need for

sanitation and wastewater treatment as prevention
against dangerous diseases and harmful environments
that are risks to their health and ability to earn. With
greater public understanding, people will agree to pay
for services that save them money by protecting their
health and income. A part of raising awareness also
requires understanding the situation of the poor and
those behaviors that hold back progress.
It is too expensive to invest in sanitation and

wastewater treatment.
OR
First, commit to invest in these sectors and find

necessary financing. Not doing so could be more
expensive. For example, the loss of productivity due to
water and sanitation-related illnesses and potential
outbreaks may result in additional health-care costs.
Second, prior to investing in sanitation and wastewater
treatment projects, assess where alternative
approaches to major infrastructure may be more
suitable and sufficient. Last, where new infrastructure
truly is needed, projects are always accompanied by
"soft" or social-based components that are fully
resourced to make the infrastructure sustainable. This
requires the commitment of everyone to appreciate all
professions and perspectives involved, including ideas
from nontraditional placescivil society and community
groupsthat are sometimes excluded from the
decision-making process.
Infrastructure and facilities are the solution.
OR
The development agency representative or
international consultant takes charge of the project
process, and the government obliges because, after all,
"they are the development experts and we are busy."
Prior to investing in sanitation and wastewater

treatment projects, assess where soft approaches may
be sufficient. Where new infrastructure is truly needed,
projects are always accompanied by soft components
that are fully resourced.
The government asserts itself and seeks collaboration

and equal participation in the process, whether it is
paper research, gathering perspectives from local
governments and communities, or advising the
development agency representative or consultant.
Chapter 2 - Working the Policy - Smarter Sanitation
Actioning Policy
This section calls our attention to the age-long problem in many
developing countries, where good policies are crafted but not
implemented. And where they are implemented, they are not
implemented strictly.
For countries with no policies in place and are contemplating to
formulate them, this is a reminder that having the policy is not
enough; we have to work on its implementation. This chapter
provides a glimpse of the work involved in this undertaking.
Let us first look at the traditional set-up-who formulates the policies and how?

We create legal and institutional frameworks and
policies now, and consider how to fund and
pursue their implementation later.
OR
We consider the funding requirements and

capacities of implementing agencies as we create
our legal and institutional frameworks and
policies. Where these are already in place, we
begin the work of finding adequate funding for its
proper implementation, including developing the
capacity of institutions and people to implement
them.
Centralized: "Top-Down", and Ineffective at "The Bottom"

Formulating a Sanitation and Wastewater Policy
Regulation: It Follows Policy Formulation
Standards
Financing and Where Regulation Comes In
Planning
Autonomous Utilities and How Regulation Helps
Capacity Development: Its Many Facets
Making Business Sense-A Summary
file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap2.html[7/18/2012 2:45:47 PM]
For many years, the governments of many developing countries have operated on a very centralized
modelwith the central or national government formulating policies with little or no involvement from
those who will play critical roles in its implementation.
This model of central government-driven policy formulation is becoming less and less effective. Why? The
challenges of providing water and wastewater services are mounting as populations growespecially in
major cities where people migrate to find work. Each problem needs a specific solution and the onesize-fits-all concept no longer works. With decentralization already in place or taking place in most
developing countries, the need to match the policy with the required resources to implement it is crucial.
Fixing problems like these is usually a matter of sector reforms: revisiting policies and frameworks and
clarifying roles and responsibilities of major players. Often, policies are still relevant. The problem is that
they are not implemented properly. Either the implementing rules and regulations are not there or the
institutions responsible for implementing them do not perform their roles nor have the capacity to
implement them.
Decentralization: Time to Take It Seriously

In a decentralized mode, the two complementing roles of policy formulation and implementation have to
be played by the central and local governments. It is not a case of one or the other. It should be both.
In fact, for policy implementation, more and more responsibilities should be delegated to local
governments along with the powers to collect and spend the required resources. Why? Because a
national policy is only effective if its implementation is prepared for specific local conditions. Local
governments are closer to the people and know better what works and what does not work in the field.

Maintain a centralized approach and continue to
experience decision-making that tend to be
slower paced, and nonresponsive to the actual
needs on the ground.

OR
Undertake reforms that delegate different kinds of

decision-making to local governments to ensure
that progress happens quickly, and specific local
conditions are taken into account.
The Sanitation Connection suggests the following policies to form a foundation for progress in sanitation
and wastewater:
Environmental policy- commitment to national action plans, procedures for environmental

monitoring, and impact assessment;
Economic policy- approaches to cost recovery, subsidies and attracting private investment;
Social policy- addressing poverty reduction, and promoting gender equality;
Policy influencing institutional arrangements- attitudes to financial sustainability and
autonomy of sector institutions, scope for involvement of private sector and nongovernment
organizations (NGOs), approaches to regulation and the commitment to decentralization of
management to the lowest appropriate level; and
Health policy- existence of national objectives for sanitation-related health improvements,
guidelines on excreta, and wastewater reuse.2
Examples of strategies, laws, and policies

Bangladesh is seeing progress as a result of its National Sanitation Strategy, developed in 2005 by the
Local Government Division of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives.
This strategy clearly sets out policies, strategies, and plans to guide the effort in a style that almost
anyone can read and understand easily.
Some other examples of laws and policy are:
Philippine Environmental Policy: Presidential Decree No. 1151
Selections from the Philippine Environmental Code, Presidential Decree No. 1152
IndiaEnvironmental (Protection) Act, 1986
As was stated earlier, the policy is only as good as its implementation. Strict enforcement is key. It will
help government create the environment whereby:
the utility understands its obligations in terms of what infrastructures it must put in place and how
efficient the operations of such infrastructures should be to generate the revenue required to keep
it going; and
the households understand and accept that there is a policy they have to comply with which has
financial implicationscosts they should be prepared to bear because it is their health that is at
stake.
Once a country decides on the roles and responsibilities for the local and national players, these roles are
normally formalized in laws and regulations.
Laws are often not enough: regulations are needed to provide the detailed requirements and procedures
that will support implementation of the law. Again, the Water and Sanitation for Alla Practitioners
Companion is instructive and provides example.
_____________________________
2 Sanitation Connection Website.
Regulation is about monitoring compliance with policy. It is common practice in many developed
countries to have a regulatory agency whose mission is to protect sector stakeholders. In the role of a
watchdog, such agencies act as a check and balance on a number of fronts:
to ensure that the public is being served adequately and appropriately;
to control water utilities, which are natural monopolies; and
to ensure that a utility has the resources it needs to operate sustainably.
With the exception of a few countries in Asia, most developing countries in the region reserve regulation
for only those sectors that involve the private sector, such as telecommunications and power. Because
water utilities are still predominantly run publicly, regulations have misguidedly been disregarded. This is
a big mistake. Publicly-run utilities need as much regulation as privately-run ones. Tariff must still be set
at a level that recovers the cost to sustain operation, and performance indicators must still be agreed
upon to ensure that efficiency of service is maintained. Usually, regulation concerns itself with ensuring
compliance with the following standards for utility performance:
Water quality- quality of potable water and wastewater discharges;
Management- employee qualifications and official certification of skills;
Service levels- minimum standards for service; and
Tariff levels- affordability and fairness of tariffs.
The regulator may also approve or disapprove tariff increases regardless of whether the utility is private
or public, but most especially if utilities are privately owned. In this role, the regulator must balance the
financial needs of the utility, utility sustainability, and the affordability of tariffs to consumers.
For further reading:

Regulation of the private provision of public water-related services is a comprehensive outline of the
principles believed to be essential in formulating an adequate regulatory framework for the water sector.
Its focus is on the issues to be confronted in developing a regulatory structure for water-related public
utilities. It reviews a vast body of recent literature on economic regulation and private sector participation
in the provision of water-related goods and services as well as the experience of the countries where
privatization and regulatory reforms have advanced most. The regulation of prices, product and service
quality, investments and quantity is emphasized. 3
Water and Sanitation for All a Practitioners Companion 4 provides instructions for starting a regulatory
program.
Only utilities with private sector involvement need
to be regulated.

OR
Water utilities are natural monopolies and,

whether publicly or privately run, need to be
regulated. Regulators act as a check and balance
measure to ensure adequacy of services and
affordability of tariffs
_____________________________
3 Lee, Terence R. and Andrei Jouravlev. 1996. Regulation of the private provision of public water-related services, for the Environment
and Development Division of Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
4 SIGUS Special Interest Group in Urban Settlement-MIT.2003. directed by Reinhard Goethert, Water and Sanitation for All a
Practitioners Companion, prepared for the Water Utility Partnership.
As the steward of the water and wastewater sector, the responsibility for setting standards usually falls
on the government. And this is an important element of regulation. Standards may cover:
Water quality- standards for wastewater discharges into the environment;

Service levels- requirements for service provision (e.g. are desludging services made available?
If yes, how often is desludging done?); and
Employee qualifications- minimum qualifications or certifications for certain utility personnelusually those involved in water quality related positions.
Setting standards is only meaningful when standards are enforced to ensure compliance.
Standard setting and enforcement is a new concept in many countries. It takes time and money to
develop an effective system from the government side, and it takes time and money for people to
understand the system and comply with the standards. That is why many governments should cooperate
with citizens as they implement standard setting and enforcement.
Bachmanns paper tackles the challenges and problem areas of setting standards: Decisions about
service levels and coverage in many cities are taken primarily based on engineering requirements and
the availability of capital investment subsidies from higher-level governments. There is no systematic
consultation of different population groups, and end user preferences and priorities are not incorporated
into the service planning and pricing process.
In two separate papers presented at a September 2005 ADB workshop, Mr. Kazimir Karimov and Dr.
Dang Kim Chi address problems with water quality standards and environmental standards caused by
problematic legislation.
Example 1: The Kyrgyz Republic

Mr. Kazimir Karimovs paper, Problems of Drinking Water Quality in Kyrgyzstan: Ecological and Legal
Aspects, cautions that existing legislation is not always sufficient, and improvements in legislation are
often required. He gives a strong critique on the lack of qualities in the Kyrgyz Republic's legal and
institutional framework: The existing legislative base in the water sector insufficiently supports protection
of waters, both surface and groundwater. The exact definitions of the purposes and tasks concerning
quality of water are absent. The laws do not contain the concrete purposes and tasks connected with
norms of quantity and quality of water. The laws do not provide for protection of water from pollution.
The law does not define the concrete responsibility for quality of water. It does not provide for
compensation of damages to water resources.
Example 2: Wastewater Production Activities.

Dr. Dang Kim Chis paper, Wastewater Production Activities in Craft Villages and Some Mitigation
Solutions, recognizes the impact that waste discharges can have on the environment and proposes some
policy solutions for improving standards:
Environmental policy: Develop appropriate policies for encouraging technology innovation in craft
villages toward environment friendly technologies and products. Besides, there should be a
mechanism to apply a policy of polluter pays in craft villages.
Establish local environment management mechanisms including a clean environment group,
environmental programs in the villages, environmental protection statues, penalty regulations,
environmental fees and funds, etc.
Local authorities should develop regulations on environmental management and have staff who
help enterprises understand how to comply with the regulations and perhaps treat their wastes
before discharging to protect the environment. For craft villages, this means making close contact
with each household to successfully implement solutions.
Regulation and standard setting are new concepts for many countriesbut they are important aspects to
develop. Both help a sector improve services and hold agencies accountable for providing adequate
services at a reasonable price.

The central government's role extends beyond
policy making and setting regulatory guidelines in
ways that interfere with the autonomy of utilities
to manage and operate sustainable services.
Through such a diffused range of responsibilities,
the central government's understanding of the
sector is limited and it does not act as confidently
or decisively as it should in sectoral planning with
development agencies.
OR
The central governments take the lead in policy

and guidelines formulation. Legislation and
regulation adequately establishes the roles and
responsibilities of sector institutions. The local
governments assume a much bigger role in
implementing the policy and monitoring
compliance. Local governments are closest to the
utility that delivers the sanitation and wastewater
service and closest to the people who receive the
service. Local governments are in a better
position to help national government implement
the policy.
A policy should be properly costed out. A policy that requires every household to have a toilet, and for
these toilets to be connected to a sewer system, should also consider the additional costs in comparison
to just building the toilets. This policy also means building septic tanks in the case of rural or lowdensity areas, and installing sewer lines and treatment plants in the case of urban or high-density areas.
Such a policy must also recognize the financial implication to all stakeholders, among them the national
and local governments, utilities, and communities.
The cost of installing a toilet is a cost that each household must bear. Household toilets are, after all,
primarily a household responsibility. However, in rural areas in developing countrieswhere the level of
sanitation coverage is generally very lowthere may be scope for limited government subsidy on
account of public health and environmental protection. This could be through sharing the cost of building
septic tanks; most poor households find the cost of septic tanks unaffordable. Or in some cases, the
government may even provide subsidies for household toilets.
Rural water supply and sanitation projects supported by multilateral development agencies, such as ADB,
the World Bank, and Japan Bank for International Cooperation, have traditionally included as components
the provision of toilet bowls to households. The households though bear the cost of constructing the
super structure.
In urban areas, where collection and treatment systems are required, the investment requirement is
certainly much more. Where utilities are managed by the private sector, regulation comes in by way of
tariff structuring-the tariff should be set at a level that will allow the utility to recover capital investment
and operation and maintenance costs.
Without the assurance that such regulation will be put in place, financing of sanitation and wastewater is
at risk. In cases where the government considers the risk to public health serious and strict
implementation is of paramount importance, but the resulting tariff would be exorbitant, the government
may consider some form of subsidy. This could be by subsidizing part of the cost of the treatment plant.
Even in developed countries, government has often provided financial support to communities and
individuals to encourage the development of sanitation and wastewater systems.
Where utilities are managed by government, usually by local governments, financing is even more
challenging and so is regulation. Unlike privately-run utilities whose access to financing is usually better,
government-run utilities usually lack creditworthiness or are not empowered to borrow. This is where
both central and local government support have to be made available. But while they remain
government-run, they should be run along commercial principles efficiencies maximized and tariff
collected, otherwise they are not sustainable. Just as privately-managed utilities are regulated, so should
government-managed ones.
Delivery of water and sanitation services should be delegated to autonomous and accountable service
providers. They may be government or private. Particularly in the case of government-run utilities, their
operation should be autonomous and they should be made accountable to their customers so that they
are conscious of the need to comply with their performance standards. This is where regulation plays a
key role.

Government formulates the policy and expects
everybody to comply.

OR
Central government initiates the formulation of

policy-taking into account the cost required to
implement the policy- and gets local government
involved in implementing it and monitoring
compliance with it.
Planning is essential to deciding priorities and allocating scarce resources to highest and best use. Here
are some helpful resources:
Urban sanitation: a guide to strategic planning
Health, Dignity, and Development: What Will It Take?
Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving the Sustainability of Urban Sanitation in
Developing Countries.
_____________________________
5 Tayler, K., J. Parkinson, and J. Colin, 2003. Urban sanitation : a guide to strategic planning, IT Publications, London.
http://www.irc.nl/ircdoc/title.php?titleno=27982.
6 Health, Dignity, and Development: What Will It Take? The Swedish Water House of the Swedish International Water Institute,
www.siwi.org.
7 Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving the Sustainability of Urban Sanitation in Developing Countries, Water and
Sanitation Program, 1997
The legal framework of a country will often enable the formation of local utilities under three general
frameworks:
Public agencies, such as municipal departments;
Quasi-public agencies formed and owned by the public but enjoying some autonomy; and
Private companies with full autonomy.
However, as Arthur McIntosh points out in his book, Legislation is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for autonomy. Governments frequently do not allow corporate bodies to exercise their
autonomy, especially in terms of staffing, tariffs, and investments. 8
Many countries are undergoing sector reform to overcome the constraints of the business-as-usual
model, where control of utility services has been vested in national governments and utilities have little
autonomy.
Example 1: The PRC and Ukraine

In his paper, Developing Wastewater Services in Emerging Market Economies: the Cases of China and
Ukraine, John Bachmann summarizes the business-as-usual framework as follows: Delivering
affordable, dependable, and sustainable wastewater services is a challenge for local governments
worldwide. But it is an especially tall order in emerging market economies, in which the old service
norms, institutional forms and pricing policies often constrain the development of autonomous and
competent wastewater service providers that can develop their systems to meet users needs and collect
sufficient revenues to cover their costs.
Mr. Bachmann continues, The broad outlines of the institutional arrangements in (PRC and Ukraine) are
favorable to responsive, sustainable wastewater service delivery to the extent that local governments can
design and implement their own programs. However, the specific roles and responsibilities of the
Wastewater Service Providers are insufficiently defined, and there are few incentives for managers and
staff to improve institutional performance and/or service quality. In the Chinese case, the operational
environment for wastewater delivery is first and foremost undermined by the political imperatives of local
government leaders
Mr. Bachmann describes issues encountered by utilities around the world: Utilities will not be sustainable
if they do not have the ability to set tariffs; hire/fire and compensate staff, purchase needed equipment
and materials, finance capital improvements, etc.
To empower utilities to make these kinds of decisions, they need the support of the central government.
The central government usually takes a leadership role in managing the sector as a whole, particularly in
three areas:
Sector framework and policy;
Sector capital investment and financing; and
Standards.
_____________________________
8 Arthur McIntosh. 2003. Asian Water Supplies: Reaching the Urban Poor, Asian Development Bank. ISBN: 971-561-380-2,
http://www.adb.org/publications/asian-water-supplies-reaching-urban-poor.
Management of utilities is a challenge. This is particularly so in publicly-run utilities. One common

problem is the way in which employees are compensated and rewarded for their efforts. Typically,
utilities as arms of government are subject to civil service regulations, which often include wages so low
that it is hard to imagine how they can support one person, much less a family. In these cases, utilities
are not able to hire well-qualified people, and suffer as a result.
If utilities are to run as efficiently as they should, capacity development is an important ingredient that
needs to be adequately supported. The trouble with capacity development though is that people often
mistake it for just training. It is much more than that.
Enabling Environment for Utilities
Increased Capacity Brings Convergence
Enabling Environment for Utilities

In his paper entitled, Using Capacity Factors For Multi-criteria decision-making in Sanitation Options, Dr.
Cesar Pinto proposes that the following capacities are essential to sustain utilities:
Institutional capacitythe body of laws and regulations, administrative agencies, and procedures for
the governance of utilities;
Human resources capacitythe numbers of well-qualified professionals and laborers available to a
utility and the ability to provide training and development opportunities to those employees;
Social capacitythe sociocultural values that underlie the way sanitation in general is perceived in
society, and the abilities of civil society to participate in the development of utility systems;
Industrial capacitythe supply chain that supports the hardware and service needs of the utility
industry, which includes such services as the maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment along
with such hardware as machinery, tools, and spare parts;
Economic and financial capacity the markets for municipal sanitation system (MSS), financing
mechanisms (bonds, credit ratings, etc.), and availability of cash to fund ongoing system operations.
Environmental and natural resources capacitythe surface and groundwater supplies for drinking
water systems, land and surface water discharges for wastewater treatment systems, and land and air
quality for solid waste land filling and burning;
Service capacitythe resultant ability of a utility to provide reliable service to its customers in terms
of volume, availability, and quality.
Figure 1.
Dr. Pintos research postulates that these seven capacity requirements will determine the long-term
success or failure of a utility system, considering the overall environment within which it operates. We
may infer, then, that if any of these capacities are missing or weak, the service capacity will be reduced.
Let us refer to this viewpoint as the environmental factors that sustain a utility.
Now, let us step out of the overall environment and go inside a utilityinto Figure 1. In her paper Why
Borrow for Capacity Development?, Ms. Nancy Barnes opines that strong and sustainable organizations
are built from 5 pillars:
A management foundation (organizational structure and management processes);
Effective management behaviors;
Availability of expertise;
Management information systems; and
Application of best practices.
Let us refer to this viewpoint as the management factors that sustain a utility. The following chart
illustrates what Ms. Barnes means by these factors. To sustain itself, any organization needs to be well
structured, with good management procedures and employees who behave appropriately, and know how
to do their jobs. To manage and operate effectively, people in the organization need good information
and access to knowledge of best practices.
In 2003, GTZ-Palestine and Jerusalem Water Undertaking published the organization development
guidebook written by Ms. Barnes and her coauthor Abdelkarim Asad. The guidebook is entitled:
Jerusalem Water Undertaking: A Challenging Experience in Organization Development.
Increased Capacity Brings Convergence

So, we can see that capacity development is not just training, like some people have thought. It is really
a broad set of activities that inspire and build the capabilities of human capital and the operating
environment.
Dr. Engineer Trinh Xuan Lais paper, Comprehensive approaches to develop and maintain
drainage/sewerage systems in urban areas of Vietnam, makes the following observations: Vietnam, like
many other developing countries in Asia, is facing the challenge of poor infrastructure system during its
continuous reform process. Among the urgent challenges originating from speedy urbanization, the issue
of old, fragmented, and deteriorated drainage/sewerage system in recent years has posed urgent
challenges to its governing authorities. The shortage of resources including funding and technology; the
weakness of institutional arrangements and management capacity; and lack of public awareness are
major causes. To overcome these shortcomings, there should be efforts of capital investment,
institutional reform, management strengthening, and community education/awareness techniques for all
relevant stakeholders at all levels. They need to be integrated and activated at the same time by all
stakeholders to improve the existing drainage/sewerage systems which will contribute to the nationwide
target of poverty reduction and sustainable development.
As we see, Dr. Lai aptly sums up the need for broad-based capacity development, taking a holistic view.
If regulation is about monitoring compliance with policy, it should also be about monitoring where
weaknesses occur and where capacity development interventions should be provided. Sanitation and
wastewater management is, after all, a shared responsibility of national and local government and
utilities because it is about public health, which should be everybodys business.

Utilities are mandated to deliver the service.
Whether they have the capacity or not, they
should deliver.

OR
Central and local governments recognize the need

to support the capacity development needs of
utilities. After all, investment in dapacity
development will redound to better service.

experience decision-making that tends to be
slower paced, and nonresponsive to the actual
Undertake reforms that delegate different kinds of

decision-making to local governments to ensure
that progress happens quickly, and specific local
conditions are taken into account.
Only utilities with private sector involvement need

to be regulated.
Water utilities are natural monopolies, and,

whether publicly or privately run, need to be
regulated. Regulators act as a check and balance
measure to ensure the adequacy of services and
affordability of tariffs.
The central government's role extends beyond

policy making and setting regulatory guidelines in
ways that interfere with the autonomy of utilities
to manage and operate sustainable services.
Through such a diffused range of responsibilities,
the central government's understanding of the
sector is limited and it does not act as confidently
or decisively as it should in sectoral planning with
development agencies.
The central governments take the lead in policy

and guidelines formulation. Legislation and
regulation adequately establishes the roles and
responsibilities of sector institutions. The local
governments assume a much bigger role in
implementing the policy and monitoring
compliance. Local governments are closest to the
utility that delivers the sanitation and wastewater
service and closest to the people who receive the
service. Local governments are in a better
position to help the national government
implement the policy.
OR
Government formulates the policy and expects

everybody to comply.
Central government initiates the formulation of

policy, taking into account the cost required to
implement the policy, and gets local government
involved in implementing it and monitoring
compliance with it.
Utilities are mandated to deliver the service.

Whether they have the capacity or not, they
should deliver.
Central and local governments recognize the need

to support the capacity development needs of
utilities. After all, investment in capacity
development will redound in better service.
Chapter 3 - Community Approaches: People As Part of Change - Smarter Sanitation
In approaching problems within the water supply and sanitation

sector, like many other sectors, two courses of action are always
possible: the "hard way" or the "soft way."
In development language, "hard approaches" or "hard components"
refer to infrastructure, such as building dams, laying pipes, installing
toilets, etc., and are usually the focus of government and donor
strategies to improve the sector.
The "soft approaches" or "soft components" refer to social aspects
of a program or project that also bring about results, such as special consideration for women (gender
components) or involving beneficiaries (participation components). These soft-side components are
usually not the main focus of large budget, heavy infrastructure projects, but are given complementary
roles. And that they do! An infrastructure project that involves the community or considers the needs of
women will surely have a more relevant and lasting impact than a project that does not. And these soft
components may, alone, resolve certain negative conditions without the added expense of infrastructure.
It depends on the situation.
This section looks at a key soft, social aspect that must be addressed when preparing for sanitation
projects: hygiene awareness for behavioral change. This section also provides resources for mobilizing
communities and changing adverse behaviors. It also offers a number of models for both mobilizing
communities and pursuing hygiene-awareness campaigns.
Whether infrastructure is called for or not does not change the fact that people also must change with
the changes occurring around them. Sometimes this means a change in attitude. Other times, this means
a change in action and/or behavior that may be contributing to their own problems of unclean
environments, illness and disease, which are precursors to other problems related to missing school,
work, and unnecessary expenses.
To ensure that people change along with the changes in technology and infrastructure systems around
them, they must be involved with the process from the beginning. Their involvement, however, cannot
be assumed to happen spontaneously. Communitiesat least those that do not take action in their own
hands as a number of them doneed to be mobilized through targeted campaigns.
We continue to focus on infrastructure-led
development without much emphasis on
community involvement and social aspects of
sanitation problems.
OR

Because good hygiene practices are the first line
of defense against disease, we mainstream
hygiene promotion activities into all water supply
and sanitation projects. These activities involve
more than just education programs, but involve
communities in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of the project's activities.
We invest in human capital as well as
infrastructure.
file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chapter-3.html[7/18/2012 2:54:28 PM]
We often assume that a lack of proper systems is the cause of disease when, in fact, it may simply be
behavior. In Bolivia, a baseline study showed that the prevalence of diarrhea was highly correlated with
poor hygiene behavior among mothers and caretakers, not with water source or type of sanitation.
To achieve the health impacts of environmental health interventions, the concept of "behavior
first" needs to be adopted. This concept requires that before initiating environmental health
improvement interventions or facility construction, program planners need to identify
behaviors associated with disease transmission in their target areas. And based on identified
behaviors, strategies for bringing about the needed changes in those behaviors must be
developed and included in the overall program planning.
Promoting Hygiene: Education and Public Awareness

To change behavior, education and public awareness activities help to, first, expose the effects of
unhygienic practices and, second, introduce hygienic practices. Generally, when people understand the
linkages between the cause and effects of problems, they are willing and able to act to solve them.
Many of us know that we need to wash our hands, bathe regularly, and take precautions to avoid
disease. When the latest flu comes around, we take additional steps to protect ourselvessteps as
simple as washing our hands more frequently. We are healthier as a result.
Hygiene is a key defense against disease, so why do we not promote good hygiene more? Compared to
major infrastructure projects, educational programs are a lot less expensive and can have an affect in a
short time.
Fundamentals of Hygiene Education. In November, the Water and Sanitation ProgramSouth Asia
Region published its Learning the Fundamentals of Hygiene Promotion - A Review of Three Large-scale
Projects in India. It offers a history of Indias efforts to promote hygienea history that other countries
might share and be able to learn from.
In the early 1990s when hygiene promotion strategies were introduced in India, there was
very little to learn from international experience in the field. Most activities emphasized
"providing of messages" rather than participatory processes in hygiene promotion. This trend
changed around the mid-1990s and "new" approaches have been attempted in externallyfunded projects in India. These new approaches have not evolved in isolation, but have
developed over projects and active learning has taken place during the project cycle. 9
From the study, the following key lessons about hygiene promotion were recorded:
Foster increased use of participatory methods and toolsThe creation, use, and extension of
participatory methods and tools have provided good results. These help overcome resistance to
deep-seated attitudes and practices and facilitate links to felt priorities. At the same time, use of
mass, folk, and community media builds an effective climate for change.
________________________________
9 The Water and Sanitation Program - South Asia Region published its Learning the Fundamentals of Hygiene Promotion - A Review of
Three Large-scale Projects in India in November 2000, page 1
Facilitate communities to set their own objectivesIt is essential to facilitate stakeholder

analysis of design factors at conception and set goals and objectives for hygiene promotion.
Hygiene promotion is more effective where communities are allowed to set their own specific
objectives. It is seen that a focus on three core behaviorswashing of hands, safe disposal of
excreta, and use of safe waterare enough to start hygiene and sanitation programs for
maximum impact.
Establish unified multidisciplinary teams to present a single organizational support
"window" to communitiesInstitutional responsibilities need to be clear and simple. A unified
multidisciplinary team can build the capacity of community-based groups and facilitate the
implementation of demand-responsive projects. Dedicated NGOs have demonstrated their
strengths in project-specific roles as support organizations.
Provide focused and well-timed training at local levelsTraining strategies need to involve
all stakeholders. There is a need to avoid long gaps between training and expected performance.
Include incentives to support capacitySound Capacity Development requires more than
training; it should include good incentives and management support.
Develop political willHygiene promotion is seen to work best where a broad political will has
been generated that supports effective policies and generates popular support.
Update gender strategy to ensure shared and equitable roles for men and women
Overall, women and girls are given the major burden of hygiene and sanitationboth in terms of
promotional tasks and responsibility for hygiene in the home and the community. Strategies need
to be more equitable and aim to ensure that men and boys take more responsibility and share in
related work and tasks.
Design effective monitoring and evaluation systems through facilitated stakeholder
analysis and planningThese tools need to be practical and simple, defining its uses for each
level in the project. Where they provide adequate precision, participatory impact tools have been
useful. Structured process monitoring is useful as an internal management tool. Stakeholder
involvement in designing monitoring and evaluation systems makes it more effective.
Environmental Sanitation Promotion:

Social, Institutional, and Legal Challenges for the Rural Poor
This paper by Dr. Md. Mosleh Uddin Sadeque and Mr.Sudhir Kumar Ghosh reports on a study to improve
environmental sanitation and behavior change in rural communities in low-lying areas of Bangladesh. The
goal of the study was to determine if key changes in behavior could lead to a quick resolution (less than
1 year) of problems with local sanitation.
The study shows that the rural poor can quickly adopt new behaviors. As a result of such significant
behavioral changes, 100% hygienic latrine installation can be achieved in one year, the study found.
Four major strategies are responsible for these results:
Educating, mobilizing, and enabling greater environmental awareness and protection;
Presenting information to the community in a format, style, and language that they can easily
understand and be attracted to;
Stressing concrete solutions and providing support to the community in the forms of practical
tools and assistance; knowing the positive contributions they can make to protect the
environment will provide them with a sense of empowerment and motivate them to be involved;
and
Building partnerships with a number of key partners, including local and regional government,
NGOs , business, and the media.
Once communities understand the benefits of good sanitation and wastewater management, theyon
their owncan undertake projects to address sanitation and wastewater.
Five different authors reported from a number of different countries in AsiaPakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh,
India, and the Water for People Approachshared various approaches applied in a variety of locations.
We see a similarity of approaches in the various models these authors put forth. The similarity is
grounded from projects taking advantage of basic human nature that prefer clean, healthy, productive
environments and the tested notion that has proven that people want to be involved in decisions that
affect them.
Many of the approaches throughout this section and chapter can be applied to rural, urban, and periurban situations. Generally, their models are based on empowering the project communities by equipping
them with information they need to be able to decide.
The following key points suggest how community mobilization could help prepare a strong foundation for
a sustainable sanitation and wastewater program:
Start by communicating with the community to understand the situation and current behaviors in
using water and dealing with human waste.
Create awareness of the linkages between water, sanitation, and disease to create demand for a
project; understand behaviors up front and provide health and hygiene education early oneven
before a building project gets underway.
Involve the whole community (men and women), including the poorest, in identifying needs,
considering solutions, and designing a project.
Integrate the aspects needed to create a clean environment: water, sanitation, wastewater, and
hygiene.
Ensure that the community understands the cost to be shared.
Pakistan: A Little Mobilization Goes A Long Way

After years of relying on government to solve their sanitaiton and
wastewater problemsand years of not getting ita project proved that
a little motivation can move people to take development into their hands.
Nepal: People Pursuing Development

The people of the Dhulikhel village, on the outskirts of Kathmandu, took
advantage of a neighboring project to also secure for themselves a
reliable and safe water source, and in doing so, also solved their
sanitation problems.
file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chapter-3b.html[7/18/2012 3:27:14 PM]
India: Overcoming Myths, Creating Demand

This models demonstrates how to create people-driven demand and
successful outcomes through better resources and community
participation.
Bangladesh: Partnership for Empowerment

A
partnership
between
WaterAid
Bangladesh
and
the
rural
nongovernment organization (NGO) VICA has moved from traditional
latrine construction to involving people, to understand their situation,
and to build their commitment.
Water for People Approach: Capacity Development at the Core

This program is a self-help approach that involves women working with
men on local water committees to construct their drinking water and
sanitation.
Model 1 Pakistan: A Little Mobilization Goes A Long Way

Dr. Rashid Bajwa reports that many people in Pakistan recognize the need for wastewater management
and sanitation, (yet) these remain neglected issues in the majority of villages in part because people
assume that the Government is responsible for funding and implementing the necessary infrastructure.
Dr. Bajwas paper, Successful Approaches to Improving Wastewater Management and Sanitation in
Pakistan points out that mobilizing villagers can overcome their inertia and address critical problems. By
doing just that, the National Rural Support Programme (NRSP) in Pakistan, working with donors and the
Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), has successfully implemented more than 400 projects,
benefiting more than 85,000 households.
Over the course of the NRSP projects, an approach to community mobilization has evolved, which
includes the following seven steps. In the words of Dr. Bajwa:
Step 1
Social mobilization begins when NRSP "Social Organizers" engage in dialogues with
members of rural communities. These dialogues are founded on two things: first, if they
form one or more Community Organizations (COs), each with members of 15 to 20
households, and second, if they pool their human and financial resources, members of rural
communities can meet their development needs.
Step 2
Once a CO is formed, community members prioritize their needs, with many identifying
sanitation schemes as their first priority because they understand the connection between
unsanitary conditions and disease very well.
Step 3
Members of NRSPs Physical Infrastructure and Technology Development Department

all of them qualified engineers assess the needs identified by community
members and then create a Project Digest, which identifies the technical, economic, and
environmental requirements for the specific project. In an Integrated Project, this usually
includes:
water harvesting and storage systems;
distribution systems, street paving, and installing connections to the drainage system
in each household;
installing sewers, building filtration, and water treatment tanks; and
installing pipes to safely carry treated waste away from the villageeither into the
fields where it can be used as fertilizer or into a water channel.
Step 4
The next step is for NRSP and COs to sign a formal Terms of Partnership (ToP)
agreement. At least 75% of the community representatives must be present in a meeting to
sign this agreement. In the meeting, NRSP staff explains every detail of the project. Before
they sign, everyone involved knows the specifications, contributions required from all parties,
disbursement schedule for funds, implementation process and procedures, time required to
complete the project, and estimated annual operation and maintenance costs. They are also
aware of the roles and responsibilities of NRSP and other partners.
Step 5
CO then constitutes a Project Committee, which assumes responsibility for the overall
implementation of the project, and the management, and operation of the project after its
completion.
Step 6
After signing the ToP, CO opens a project bank account. NRSP disburses the grant in
installments, as each stage of the work is completed. The Project Committee forwards a
request to NRSP for the release of the funds in the form of a resolution signed by at least
75% of the members. NRSPs accounting staff checks the expenditure vouchers, and the
engineers check the progress and quality of the work. Before releasing the final payment,
the NRSP engineer ensures that the work has been completed satisfactorily and that the best
materials have been used.
Step 7
NRSP arranges training programs for the members of the committees established by
COs. The members learn how to manage the construction process, how to keep records, how
to procure high quality materials, andafter project completionhow to properly operate
and maintain their projects. They are also encouraged to adopt participatory ways of
working: holding regular meetings, ensuring attendance of at least 75% of members in
meetings, and ensuring that CO members are saving regularly. Members learn how to
maintain accurate records and to link the village organization with relevant organizations.
Lessons Learned
Among the lessons learned using this approach, Dr. Bajwa notes that:
Once people have seen how well these projects can work, they are ready to tackle other
development projects that are vital to their communities.
Although many rural residents are quite poor, they are willing and able to contribute funds and
labor for community development.
NRSPs approach to the social aspects of organizing communities to meet their sanitation and wastewater
needs reflects that of its exemplar, the Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi, Pakistans largest city.
Model 2 Nepal: People Pursuing Development

According to an ADB technical assistance project to reform the water supply sector in the Kathmandu
Valley, the peri-urban village of Dhulikhel has proven that people-led development can reap a number of
successful outcomes. By pursuing a more reliable and safe water source, the people of Dhulikhel also
solved their sanitation problems. The report tells an interesting story of pursuit and success:
The people of Dhulikhel faced a water problem that was compounded by the time and effort
the women spent to walk to the spout, gather water, and carry it home. At first, the people
approached His Majestys Government of Nepal, which said, "Tomorrow." But tomorrow never
came, so the people took the matter into their hands. They were aware of the work Deutsche
Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) was doing in Bhaktapur, so they went to
Bhaktapur and managed to elicit GTZ interest.
With GTZ assistance, they found a good source of water; designed and built a pipeline to
carry it 14 km to the town; and worked with people in the villages along the pipes length to
arrange for rights-of-waysome of which were secured by building a school in the nearby
village. The mayor noted that these side projects (along the pipeline) have helped build a
good, familial feeling between the town and the villages nearby. When the water first came
through the pipe, the townspeople celebrated.
The 14-year effort bore considerable fruits. Dhulikhel has ample water. Water use has
increased as women use it more for washing dishes and clothes. Every house in the town is
connected to the system and most homes have toilets. As a result, gastrointestinal disease
has markedly decreased. But, the most significant result was the community spirit that
developed and the sure knowledge that they can solve their own problems.
When asked what advice he would give to the Mayor of Kathmandu, the Mayor of Dhulikhel
answered that the people must be "thirsty" to energize them to fix a water problem. Also, if
people pay for a system and work hard to build it, they will be more likely to take care of it.
And finally, it was public participation and a "never give up" attitude that saw them through
from start to finish.10
The Nepal case study here proves that people can solve their problems and enlisting communities is one
way of scaling up to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
Model 3 India: Overcoming Myths, Creating Demand

In Dr. Veerashekharappa's paper, Community Contribution for Environmental Contribution in Rural Area:
Myth and Reality, he reports the findings of a study that tests the effectiveness of the recent trend
toward requiring beneficiaries to share the cost of sanitation infrastructure and user fees.
The pressure to meet the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and its heavy
financing has lead the Government of India to involve the private sector, NGOs, and beneficiary
communities in projects, including their planning, implementation, and some cost.
Veerashekharappa studied the impact of such an approach in Karnataka, where the state implemented
three major projects that were supported by multilateral and bilateral agencies. These projects required
beneficiary communities to contribute 30% of the costs for an environmental sanitation component.
_____________________________
10 ADB TA Number 2998 NEP, Urban Water Supply Reform in the Kathmandu Valley, Meeting Report - Dhulikhel Community
Managed Drinking Water System, Nancy E. Barnes for Metcalf & Eddy, 1998
Key Findings: Heavy Subsidization of Community's Cost Sharing

The study found that 10 of the 12 project districts were able to mobilize their share of the project costs.
However, the community's share did not come solely from households. In fact, no district was able to
raise the full amount from households.
Instead, community leaders turned to cooperatives and contractors to subsidize shortfalls in the
contributions by households. Almost 42%and in some villages up to 80%of the costs that beneficiary
households were supposed to contribute came from outside sources.
The study found that ineffective NGOs were the single greatest reason for the inadequate contributions
by households. NGOs were commonly unsuccessful in convincing households about the benefits of the
project. Without understanding the benefits, communities did not demand the project and, consequently,
feel pressed to share in the costs.
"The inefficiency of NGOs turned out to be an advantage to contractors in each village," the study found.
When village households refused to pay their share of the costs, contractors who were willing to
augment the shortfall in household contributions where awarded the project infrastructure contract.
"Thus, there was no community participation and transparency in awarding contracts, because there was
a nexus between the elite of the village and the contractor," the paper states.
In the end, the contractor provided greater accessibility and volume of water to the elite areas of the
village.
Lessons Learned
The study concludes that although "the concept of community participation through cost sharing
and recovery in development projects has been theoretically establish and empirically tests in
many parts of the world," it needs careful design and participation by NGOs tasked to create
demand for the project.
Model 4 Bangladesh: Partnership For Empowerment

Ms. Rokeya Ahmeds paper addresses a major challenge: Shifting Millions from Open Defecation to
Hygienic Practices. She discusses a successful case study of WaterAid Bangladesh and the NGO Village
Education Resource Centre (VERC) partnering to help Bangladesh achieve 100% sanitation. Ms. Ahmed
summarizes the background of the problem and the approach the partnership took. The Government of
Bangladesh plans to achieve total sanitation by 2010. According to a 2003 survey, average sanitation
coverage is only 32%. Traditional approaches to improving sanitation have focused on latrine
construction rather than on health and hygiene education.
WaterAid Bangladesh and its rural partner VERC have jointly developed an integrated,
empowering approach in collaboration with community people living in rural areas. VERCs
approach is based on the assumption that once the issues have been understood,
communities have the commitment and ability to overcome their water and sanitation
problems themselves. The approach has proven effective in establishing safe water supplies,
environmental sanitation, and promoting good hygiene practices.
The approach is based on the following key principles:

Integration Safe water supply, environmental sanitation, and hygiene promotion
are addressed simultaneously. Projects are appropriate, sustainable, and affordable for
the community;
Participation The whole community, including the hard-core poor, are actively
involved in project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Individuals in
the community are trained to become trainers; the community determines the best
water supply and sanitation infrastructure option and hygiene promotion education
inputs are facilitated;
Empowerment Peoples capacities, skills, and indigenous knowledge are recognized
and valued support is provided in the form of capacity building to strengthen the ability
of individuals who emerge as leaders to work as agents of change within the
community; communities act as facilitating agents in their neighboring areas;
empowered communities increase their confidence to analyze and voice their needs
constructively to local government agencies or other development programs.
Key aspects of the approach:
Peoples skills, abilities, and knowledge are valued;
0% subsidy for latrine construction;
"Whole community" approach;
Use of participatory research tools to analyze the problems;
Formation of village development committees (local engineering groups);
Identification of potential community leaders and involve them as community "catalysts;"
Mobilization of local resources; and
Involvement of local government.
And the results? The Department for International Development's (DFID) assessment 11 of VERC results
in areas with improved water facilities and 100% sanitation:
Cases of diarrhea have fallen by 99%, dysentery by 90%, and stomach-related problems, such as
intestinal worms in rural areas, by 51%;
Monthly medical costs for common illnesses are 55% lower;
Working days lost due to illness have fallen from 77 to 35 per year in rural areas;
Schooldays lost due to illness have fallen from 16 to 7 per year in rural areas; and
Expenditure on food and clothing has risen by 6%.
These outcomes are phenomenaldemonstrating the power of an approach that depends on the
community as project drivers and combines safe water supply, sanitation, and hygiene promotion.
Model 5 Water for People Approach: Capacity Development at the Core

Peter Nathanson, in his paper, Water for Peoples (WFP) Approach to Building Sustainable Capacity in
Sanitation and Wastewater Management: Case Studies, explains that:
...the Water for Peoples program is a self-help approach that involves women working with
men on local water committees. the Program helps communities to construct their drinking
water and sanitation systems by using technology that is easy for the communities to use,
maintain, and repair. The Program mobilizes communities by helping organize water
committees, using locally available materials, and conducting community-based training so
the communities are empowered and responsible for the long-term benefits from their water
and sanitation systems.
________________________________
11 Farouk A. Chowdhury, an Economic Evaluation of WaterAid Bangladeshs Water and Sanitation programme in specified areas of
Bangladesh, December 2002, DFID Bangladesh.
Through this process, community members are educated about the technical, financial, institutional, and
social elements of sustainable projects. The Program also includes health and hygiene education in the
model by creating a network of community health promoters so water and sanitation systems are used
properly and kept clean and free from re-contamination. In urban and peri-urban areas, the Program has
had success with bringing stakeholders (community, government, utilities, and nongovernment
organizations) together to develop a plan that addresses issues which have been barriers to successful
projects, such as land ownership, payment for water and sanitation infrastructure and maintenance,
protection of the hardware, training, and health and hygiene education.
Nathanson's paper summarizes the Program's experience in Africa, India, Latin America, and Viet Nam.
Based in these experiences, Nathanson writes that the Program to expand upon a number of proven
community-based resolutions:
constructing culturally and technology-appropriate latrines, utilizing different designs to fit the
needs of the communities, and the training on how to maintain and dispose of the waste materials
properly;
safely reusing gray water by utilizing the water for family gardens and pour-flush latrines;
constructing and maintening of absorption pits and other low-tech on-site disposal technologies so
wastewater can be safely re-introduced into the environment without impacting water supplies or
creating other problems (cesspools, mosquitoes, other health hazards);
implementing community-based health and hygiene education so communities and elected officials
learn the importance of safe local disposal practices of human and animal wastes until proper
sanitation systems can be developed by the local utility;
facilitating discussions between communities and elected officials about longer-term solutions to
keep wastewater from flowing untreated into rivers and streams;
facilitating discussions between communities and elected officials about watershed management
and river basin protection, and amplifying the link between wastewater management, and
(drinking) water quality;
working with communities to keep solid waste from accumulating and becoming vector attractants.
To learn approaches specifically suitable for rural areas, a worthwhile starting place is with the World
Banks November 2004 improved edition of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Toolkit for MultiSector Projects.12 According to the Foreword, the toolkit provides the guidelines and tools for
designing, implementing, and monitoring and evaluating the RWSS components of (multi-sector,
community-based RWSS) projects. The target audience includes ADB Bank staff, government officials,
consultants, and other practitioners who are involved in the preparation and implementation of
community-driven development programs.
________________________________
12 The World Bank. 2004. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Toolkit for Multi-Sector Projects, Available at:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/rwsstoolkit/index.htm.
Chapter 4 - Technology: Choices that reduce, reuse, and recycle - Smarter Sanitation
Technology: Where Are Our Choices Leading Us?

The purpose of this section is not to go into great detail on the technical
or scientific side; plenty of publications do that in great detail, some of
which we will mention here. The purpose of this section is to gain a
perspective on strategies and approachesto consider some of the new
and creative approaches that may revolutionize the sanitation and
wastewater sector over the next 100 years.
To gain a perspective for the future, let us gain a perspective on the
past. Think of how early wastewater systems used the storm sewers to
carry away waste. Because the storm sewers were already there, it was
a practical solution for transporting waste. But that was 100 years ago;
and perhaps, conditions that have developed in our cities since the
storm sewers were first built do not make this the right solution now.
Sometimes, new ideas end up changing the world dramatically. New ideas for sanitation can do the
same. In 1900, you may have debated the practicality of a car, still preferring your horse and carriage.
You might have considered a car impractical because there were few roads or dependable sources of
fuel. You can easily see why an ordinary person in 1900 would not buy a cartoo many obstacles to
overcome and too many uncertainties. The horse worked just fine then.
When people in 2107 look back 100 years, they may be similarly amused at the ways we are doing
sanitation and wastewater now. They may wonder why we did not act sooner to handle the wastes of
growing and increasingly dense populations. They may smileas perhaps you did when you thought of a
person giving up his horseat the idea of us giving up our wastewater treatment plants and toilets for
more sustainable approaches.
Other sectors in developing countries have seen radical shifts in approaches and technology choices. Just
look at the telephone industry. Over the last 100 years, developed countries have invested untold sums
to string telephone wires from building to building. Just imagine what it took to connect almost every
building in a country to the telephone system. Yet, just over the last 10 years, think of how developing
countries are skipping this big effort and huge cost by implementing cellular phone technology instead.
Why has sanitation not made similar significant shifts?
Ecological sanitation today is at the same development stage that [airplanes] were when
Louis Bleriot in 1909, a few years after Wilbur and Orville Wrights pioneering first flight, flew
his monoplane across the English Channel Today we have thousands of [airplanes] flying
the skies of the world A key reason for its success was that governments and industry saw
its potential benefits to society and invested.13
We continue to apply the same technologies and
approaches that have been used in the past even
though their environments have changed and
their communities have grown.
We solve almost every problem with proven,
years-old engineering and infrastructure
solutions, often according to practices and
standards commonly followed in the developed
world.
OR

We explore new technologies and approaches
We are willing to replicate and/or upscale
innovative ideas that have already been tested,
and that, after thorough study, show great
potential for success in our target locations
We are willing to pilot test those new ideas that
have not yet been tested
____________________________
13 Uno Winblad and Mayling Simpson-Hebert et al. 2004. Ecological Sanitation. Stockholm Environmental Institute. Pp. 113-114.
file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chapter-4.html[7/19/2012 10:41:06 AM]
For further reading

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the United Nations specialized agency for health. Its website
contains extensive information and guidelines for the provision of sanitation and wastewater
management. Particularly relevant information includes the following:
Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta, and greywater;
Guide to the development of on-site sanitation; and
Fact sheets on environmental sanitation.
The bulk of this section of the CD is spent reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of the traditional
technology choices, such as toilets, as well as considering some new, innovative approaches. No matter
what the choice is though, we should have in mind a strategy that guides our choices.
One master strategy that gained endorsement at the G8 Summit held in 2004 at Sea Island, Georgia,
USA, is the 3R Initiative: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Reporting on Japans 3R plans, Hiroaki Takiguchi
from Japans Ministry of Environment (Waste and Recycling Department) said Japan is using the 3R
principles to achieve zero waste in Japan (3R Initiative and the Experience of Japan in Sanitation and
Wastewater Management). How can that be possiblezero waste? Certainly, not through traditional
technologies. Let us take a look at the ideas behind the 3Rs.
Reduce: Conserve and Pretreat
Reuse and Recycle
Reduce: Conserve and Pretreat

Ultimately, our goal should be to reduce the impact of waste on the environment. It follows then that
our goal is also to reduce the volume of waste and improve its quality. To do this, we should consider
two principles: water conservation and pre-treatment.
The less water people use, the less wastewater they will create. Therefore, water conservation programs
can help meet the wastewater challenge. Let us consider some statistics from the American Water Works
Association:
Toilets can account for almost 30% of all indoor water use, more than any other fixture or
appliance.
Older toilets (installed prior to 1994) use 3.5-7 gallons (1327 liters) of water per flush and as
much as 20 gallons (76 liters) per person per day.
Replacing an old toilet with a new model can save the typical household 7,900-21,700 gallons
(29,90282,135 liters) of water per year, cutting both your water and wastewater bills.
An average of 20% of toilets leak.
Yes, these statistics are based on water used in the United States, one of the largest water-consuming
countries in the world, but we can see that toilet use accounts for a significant amount of water use. By
installing low-flow toilets or dry toilets (as you will read about in this section), the volume of wastewater
is reduced.
In addition to reducing the amount of domestic water usage, there are ways to improve the quality of
wastewater that needs to be treated, particularly from industries.
Processes in some businesses use a lot of water or generate waste with a heavy load of contaminants.
We can improve the quality of the wastewater discharged into the environment by requiring these
businesses to pretreat contaminated water before discharging to the wastewater system, which improves
the quality of wastewater that comes to a treatment plant and, in turn, improve the quality of the plants
discharge to the environment.
Where businesses are forced to pay higher tariffs because of the low quality of their wastewater,
businesses may find it easier and less costly to switch to cleaner production technologies to reduce the
level of contaminants generated by their processes and, thereby, pay a lower tariff rate. Some
businesses can also recycle processed water to reduce the amount of water that goes into the
wastewater system and on into the environment.
For Further Reading:

Pretreatment is a key program in the United States Environmental Protection Agencys National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. For more information, go to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3. Read the description of the pretreatment
program.
CleanerProduction.com contains resources and tools for developing cleaner production programs.
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3). The site recommends a publication of the
European Environmental Agency entitled Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A Handbook.
You can order this inexpensive handbook from: http://bookshop.eu.int/.
http://www.awwa.org/Advocacy/learn/conserve/resources/Toilets.cfm
Reuse and Recycle

Technologies are being progressively developed to recycle wastewater and household greywaterthe
soiled water from washing and cleaningnot just for discharge but also for reuse. We should look into
these new technologies carefully to ensure that the quality of the water being reused is suitable for the
end user so that we do not harm public health. The World Health Organization provides Guidelines for
the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater.
Example 1: Australia
Mr. Rajah A. Thiyagarajahs paper entitled Sustainable Wastewater Reuse through Private Sector
Participation The Adelaide Experience showcases a successful wastewater-recycling scheme. Do not be
fooled by its elite purposesto reuse wastewater to irrigate grape vines that produce some of Australias
finest wines. This scheme has lessons for everyone to learn from.
Located in the world-renowned wine-growing region of McLaren Vale, the scheme uses effluent from one
of Adelaides three large wastewater treatment plants to irrigate grape vines. The key results achieved
from the scheme were
a technically, financially, commercially, and environmentally sustainable wastewater reuse scheme;
a scheme that is entirely built, financed, and operated by the private sector, providing an example
of a viable reuse project with private sector participation;
contribution to economic growth through increased grape production and job creation;
delivery of Class B-rated reclaimed wastewater suitable for horticultural use;
reduction in fertilizer requirements due to the nutrient content; and
reduced effluent discharge and damage to the marine environment.
Best practices adopted that others can emulate include:

Independent and competent design and tendering processes that ensure technical integrity of the
scheme;
Regular water quality monitoring and control to ensure environmental sustainability;
A tariff structure that is affordable while ensuring the financial sustainability of the project;
Commercial arrangements and agreements that allocate risk appropriately between the
government, Wastewater Treatment Plant , the management company and the growers;
Appropriate safety measures and practices to avoid any occupational health and safety hazards;
Best irrigation practice through soil surveys, review of on-farm irrigation systems and headworks,
regular soil and crop management reports, and seminars;
Regular independent monitoring and audits need to be carried out; and
Irrigation Management Plan that is scrutinized and monitored by various government agencies to
ensure the sustainable management of the reclaimed water irrigation scheme.
Example 2: California, United States

Similarly, in California, Fetzer Vineyards processes its own wastewater with a natural filtration system.
Using gravel and sand filters, a planted reed bed, and ultraviolet light to kill bacteria, the treated water
is used for organically farmed vineyards and landscaping.14
Fecal sludge contains essential nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and is potentially beneficial as
fertilizers for plants. The organic carbon in the sludge, once stabilized, is also desirable as a soil
conditioner because it provides improved soil structure for plant roots.15
Example 3: New Mexico, United States

The citywide scheme for Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, also utilizes domestic and industrial wastewater
for crops that humans directly consume.
The Southside Water Reclamation Plant (SWRP) in Albuquerque (New Mexico, USA) purifies
over 55 million gallons of mixed residential (85%) and industrial (15%) wastewater each day.
Cleaned water is discharged to the Rio Grande (River), in accordance with the requirements
of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Organic substances removed during wastewater purification are digested to produce methane
gas, which is used as a fuel to generate electricity for use on-site. The remaining biomass,
known as sludge or biosolids, totals 150 tons per day. Biosolids are rich in organic matter,
nitrogen, and trace minerals; and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
encourages safe biosolids reuse. A 1987 master plan for managing Albuquerque wastewater
biosolids recommended a two-phase program comprising dedicated land disposal and
composting for beneficial reuse. Properly managed, composting qualifies as a Process to
Further Reduce Pathogens under USEPA regulations, meaning that composted biosolids may
be used in the production of crops even for direct human consumption. 16
______________________________
14 http://www.wineinstitute.org/communications/highlight/hom_1feb02.htm
15 United Nations Environment Program
16 City of Albuquerque
For further reading

Two additional resources may be helpful in 3R decisions for your area:
1. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada helps developing countries use
science and technology to find practical, long-term solutions to the social, economic, and
environmental problems they face. On the website, you can find an article entitled Treated
Wastewater Use in Tunisia: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead by Shobha Shetty, The World
Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia.
2. International Research Center also provides valuable information about sanitation and wastewater
in general and in specific, this article concerning wastewater reuse: Wastewater Reuse West Africa:
Mali and Burkina Faso case studies.

We continue choosing technology that consumes large amounts of water and generates large amounts of wastewater for
treatment, such as toilets, when other technology may be appropriate and less consumptive.
We continue viewing wastewater as something disposable.
Our wastewater management strategies are reactive in that they concentrate on merely coping with current waste
volumes through storage, flushing, and disposing waste.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle (3Rs) is a general strategy. And in the specific context of the sanitation and
wastewater sector, the concept of Ecosan must further be understood.
Ecosan stands for ecologically and economically sustainable sanitation, "a new philosophy of dealing
with what to date has been considered as merely waste and wastewater. (It is) based on the
systematic reuse and recycling of nutrients, organics, and water as a hygienically safe, closed-loop, and
holistic alternative to conventional solutions."
Ecological sanitation is based on three fundamental principles:
preventing pollution rather than attempting to control it after we pollute
sanitizing urine and feces
using the safe products for agricultural purposes
This approach uses a cycle processa sustainable, closed-loop system. It treats human excreta as a
resource. Urine and feces are stored and processed on-site and then, if necessary, further processed
off-site until they are free of disease organisms. The nutrients contained in the excreta are recycled for
agricultural use.
The key features of Ecosan are
prevention of pollution and disease caused by human excreta
management of human urine and feces as resources rather than as waste
recovery and recycling of the nutrients 17
Ecosan can also be applied as an off-site concept combined with a sewer system, which has been done
in Germany.
___________________________
17 Uno Winblad and Mayling Simpson Hebert, Ecological Sanitation, Stockholm Environment Institute, http://www.sei.se/, 2004, pages
4-5.
Ecosan compared to 3Rs

We can see similarities between the Ecosan approach and 3Rs in that both recognize that wastes can
also be resources. Ecosan adds further emphasis to prevention than just reduce. With its closed-loop
system, resources are constantly put to good reuse.
Ecosan, then, finds ways to use most, if not all, components of most wastewater systems: urine, feces,
and cleaning/cooking water. Is there anything left? Not much. And we can see how it might be possible
to have zero waste in some places.
What makes Ecosan an attractive consideration? Sanitation practices promoted today are either based
on hiding human excreta in deep pits ("drop and store") or on flushing them away and diluting them in
rivers, lakes, and the sea ("flush and discharge").
Drop and store systems can be simple and relatively low cost but have drawbacks Flush and
discharge systems require large amounts of water for flushing18 Ecosan systems collect urine and
feces separately through the use of innovative toilet designs. Urine and feces are stored for primary
processing to reduce volume, weight, and pathogens. Then, the wastes are removed and processed
furthereither through composting or the addition of urea or lime to increase the pH level. When fully
treated, the new waste resource is recycled.
Of course, another component of most wastewater is the water we use in kitchens, baths, and laundries
known as grey water. Managed properly, grey water can also be recycled. And let us not forget that
one way to reduce waste is to prevent some things from getting into the waste stream to begin with.
Example 1: Philippines
Mr. Danilo G. Lapids paper, Ecological Sanitation in the Philippines, reports on a program of the
Center for Advanced Philippine Studies to introduce Ecosan in the Philippines. This program aims to
alleviate poverty and its effects through local initiatives in urban waste management and
ecological sanitation;
develop and build models in waste management and sanitation that consider the social
environment (private and community sector participation) while recognizing local resources
constraints; and
direct or redirect valuable resources to support livelihood opportunities among the poor and
harness accumulated knowledge and experience to practical application.
The Program has three components:
The Ecosan component focuses on building Ecosan toilets in the city.
The waste venture component develops livelihood and business opportunities related to Ecosan.
The knowledge sharing component conducts research and publication, capacity development,
information and education campaigns.
Some of the results are poverty alleviation through better health and sanitation conditions, practice of
urban agriculture, livelihood enhancement, and Ecosan promotion in general.
___________________________
18 IBID pages 2-4
From the Philippines experience with Ecosan, Lapids paper gives attention to the following lessons
learned for future application.
Social preparation.The main challenge in making Ecosan viable is its social acceptance by the
target city stakeholders and partner-beneficiaries. In one case, this challenge was hurdled
through effective social preparation, information and education campaigns. The concept of dry
sanitation is a new and innovative approach, but Ecosan became viable because its benefits and
advantages were successfully conveyed and concretely shown through knowledge sharing,
capacity development and project piloting.
Capacity development and ownership of program and projects. The program conducts
seminars, workshops, trainings, and meetings with various sectors from the city, to the barangay,
household, and the provincial levels. This is to develop a more positive attitude among all
stakeholders, especially at the household level, about the concept of ecological sanitation.
Political will. The Mayor of San Fernando, Hon. Mary Jane C. Ortega, first saw the applicability,
advantages, and benefits of Ecosan for her city. She was, and still is, the key factor in pushing
through and implementing it in the city, and now in the whole province of La Union.
For further reading:

An excellent reference on Ecosan is Ecological Sanitation by Uno Winblad and Mayling Simpson
Hebert, published in 2004 by the Stockholm Environment Institute that provides this book for
download from their website.
The document entitled Concepts for ecologically sustainable sanitation in formal and continuing
education 20 is a valuable source book for developing Ecosan solutions.
Just as the overall Ecosan philosophy and its related technologies are beginning to realize their market
potential in the Philippines, Ecosan has a long way to go to earn widespread appeal. While Ecosan
clearly has the potential to become a promising alternative, for the developed and developing world
alike, there is still a large gap on transmission of the relevant knowledge and Capacity Development on
how to apply ecologically sustainable sanitation.
Control pollution once it is created
OR

We consider variations of standard technology
that are both economically affordable and
culturally acceptable, such as the two-pit flush
toilet
We consider sanitation solutions even in difficult
locations by using innovative approaches, such
as public pay-and-use toilets in slums,
markets, and other heavily populated public
placess
______________________________
19 And WASTE (a Dutch NGO) www.waste.nl and www.ecosan.nl.
20 Concepts for ecologically sustainable sanitation in formal and continuing education, International Hydrological Programme (IHP) of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, 2006.
This section looks at some of the various approachestraditional and innovativeto improving
sanitation and wastewater management for different situations:
On-site disposal
On-plot sanitation
Simplified sewage
Small-scale wastewater treatment
Large-scale wastewater treatment
Solid waste management
This section is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of all technological approaches. Rather, it
is intended to get you thinking about options.
On-site Disposal
The toilet seems like a simple enough device. But the technology has many variations. Most people
consider it to be the optimal, modern, cleanest technology. It may not, however, be the most
affordable, or sustainable, or practical technology choice for some areas.
Example 1: Indias Sulabh Toilets
In his paper Sustainable Technologies for On-site Human
Waste and Waste Water Management: Sulabh Experience, Dr.
PK Jha describes the technology of the two-pit pour flush toilet
as economically affordable and culturally acceptable for most
developing countries. His organization, the Sulabh International
Social Service Organization, has installed more than 1.2 million
such household toilets in India, which have become known
locally as Sulabh toilets. The organization converts bucket
privies into toilets, resulting in the liberation of over 60,000
Indians (most of whom are women) from the unsanitary and humiliating low-caste job of manually
cleaning waste from privies. The former waste workers have been provided vocational training in
different trades.
To provide sanitation in slums, at public places, markets, etc., Sulabh is operating and maintaining over
6,000 public toilets on a pay-and-use basis in different parts of the country.
For non-sewer areas, Sulabh generates biogas to be used for different purposes such as cooking,
lighting, and electricity generation. The effluent of the biogas plant is reused after a simple and
convenient method of treatment consisting of sedimentation, followed by passing through a sand
column and activated carbon and, finally, with ultraviolet rays. Such effluent is colorless, odorless, and
pathogen-free. It has biological oxygen demand of less than 10 mg/l, making it suitable for agriculture,
horticulture, or cleaning of floors of public toilets or discharge in any water body.
For further reading
http://www.toiletsforall.org provides information on more than 26 versions of the toilet complete
with drawings, layouts, materials needed, and estimated costs.
The Sulabh International Museum of Toilets offers a history of the toilet.
The website of the World Toilet Organization communicates the need for better toilet standards
in both the developed and developing economies of the world and provides a service platform for
all toilet associations, related organizations, and committed individuals to facilitate an exchange
of ideas, health, and cultural issues.
On-plot sanitation
On-plot sanitation is when safe disposal of excreta takes place on or near the housing plot. Pit latrines
and septic tanks fall into this category. It is the simplest of sanitation systems, and has been used by
people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Simple pit latrine. The pit latrine is relatively low cost; it consists of a superstructure which affords
privacy to the user, a hole (or seat) set into a slab which covers the pit, and a pit beneath the slab
into which excreta and anal cleansing materials are deposited. Pit latrines are not used in conjunction
with conventional flush toilets; only a relatively small volume of water enters the pit and liquid is
allowed to seep from the pit into the surrounding ground. Whilst in the pit, excreta undergo
decomposition into humus-like solids, water, and gases. The important point is that because of the long
storage time in the pit, disease-causing organisms (pathogens) are eventually killed. 21
Ventilated improved pit latrine. Boas Sengis paper entitled Rural Coastal Sewerage Concept in Papua
New Guinea says: ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency) is implementing a water and
sanitation program in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to provide potable drinking water for the rural
population. It is also advocating the use of Ventilated Improved Pit latrines as recommended by the
Department of Health of PNG by demonstrating the latrine and providing skills and knowledge to the
rural people for its construction. This aspect of the sanitation program has raised the need to elicit an
appropriate sewerage management system for rural coastal population of PNG who lack proper
sanitation facilities due to high water table prone areas.
Septic tank. In comparison to the pit latrine, the septic tank is relatively expensive; it comprises a
sealed tank having both an inlet and an outlet into which excreta are flushed from a conventional
cistern flush toilet. In the tank, solids settle out and undergo a process of anaerobic decomposition
resulting in the production of water, gases, sludge, and a layer of floating scum. The effluent, which
flows out of the septic tank, is commonly disposed of through absorption into the ground using a
soakage pit or trench. This may require a large area of land which limits the plot size and housing
density for which septic tanks are a feasible option.
Simplified sewage
Simplified sewerage collects all household wastewaters (WC wastes and sullage) in small-diameter
pipes laid at fairly flat gradientsfor example, a 100 mm diameter sewer laid at a gradient of 1 in 200
(0.5%) will serve around 200 households of five people with a wastewater flow of 80 liters per person
per day. The sewers are
often laid inside the housing
block, or in the front garden
or under the pavement
(sidewalk), rather than in the
center of the road as with
conventional sewerage. It is
suitable for existing
unplanned low-income areas
and new housing estates
with a more regular layout.
Simplified sewerage is most
widely used in Brazil. It has
also been used in other
South American countries
and some Asian countries."
___________________________
21 Sanitation Connection, http://www.sanicon.net/titles/topicintro.php3?topicId=22
Small-scale wastewater treatment

Between small villages and large cities lie thousands of communities that can apply small-scale
solutions for wastewater treatment. Often they will benefit greatly from low technology and low costs.
Andreas Kanzler and Gerardo Parco describe the urgent need in the Philippines to turn to low-cost, lowtechnology solutions to expedite a problem spiraling out of control. In their paper, entitled Engineered
Reed Bed Treatment System as a Low-Cost Sanitation Option for the Philippines, they write:
Degradation of water quality in urban areas is mainly attributed to the indiscriminate disposal of
domestic wastewater. More than 90% of the sewage generated all over the Philippines is not disposed
or treated in an environmentally acceptable manner. Moreover, only 1% of the produced contaminated
wastewater is being treated nationwide. This predicament is a constant threat to the local populace, the
environment and an immense financial burden to the struggling economy".
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Reed bed approach
Waste stabilization ponds
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. A Pilot and Demonstration Activity, supported by
the Asian Development Bank's Cooperation Fund for the Water Sector, set out to correct the very
problems that Kanzler and Parco describe above. In Central Philippines, the sublime beaches of Lilo-an,
Cebu used to attract tourists. As could be expected, the coastal waters gradually blackened and lost
their appeal as a result of untreated wastewater being discharged from a septic tank for a beach-side
market. The horrible state of the coastline affected the economy of the numerous coastal restaurants,
shops, and vendors. Like most other Philippine municipalities, Lilo-an could not afford to construct a
centralized wastewater treatment system with an extensive collection system and a treatment plant. A
decentralized wastewater treatment, which is far less expensive, became more suitable for this small
municipality.
The pilot project had two objectives:
Construction of a decentralized wastewater treatment facility (WTF) at the Lilo-an public
marketdesigned to treat approximately 60-70 cubic meters of wastewater per day, with some
neighboring households connected to the WTF and new toilets installed at the public market to
further increase hygienic conditions.
Organization of cooperativeto collect fees from the market vendors, and operate and
maintain the WTF using the collected fees.
The wastewater treatment plant was successfully completed and inaugurated in less than 1 year from
the time the project began. Read more about the projects outcomes and lessons learned.
Reed bed approach. An approach to address this crisis is the adoption of low-cost sanitation
facilities, such as an engineered reed bed treatment system, which offers low construction and
maintenance costs. Engineered Reed Bed Treatment Systems are a subsurface flow, natural treatment
system, which uses rhizo-degradation as the main mechanism for the removal of contaminants.
The first engineered reed bed system in the Philippines to treat domestic wastewater is currently being
constructed in Bayawan City, Negros Oriental with the support of the German Agency for Technical
Cooperation (GTZ) in partnership with the University of the Philippines Environmental Engineering Unit
and the UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle of Germany. The plant shall serve as a
pilot measure to demonstrate the applicability and efficiency of engineered reed beds as a low-cost
alternative technology for wastewater treatment.
Aside from the intrinsic attraction of this back-to-nature approach of the reed bed approach, one major
advantage of natural treatment systems is the low operational costs due to the low energy
requirements in operating and maintaining the system.
Waste stabilization ponds. In his article, The Need for Wastewater Treatment in Latin America:
A Case Study of the Use of Wastewater Stabilization Ponds in Honduras,22 Dr. Stewart Oakley reports
on a case study of successful waste stabilization ponds that provides information on design, standards,
and pathogen removal.
Professor P.S. Navaraj advocates the approach of the Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) in his paper
entitled Anaerobic waste stabilization ponds: a low-cost contribution to a sustainable wastewater reuse
cycle . WSPs have been used extensively all over Tamilnadu over the last few years for the treatment
of municipal and industrial wastewaters.
Anaerobic WSP are single-stage, continuous-flow, anaerobic reactors operating at ambient temperatures
and low volumetric organic loading as a pretreatment method. Anaerobic ponds reduce pathogenic
microorganisms by sludge formation and the release of ammonia into the air. As a complete process,
the anaerobic pond serves to separate solid from dissolved material as solids settle as bottom sludge,
further dissolve organic material, break down biodegradable organic material, store undigested material
and non-degradable solids as bottom sludge, and allow partially-treated effluent to pass out. This is a
very cost-effective method.
Larger scale wastewater management

Many of us are familiar with the approach of collecting human waste by means of a sewage collection
system that transports waste to a wastewater treatment plant that treats and then discharges effluent
and creates sludge. As we can remember from the lessons of history, systems like this began when
communities discharged waste into the storm sewers as a practical and expedient way to deal with the
waste. This basic strategy of gathering waste from households and businesses and transporting it
elsewhere has not changed in nearly 200 years.
CEPT approach. In their paper entitled An Innovative Approach to Urban Wastewater Treatment in
the Developing World, Donald Harleman and Susan Murcott of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology pose questions for consideration: Should cities of the developing world invest in the
dominant municipal wastewater treatment technology of Western Europe and North America
conventional primary plus activated sludge? Or, are there alternative sustainable sanitation
approaches?
Their paper discusses these issues and makes a specific technological proposalthe adoption of recent
innovations in chemically-enhanced primary treatment, known as CEPT, as the appropriate first step in
urban wastewater management.
What is it and why is it a superior choice?
CEPT uses small doses of coagulant salts and flocculent polymers to produce a highly efficient,
single-stage treatment process that is superior not only in terms of suspended solids and organic
carbon removal to conventional primary treatment alone, but also, in terms of phosphorus
removal and energy consumption, to conventional primary plus activated sludge
CEPT, because of enhanced settling, results in increased treatment capacity and removal
efficiency. As has been demonstrated by retrofitting some of Californias largest conventional
primary plants, CEPT provides a low-cost way of quickly upgrading overloaded plants.
New CEPT plants can take advantage of enhanced settling to increase the surface overflow rate
and reduce the number of settling tanks. When Hong Kongs new plant switched from
conventional primary to CEPT, in the design stage, the number of settling tanks was reduced to
two thirds. In Mexico City, capital and operations and maintenance costs for CEPT are estimated
to be about 55% of the cost of conventional primary and secondary biological treatment,
including sludge handling
__________________________
22 Oakley, Stewart M. Ph.D., The Need for Wastewater Treatment in Latin America
23 A Case Study of the Use of Wastewater Stabilization Ponds in Honduras, Small Flows Quarterly, Spring 2005, Volume 6, Number.
CEPT effluent, in contrast to conventional primary effluent, can be effectively disinfected. This is
important in controlling public health problems caused by water supply contamination by contact
with raw or inadequately treated wastewater
CEPT sludge is readily dewatered and processed. The amount of CEPT sludge is generally only 10
to 15% greater than that produced by the removal of suspended solids.
CEPT is an effective and appropriate first stage treatment process, it may be followed by
biological treatment if the incremental effluent improvement, the risk of toxic upsets of the
biological process and increased biosolids disposal can be justified and afforded. Subsequent
biological treatment plants will be smaller and more efficient because of reduced organic load and
increased solubility of the CEPT effluent. 23
CEPT sparking a debate

The above assertions by Harleman and Murcott precipitated a debate in the wastewater profession that
is covered in the paper The Future of Chemically-Enhanced Primary Treatment: Evolution Not Revolution
by Denny S. Parker, James Barnard, Glen T. Daigger, Rudy J. Tekippe, and Eric J. Wahlberg.
As we can see, there are new ideas for doing a more effective job at treating urban wastewater, and
there are concerns among professionals at implementing new ideas. Debates are good because they can
result in a better application of a new idea.
Phased approach. Frdric Chagnon, in Wastewater Treatment for Mega-Cities in the Developing
World24, notes that our traditional non-phased approaches to urban wastewater management have
been characterized by the following:
initial wastewater treatment held against high environmental standards;
difficulty with cost recovery through user charges (no ability or willingness to pay);
limited capacity of the utility to manage sanitation operations and financial systems; and
only part of a citys wastewater can be collected and treated.
He proposes a different phased approach,
prioritize problems to be tackled;
comprehensively design sanitation infrastructure and treatment;
meet environmental standards;
design for future growth;
staged/phase implementation;
start with full wastewater collection and simple affordable treatment, build up gradually;
first priority is to treat 100% of wastewater to level where disinfection is effective enough to
mitigate public health problems; and
subsequently implement planned/designed secondary treatment to comply with environmental
regulations.
In other words, when we consider meeting the urban wastewater challenge, we do not have to make it
a choice of all or nothing. Staged approaches may work better and be more affordable in some places.
____________________________
24 Harleman, Donald and Murcott, Susan, An Innovative Approach to Urban Wastewater Treatment in the Developing World,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Solid Waste Management

Perhaps you are surprised to see the title Solid Waste Management (SWM) here. We have included it
for this reason: if our goal is to eliminate disease and create a clean living environment, sanitation and
wastewater management will definitely help, but solid waste management is also important.
Sunil Kumar of the Solid Waste Management Division, National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, India provides this perspective in his paper entitled Municipal Solid Waste
Management in India: Present Practices and Future Challenge:
SWM is a vital, ongoing, and large public service system, which needs to be efficiently
provided to the community to maintain aesthetic and public health standards. Municipal
agencies will have to plan and execute the system in keeping with the increasing urban
areas and population. There has to be a systematic effort in the improvement in various
factors like institutional arrangement, financial provisions, appropriate technology,
operations management, human resource development, public participation and awareness,
and policy and legal framework for an integrated SWM system.
To achieve Cleanliness, which is next to Godliness, it is necessary to design and operate an
efficient SWM system. Public cooperation is essential for successful operation of such a
system. Finally, there is also a need do develop a methodology of research for developing
interactive techniques for systems design and operational control.
Dr. Vivek Agrawal reports in his paper entitled Sustainable Waste Management: Case study
of Nagpur India that: At present, the standard of solid waste management (in India) is far
from being satisfactory. The environmental and health hazards caused by the unsanitary
conditions in the cities were epitomized by the episode of Plague in Surat in 1994. That
triggered public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India. Based on the
recommendations of the committee set up by the apex court in that Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), the Government of India has framed Municipal Solid Waste (Management
and Handling) Rules 2000 under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
One of the major requisite of these rules is to establish door-to-door garbage collection system in the
cities. Nagpur, which is located in the center of India, has taken initiative in implementing MSW Rules
2000 by introducing 100% door-to-door garbage collection. It has enabled
livelihood creation for 1,600 people from the most deprived segment of the society,
clean environment as 75% of the total waste generated is being collected from doorstep,
successful Public-Private Peoples Partnership,
use of ergonomic tools for managing waste,
use of appropriate technology for waste management, which also created entrepreneurship
opportunities,
effective recycling of waste for useful purposes, and
partnership of waste producers.

We keep reapplying technology that has not
produced its intended results.
OR

We build what will be affordable, manageable,
and sustainable in a community.
We consider all costs and impacts before
choosing an option (Life Cycle Analysis).
We no longer wait for "all or nothing" solutions,
but rather we implement interim solutions that
have a positive effect while we develop longerterm solutions, such as the pay and use toilets
in slum areas.
We sort through all of the ideas and technologies
and provide a decision tool to people, which
helps them help themselves.
Our strategies are focused on controlling waste
and pollution once they have already been
created.
We value waste as a resource, using safe waste
for agricultural purposes.
More and more, government of developing countries and international developing assistance
organizations are realizing that decisions on technology choices must be made locally. Historically, the
development community has implemented solutions that were proven to work in the already developed
countries. This technology though has not always transferred smoothly to developing countries.
This comprehensive textbook covers not only technical solutions but also approaches for operation and
maintenance, monitoring and enforcement, economics and finance, standards, etc. The textbook is
intended as a guide for modifying developed country approaches to suit the developing country
situation.
In this Internet Age, we can find an enormous amount of information about approaches to sanitation
and wastewater management. But which information is reliable? How can we sort through all this
information and quickly and easily find solutions to problems in our own communities? This is a big
challenge.
SANEX TM
One innovative approach to sorting through the information and finding solutions is the SANEXTM Model
developed by Dr. Thomas Loetscher 1 in Australia. This decision model is a tool for sanitation planning.
The SANEXTM user inputs information about a community and the model responds with alternatives for
providing sanitation, complete with illustrations and designs.
Sourcebook
A more basic tool is the sanitation source book that the Water and Sanitation Program Philippines and
the Department of Interior and Local Government-German Agency for Technical Cooperation Water
Program Philippines have recently published. It promotes a structured planning process with guidance
and decision aids to support the process. The planning steps and decision aids cover technical and socio
economic (demand-based) aspects.
Life cycle analysis

Mr. S. V. Srinivasans paper Life Cycle Considerations for Selection of Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives (with coauthors E. Ravindranath and S. Rajamani) advocates the Life Cycle Analysis
approach. Their paper observes that conventional wastewater treatment using activated sludge process
alone, or in combination with chemical coagulation, is energy intensive, requires a huge quantity of
chemicals, and generates a huge quantity of sludge. And, we have been short-sighted when evaluating
these projects solely based on treatment requirement, land availability, and capital costs. Rather,
project evaluation should consider all the criteria over the life of the wastewater treatment plant
including energy, chemical consumption, overall environmental impacts, and the costs/benefits
associated with sludge. A Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach considers all of these criteria and comes
up with a rational basis for decisionmaking. In the study done by these authors, a simple protocol
considering the life cycle approaches helped plant designers select the appropriate treatment
technologies with less environmental impact and lower operation and maintenance costs.
Historically, development agencies have not engaged in research and development in sanitation and
wastewater management, leaving that largely to academic institutions. Or, agencies have supported
projects that applied differing technologies. If we believe that sanitation and wastewater management
technology is in its infancy, focused and effective research and development may be a very key
element in making progress.
NOTE TO DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES: TRANSFERRING TECHNOLOGY

Harvey F. Ludwigs paper How ADB Can Improve Its Technology Transfer Operations states: In
Thailand, there are some 50 urban sewage treatment plant projects, all of which are malfunctioning,
and some 20 or 30 water supply treatment plants (rapid sand filters) which, excepting only those at
Bangkok, are malfunctioning. This story is the same in all of the Developing Countries of Asia. Why is
this so? Why has the assistance furnished by the international assistance agencies (IAA) not corrected
this syndrome?
Dr. Ludwig recommends revisions in development agency practices so that investments are less
wasteful and more meaningful, which include:
Require post-construction monitoring of performance of the systems which are built.
Cease the common practice of designing systems which follow developed country design criteria
and matching environmental standards, and figure out the appropriate/affordable
environmental standards and matching design criteria for the developing country.
The best/cheapest way to achieve effective technology transfer is to utilize the actual project for
this purpose. But (usually) the project budget has no funds for enabling the expatriate experts to
use the project for technology transfer purposes.
Prepare textbooks or manuals on appropriate developing country design criteria (and matching
environmental standards), which can guide designers to produce a project that works.
Establish graduate training programs on developing country design practices to ensure
appropriate design practices (and matching environmental standards) for all types of
environmentally-sensitive projects.
Promote establishment of an Environmental Engineering Journal, i.e., a professional magazine in
which each issue will feature projects which discuss specific examples or case studies.
Send developing country staff for training not observing with developed country organizations.
Plan technology transfer projects, not in the usual way as a single event operation, but as a
training series with enough time between to permit the student to absorb the lessons from each
session.
There are many techniques for dealing with sanitation and wastewater. Some of these may work, some
may not, and some may work better than others. How can we decide? Then, once we decide, how can
we see how we are doing and if we are accomplishing what we intend to do? Standards are a big part
of the answer.
Here are a number of informative resources on setting standards:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was formed in 1970 to work towards
a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. The extensive use of standards in the
United States dates only from that timea short 35 years ago. The history of the USEPA shows
that it has established increasingly stringent standards for water and wastewater quality in the
United States, and that it has been an evolutionary process. While the USEPA serves the United
Statesa country with extensive resourcesits standards and approaches may give insight to
people in developing countries. For instance, on the USEPA website, you can find effluent
guidelines for wastewater.
The SPHERE initiative was launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian nongovernment
organizations and the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, who framed a Humanitarian
Charter and identified Minimum Standards to be attained in disaster assistance, in each of five
key sectors (water supply and sanitation, nutrition, food aid, shelter, and health services). This
process led to the publication of the first Sphere handbook in 2000. Spheres Minimum standards
are rights based meaning that in this era of globalization, Sphere focuses our work on people
and what they have the right to expect from humanitarian assistance. For the humanitarian
community, the Minimum Standards represent a common language, a basic curriculum for the
humanitarian profession. Chapter 2 of the SPHERE Handbook covers water, hygiene, and
sanitation. It contains minimum standards and indicators that may be useful in developing
countries.
Harvey Ludwig also offers his perspective on standards in his papers entitled Appropriate
Environmental Standards in Developing Nations 25 and Appropriate Environmental Standards for
Developing Countries 5.
___________________________
25 Ludwig, Harvey et al, Appropriate Environmental Standards in Developing Nations. Wat. Sci. Tech, Vol. 25 Number 9, pages 17-30,
1992
26 Ludwig, Harvey et al, Appropriate Environmental Standards for Developing Countries, Environmental Systems Reviews, Number 35,
1993
Working with a strategy that aims to reduce waste and reuse waste is cost effective, environmentally
sensitive, and socially responsible. The same ideas advocated in this section are fundamental in the
business world. What works and does not work in the business world is also true for the public service
sectors.
Some business may begin successful and promising, but eventually fail or experience down times
because business owners have failed to change with the time. Services, products, and people who use
them are in constant flux. When one of them fails to respond to this flux, the interdependent supply
and demand nature of their relationship breaks down. When businesses do not respond to public
demand and market forces, everyone losesbusiness owners do not get the results they need and the
market does not get what it needs. Smart business owners know their market, are attentive to the
changing winds of market forces and most importantlythey react!
Other businesses fail because business owners are wastefulthey do not think of how they can
conserve costs related to labor, materials, etc. A smart business owner maximizes resources.
Yet other businesses fail because business owners fail to think for themselvesthey copy other peoples
ideas without thinking about whether those ideas will work in their business location. Often times, ideas
need amending for them to be replicable. A smart business owner will realize this and either make
adaptations to current technology or think of entirely new approaches.
Our sanitation and wastewater sectors could use a large business sense when it comes to dealing with
communities. We must think of the current situation and current needs. Our ideas must be attentive to
the resources they demand and realize potential resources they produce. And we must think
innovatively with technology, rather than indiscriminately relying on standard technology that is not a
perfect fit for communities.

experience decision-making that tends to be
slower paced, and non-responsive to the actual
OR

Undertake reforms that delegate different kinds
of decision-making to local governments to
ensure that progress happens quickly, and
specific local conditions are taken into account.
Appendix - Business Sense Review - Smarter Sanitation
Taking Action: Business Sense Review

At this point, we have a question for you: Have you found some
new ways of thinking about hygiene, sanitation, and wastewater
management in this CD?
We hope you can appreciate and adopt the business sense that we
have tried to introduce into sanitation and wastewater sector
problem solving.
This section captures all the Business Unusual ideas presented in the CD sections.
Throughout the course of our work in the various water subsectors, it is good to reflect on these
principles to ensure we are not falling back into old, ineffectual habits of thinking and doing.
Address Attitudes and Misconceptions: Gain a New "Business Unusual Outlook" on Your Sector
Working the Policy: Having the policy is one thing. Implementing it is another
Community Approaches: People As Part of Change
Technology: Choices that Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Address Attitudes and Misconceptions: Gain a New Business Unusual

Outlook on Your Sector
We adopt new attitudes.
We realize that certain long-standing beliefs may actually be misconceptions, which come from
incomplete information or orientation.
We believe that change is possible with a new outlook on the sector and begin sharing this new
outlook within the workplace, with the public, and partners in development
We agree to disagree on water debates. We see water is both a social and economic good and
agree to solutions that will accomplish three goals: 1) expand sanitation coverage to poor,
unserviced areas; 2) contribute to the sustainability and efficiency of utilities and facilities; and 3)
contribute to the financial viability of utilities.
We raise the publics awareness about the need for sanitation and wastewater treatment as
prevention against dangerous diseases and harmful environments that are risks to their health and
ability to earn.
We believe that with greater public understanding, people will agree to pay for services that save
them money by protecting their health and income.
We commit to invest in the sanitation and wastewater sectors and find necessary financing. Not
doing so could be more expensive. For example, the loss of productivity due to water and
sanitation-related illnesses and potential outbreaks may result in additional health-care costs.
Prior to investing in sanitation and wastewater treatment projects, we assess where alternative
approaches to major infrastructure may be more suitable and sufficient.
Where new infrastructure truly is needed, we ensure that projects are always accompanied by
soft or social-based components that are fully resourced to make the infrastructure sustainable.
This requires everyone's commitment to appreciate all professions and perspectives involved,
including ideas from nontraditional placescivil society and community groupsthat are sometimes
excluded from the decision-making process.
The Government asserts itself and seeks collaboration and equal participation in the process,
whether it is paper research, gathering perspectives from local governments and communities, or
advising the development agency representative or consultant.
Working The Policy: Having The Policy Is One Thing; Implementing It Is

Another
We undertake reforms that delegate different kinds of decision-making to local governments to
ensure that progress happens quickly, and specific local conditions are taken into account.
Water utilities are natural monopolies, andwhether publicly or privately runneed to be
regulated. We seek regulation for a check and balance measure to ensure adequacy of services
and affordability of tariffs.
The central governments take the lead in policy and guidelines formulation. Legislation and
regulation adequately establishes the roles and responsibilities of sector institutions.
The local governments assume a much bigger role in implementing the policy and monitoring
compliance since they are closest to the utility that delivers the sanitation and wastewater service
and closest to the people who receive the service.
Central government initiates the formulation of policy, taking into account the cost required to
implement the policy, and gets local government involved in implementing it and monitoring
compliance with it.
Central and local governments recognize the need to support the capacity development needs of
utilities. After all, investment in capacity development will redound in better service.
Community Approaches: People As Part of Change

Because good hygiene practices are the first line of defense against disease, we mainstream
hygiene promotion activities into all water supply and sanitation projects. These activities involve
more than just education programs, but involve communities in the design, and implementation,
and monitoring of the projects activities.
We invest in human capital as well as infrastructure. Governments, NGOs, and development
organizations seek the active participation of communities, building them into the main drivers of
projects.
We motivate our communities to seek the resolution of their sanitation problems.
Technology: Choices that Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

We explore new technologies and approaches.
We are willing to replicate and/or upscale innovative ideas that have already been tested and that
after thorough studyshow great potential for success in our target locations.
We are willing to pilot test those new ideas that have not yet been tested .
Our wastewater management strategies are proactive by concentrating on ways of reducing
wastewater and recycling it for reuse, so that the impact of waste on our environment is lessened.
We consider alternative technologies, not just technologies from the developed countries, because
they conserve water and the production of wastewater and users can more easily adapt to them.
We get tougher with polluters through incentives and penalties (higher tariffs and fines) as
measures for convincing them to either produce cleaner wastewater, less wastewater, or recycled
wastewater for their reuse.
We consider variations of standard technology that are both economically affordable and culturally
acceptable, such as the two-pit flush toilet.
We consider sanitation solutions even in difficult locations by using innovative approaches, such as
public pay-and-use toilets in slums, markets, and other heavily populated public places.
We build what will be affordable, manageable, and sustainable in a community.
We consider all costs and impacts before choosing an option (Life Cycle Analysis).
We no longer wait for all or nothing solutions, but rather we implement interim solutions that
have a positive effect while we develop longer-term solutions, such as the pay-and-use toilets in
slum areas.
We sort through all the ideas and technologies and provide a decision tool to people, which helps
them help themselves.
Our strategies focus on preventing pollution before it is created.
We value waste as a resource, using safe waste for agricultural purposes.
We involve communities in the decision-making process because technologies chosen must be used
by them.
The challenges are great and the solutions are not simple or easy.
One of the lessons from history is that the problems will not go
away by themselves and must be solved sooner or laterand it will
be better to solve these problems sooner to avoid potentially dire
consequences and increasing costs. Doing nothing is not an option.
In fact, doing nothing is a public health risk. Lack of sanitation and
wastewater is linked to disease and disease traps people in poverty.
However, some of the poor are not aware of the linkages between
waste and disease; and even if they were aware, they may not
know how to solve this problem effectively. Once people know the
link between sanitation and diseaseand they know how to fix this
problemthey will likely take action. Public involvement and
commitment on sanitation and wastewater projects is essential.
Recognizably, the costs of effective sanitation and wastewater systems are significant and people are not
usually willing to pay to establish themespecially when they have a tradition of on-site sanitation. Even
developed countries have faced the challenge of funding these systems and resorted to a combination of
government and citizen funding. The challenge in developing countries is even greater and financial
assistance is essential.
Still, money is not enough. Taking effective action in sanitation and wastewater requires a framework of
institutions, capabilities, regulations, resources, and commitment. It takes time to develop a good
framework. It takes time to build the capacity of people to manage sanitation and wastewater systems,
but in many cases it is the capacity of people that is the key ingredient for a project's success.
There is a risk in framework building though. While we study the sanitation situation of our country,
study it again, and study it some more, the problems get worse. While governments debate laws and
regulations over the years, they do their citizens a disservice. With the successful approaches and models
that exist in the world today, no country needs to reinvent the wheel. Other countries can be a rich
source of examples and modelsas long as people do not discount these resources just because the
other countries have more.
Appendix - Case Studies of Lessons Learned - Smarter Sanitation
Introduction: Lessons From Near and Far, Long Ago And

Recently
As long as there have been creatures on the earth, there has
been waste. Creatures great and small, including people, have
taken care of their waste. If they had not, they would not have
survived. As the centuries marched on, our world has become
increasingly populated and our environment increasingly
stressed. Over the last 200 years, we have found news ways to
cope.
This section takes a look at the lessons from history found in case studies from countries and times as
far and wide as medieval London to 17 th century Philippines, when it was ruled by Spain. More recent
lessons from history are also presented in this collection of country case studies.
What can you learn from these countries experiences?
United Kingdom: The Trouble With Thames
Read about London's lessons with pollution, failed legislation, and epidemics on the famed Thames.
United States: From Simple Sewers To National Regulation
Read about the growing pains the US felt as it tried to deal with wastewater in different historical
ages.
Philippines: Paralysis Through Analysis?
On paper, the Philippines looks to have a well-developed legal and institutional framework for its
water sector. Implementing all its laws has been quite a challenge though.
Chile: Characterized By Two Waves of Reforms
Chilean Urban Water and Sanitation sector has been in continuous development since the middle of
the 19th century.
For Further Reading/ About Lesson Learned
United Kingdom : The Trouble With Thames

The United Kingdom (UK) has been dealing with wastewater issues since 1383 AD, which is over 600
years ago. Even its more modern approaches were implemented in the 1860salmost 150 years ago. So,
when we look to a developed country like the UK, we must realize that its wastewater capabilities have
developed over many years and have been supported by a population with the means to pay.
While we can all learn from the current practices in the developed world, we must also realize the time it
takes to build a wastewater sector. Wastewater management in many developing countries is more like
the UK of 50 to 100 years ago than it is like the UK of today.
A Sore to the Senses
Epidemics, Pollution, the Clean-up
Lessons Learned
A Sore to the Senses

There was concern about the pollution of the tidal Thames as far back as medieval times
when an Act of Parliament in 1383 ordered that anyone with latrines over the Wallbrook
Stream (a small tributary of the Thames in central London) would have to pay 2 shillings a
year toward the cost of cleaning up the river. There was another Act in 1388 making it illegal
to pollute ditches, rivers, water, and the air of London. In 1535, at the time of Henry VIII, a
further Act was passed prohibiting the casting of rubbish and pollution into the Thames.
However, with no means of enforcement and a growing population with no means of
disposing of its waste, the Acts were rather ineffectual.
The 1841 census showed that there were 270,000 houses in Central London. It is most likely
that all these houses would have had cesspits, which, more often than not, overflowed.
Consequently, the tidal Thames was considerably polluted. By this time, the Industrial
Revolution was well under way and an increasing number of factories, slaughter houses,
tanneries, and other industries grew along the banks of the river. This, together with a
growing population, led to an increase in pollution from industrial wastes and overflowing
cesspits.
Two key events finally spelt the destruction of the Thamesthe rapid increase in the use of
the water closet (which dramatically increased the volume of waterborne waste) and the
requirement in the Metropolitan Building Acts 1844 and 1847 that all new buildings be
connected to the common sewers. This meant that more and more waste from the
population of London went directly into the River untreated and by 1849 fish had
disappeared from the tidal Thames. At that time, water was still being abstracted from the
Thames for public consumption and cholera 27 was rife.
Epidemics, Pollution, the Clean-up

Between 1831 and 1866, there were 4 cholera epidemics during which over 35,000 people
died, but it was not until the third epidemic in 1853 to 1854 that cholera was linked to the
water supply. It was at this time that the cleaning up began.
In 1858, a heat wave occurred and the disgusting smell from the river caused so much
disruption to Members of Parliament that they hung sheets soaked in chloride of lime from
the windows of the House of Commons. In addition, many tons of chalk lime, chloride of lime
and carbolic acid were tipped into the Thames but with little or no effect. This became known
as the year of the "Great Stink."
Immediately prior to this, between 1848 and 1855, six successive commissions were set up
to seek a solution to the pollution problem. In 1855, the last Commission was replaced by
the Metropolitan Board of Works which considered many proposals. After much debate and
acrimony, it was the plan of the board's own Chief Engineer, Joseph Bazalgette (later Sir),
which was finally adopted. This scheme involved the construction of a network of sewers on
both sides of the river running down to outfalls at Beckton on the north bank and Crossness
on the south bank. 28
_______________________________
27 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cholera is an infection of the intestines caused by bacteria in drinking
water or food. It can spread rapidly in areas without adequate treatment of sewage and drinking water. Without medical attention,
cholera can cause death in a matter of hours.
28 Dot and Ian Hart, The River Thames: Its Pollution and Clean-up, http://www.the-river-thames.co.uk/environ.htm.
Lessons Learned
Pollution worsens with the density of the population and the degree of commercial and industrial
activity.
Regulations and fees without effective enforcement will not work.
Ample water sources and the use of the toilet will increase the amount of waterborne waste and
increase pollution, unless something is done to manage the waste.
It was not until the third epidemic in 1853 to 1854 that cholera was linked to the water supply.
It was at this time that the clean up began. When people understand the connection between
disease and wastewater, they will act to fix the problem.
During that same decade, the Great Stink made conditions unlivable in London and further
spurred action. Often, we do not act until matters reach crisis proportionseven when we know
there is a problem to fix.
United States: From Simple Sewers To National Regulation

The growth of metropolitan areas in the United States (US) began to explode, starting in the
1840s; it continued to do so on through the turn of the century.
Water systems were being implemented by cities and towns for two basic reasons: 1) for
firefighting, and 2) to deliver water directly to individual homes and businesses. Per capita
water usage changed dramatically: from 5 to 15 gallons (gal)/day (before the presence of
municipal water systems), to volumes ranging from 75 gal/capita/day up to over 150
gal/capita/day! Once the water was easily/readily made available, the use of water closets
soon came into prominence. 29
Approaches through the Ages
Boston Harbor: An Example of Sore Water
Lessons Learned
Approaches through the Ages

Early sewer systems in the US were developed on an as-needed basisto get sewage
(human wastes) away from the sources of water (private wells). Most systems were designed
and built by common sense, with little or no guidance from trained professionals, for there
were few such trained people in existence in those times (colonial days through the 184050s).
Early 1800sstorm waters and waste. In the early 1800s, new community sewers were
initially (and primarily) installed to take care of storm water; privies and leaching cesspools
were used for human wastes. Still, a lot of human wastes from the early residents of the
larger towns (following the model of their European forefathers) were unofficially put into the
sewersthose wastes were either thrown out (from chamber pots) into the streets, leaked
onto the ground from poorly designed/maintained privies/cesspools, or were directly
deposited on the ground; wastes were then conveyed by storm water into the streets and on
into the sewers.30
_______________________________
29 Jon C. Schladweiler, Tracking Down the Roots of Our Sanitary Sewers, http://www.sewerhistory.org/chronos/design_choices.htm
30 Jon C. Schladweiler, Tracking Down the Roots of Our Sanitary Sewers Sewage Disposal," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia.
(c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation http://members.aol.com/erikschiff/history2.htm
Early 1900sWastewater treatment begins. At the beginning of the 20th century, a few
cities and industries began to recognize that the discharge of sewage directly into the
streams caused health problems, and this led to the construction of sewage-treatment
facilities. Because of the abundance of diluting water and the presence of sizable social and
economic problems during the first half of the 20th century, few municipalities and industries
provided wastewater treatment. 31
Mid-1900streatment gets more technical, legal. During the 1950s and 1960s, the US
government encouraged the prevention of pollution by providing funds for the construction of
municipal waste-treatment plants, water-pollution research, and technical training and
assistance. New processes were developed to treat sewage, analyze wastewater, and
evaluate the effects of pollution on the environment. In spite of these efforts, however,
expanding population and industrial and economic growth caused the pollution and health
difficulties to increase.
In response to the need to coordinate efforts to protect the environment, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on 1 January 1970. In December of
that year, a new independent body, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created
to bring under one roof all the pollution-control programs related to air, water, and solid
wastes. In 1972, the Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act)
Amendments expanded the role of the federal government in water pollution control and
significantly increased federal funding for the construction of waste-treatment works.
Congress has also created regulatory mechanisms and established uniform effluent
standards.32
Boston Harbor : An Example of Sore Water

Though Metropolitan Boston's sewer system was one of the best in the country 100 years ago, decades
of neglect brought it to the brink of disaster in the early 1980s.
Wastewater treatment plants built in the 1950s and 1960s were overloaded and not functioning at top
capacity owing to poor maintenance. Raw sewage was discharged to the Boston Harbor making it one of
the most polluted harbors in the world. Fish and lobster taken from the harbor were not safe to eat.
It took a federal court order to force a clean-up of the harbor through the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authoritya new quasi-municipal agency with enough autonomy to get the job done. New
treatment facilities and an ocean outfall solved the problem. So now, sea life has returned to the harbor,
including the whales.
Lessons Learned
Again, pollution worsens with the density of the population and the degree of commercial and
industrial activity.
The practice of sewage collection came after the practice of collecting storm waterso using the
storm water system to collect wastes was a convenient solution. What would these early
developers have done if the storm water collection system did not exist? Perhaps they would have
found other ways to deal with human waste.
_____________________________
31 PHILIPPINES : Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project, Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of
Experiences and Lessons, page 10.

32 IBID, page 57.
While the solution to pollution is dilution philosophy worked historically, it does not work in our
modern world because water bodies are not always large enough to dilute pollution coming from
exploding population rates and heavy industries.
The US government was the prime mover in bringing wastewater collection and treatment to
communities in the US in the 1950s-1960sa short 50 years ago. Without the government
support many communities would not have been able to build these systems.
The US found it necessary to establish a strong regulator to set standards, enforce them, and
reduce pollutionthe US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency that has been in
existence for only 30 years.
Wastewater management is a relatively new concepteven in the developed world.
The US Clean Water Act is a resource for developing countries and can also be found on the EPA
website, which a rich source of information on water quality standards and enforcement
procedures.
Boston Harbor: lack of proper maintenance rendered wastewater treatment facilities ineffective
and spoiled a harbor that once teemed with sea-life. Butowing to political opposition to raising
ratesit took a federal court order to set things straight. Ignoring a problem does not make it go
away, and the cost of solving a problem will only increase over time.
The Philippines: Paralysis Through Analysis?

We can see parallels in the development of the Philippine sector and the United States (US):
development of regulations, standards, and incentive programs. As you review this case study though,
you may find yourself wondering whether the countrys considerable efforts to study and establish the
legislative and regulatory framework for wastewater management have been effective.
While the frameworks are in place, the challenge remains to finance the needed improvements.
Furthermore, throughout these legislative efforts, pollution has likely increased. Paralysis through
analysis? This legislative review of the Philippines suggests that it is possible to spend too much time
studying and getting just the right framework in placeat the expense of populations who face
increasingly polluted living conditions.
A Legal History
The Sanitation Emphasis
Some Implementation Underway
Lessons Learned
A Legal History
Statutory provisions on environmental issues in the Philippine legal system date back more
than 130 years. The Spanish law on waters of 1866 was extended to the Philippines in 1871
with the following provision: when an industrial establishment was found after the
investigation, to have contaminated the waters with substances or properties noxious to the
public health, the Governor General could suspend its operations until the owner adopted
remedy.
Powers to Protect. In 1935, the Philippine Constitution declared that the state, in the
exercise of its inherent powers, may adopt measures to protect the health, the welfare,
safety, etc. of the community. The Constitutional guarantees on the right to life, liberty, and
property are not absolute. Weighed against a greater public interest, these rights have to
yield to reasonable regulations.
Quality Standards Set. In 1964, through Republic Act No. 3931, the National Water and Air
Pollution Control Commission (NAWAPCO) was formed to maintain reasonable standards of
quality for air and water.
In December 1975, Presidential Decree No. 856 established the Code on Sanitation, which
dealt in detail with water supply, excreta disposal, sewerage, and drainage. Chapter XVII of
the Code contained provisions for sewerage collection and disposal, as well as drainage, with
implementing rules and regulations.
New Agencies for the Job. In 1976, Republic Act No. 3931 was revised by Presidential
Decree No 984, and NAWAPCO was replaced by the National Pollution Control Commission
(NPCC). In the same year, an Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Protection (IACEP)
under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was created to assess
the environmental situation, as well as government policies and programs on environmental
protection.
In 1977, IACEP recommended the creation of the National Environment Protection Council
(NEPC), established under Presidential Decree No. 1121. The Council became responsible for
rationalizing the functions of government agencies for an effective, coordinated, and
integrated system of environmental protection, research and implementation/enforcement of
environmental laws.
Standards Re-set. In the late 1970s, Presidential Decree No. 1151, known as the Philippine
Environmental Policy, was promulgated. The law required all agencies and instrumentalities of
the national government, including government-owned and-controlled corporations, as well as
private firms and entities, to prepare an environmental statement on their every action,
project or undertaking that significantly affects the quality of the environment. Presidential
Decree No. 1152, known as the Philippine Environmental Code , established standards for air
and water quality, and guidelines for land use, natural resources, groundwater and waste
management.
In June 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1586 augmented the environmental statement system
by providing sanctions for non-compliance with the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
requirement. The scope of the system was also restricted to "environmentally critical projects
to be located in environmental critical areas." This Presidential Decree, however, was not
implemented until 1982.
Medium Term Plans Required. In 1993, the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
(MTPDP) covering the period 1993-1998 was developed. It spelled out the development goals
and objectives, strategy, policy framework, priority development programs and targets of
various sectors. This initiative included a medium term plan for the water supply and
sanitation sector.
The Sanitation Emphasis

Up to 1994, efforts to develop the water supply and sanitation sector focused mainly on the construction
of physical facilities, primarily for water supply. In the sanitation sub-sector, more attention was given to
strengthening sector policy, strategy, operational frameworks, and institutional capabilities.
It was then deemed necessary that specific measures be identified through an in-depth assessment of
implementation experiences, including private sector participation in water supply provision, and an
analysis of emerging issues and concerns. Hence, the decision to update the medium term plan, and to
formulate a sector investment plan, now referred to as the 1994 National Urban Sewerage and Sanitation
Strategy Plan (NUSS). The purpose of the investment was to create a more effective institutional
framework to guide policy and institutional reforms and to propose an appropriate development strategy
and investment plan to improve sewerage and sanitation coverage nationally.
Sanitation Given Higher Priority. In March 1994, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
adopted Resolution No. 5 based on the NUSS plan. The new plan gave high priority to improved
sanitation and sewerage in urban areas. In box The resolution also included the following propositions:
Ensure that on-site sanitation facilities are readily adaptable to future sewerage systems
All new housing developments, central business districts, and high income areas shall have low
cost (simplified) sewerage systems
Industrial wastes and collected municipal wastes shall be treated in accordance with DENR
standards
Services shall be based on demand and on willingness-to-pay criteria
Utilization of external sources of assistance
LGUs will be responsible for implementing sanitation and sewerage projects and programs
The national government shall assist Local Government Units (LGUs), through the Central Program
Support Office (CPSO) lodged with the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), in institutional
development, training, financial management, planning, and program management.
Some Implementation Underway

To assist LGUs in carrying out sanitation and sewerage projects, the Department of Finance (DOF) made
loans available through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for the a project called Water District
Development Project (WDDP). Due to budgetary constraints, LWUA's role was reprogrammed to that of
an advisor to the Land Bank of the Philippines.
There were originally six pilot project sites for WDDP: the cities of Cagayan de Oro, Cotabato, Dagupan,
Davao, and General Santos, plus the municipality of Calamba. However, General Santos City backed out
from the project, leaving only five sites to proceed with the project in 1996.
Due to delays in meeting loan requirements, negotiations dragged on until 1998, a local election year.
After those elections, no firm commitments or interest came forth for the project, and local officials had
other priorities. Moreover, the impact of the regional financial crisis that began in mid-1997 contributed
to LGU decisions to drop the project.
WDDP was later restructured into a broad-based environmental fund for sanitation, sewerage, drainage
and the Barangay Environmental Sanitation Plan (BESP) to assist LGUs to pursue demand-driven subprojects. The restructuring required the creation of the Project Management Office at LBP. In July 1999,
the revived WDDP commenced with two LGUs signing subsidiary loan agreements. To date, four LGUs
are participating in the program, constructing off-site sanitation through formal drainage systems with
dry weather flow interceptors and sewerage facilities.
Lessons Learned
Philippines developed regulations, standards, and incentive programs
Sewerage management projects, even those employing alternative technology options, are very
expensive. Individual users cannot be expected to shoulder the full cost of sewerage systems. The
cost of urban sewerage and sanitation programs must be shared among households, business and
other users, communities, local government units and the national government.
The Philippine national government has been unwilling to subsidize sewerage projects. But if it
intends to pursue health and environmental improvements, it is not enough to declare that
sewerage and sanitation projects have the highest priority; environmental preservation has been
on the governments priority list for a long time. It is also imperative for the national government
to provide grants or subsidies to share the cost of such projects. In other countries, the push for
environmental projects was accompanied by substantial financing assistance from the national
government.
Interest and commitment generated from cities through demand-driven approaches should be key
factors in deciding where to undertake very costly sanitation improvement projects.
Sewerage projects must also consider users ability and willingness to pay. If tariffs are based on
full cost recovery plus operation and maintenance costs as national government guidelines
require many poor households will not be able to afford a sewer connection.
Title VI of the Philippine Environmental Code calls for achieving a rational and orderly balance
between man and his environment.
It also recognizes the need for education and public
information about environmental protection and research and incentives to encourage people to
do the right thing.
It has taken a number of years for the Philippines to study, assess and establish the legislative
and regulatory framework for wastewater managementand the challenge remains to finance the
needed improvements. And all the while, pollution was likely increasing. Paralysis through
analysis? Sometimes, we spend too much time studying and getting just the right framework in
place at the expense of populations who face increasingly polluted living conditions.
Chile: Characterized By Two Waves Of Reforms

"Chilean Urban Water and Sanitation sector has been in continuous development since the middle of the
19th century. That is, when the first water and sewerage works started being built in the main cities of
the country. The last two major institutional changes started at the end of 1970 decade and a third one
is being foreseen shortly.
First Wave of Reforms
Second Wave of Reforms
Remaining Challenges
Lessons Learned
First Wave of Reforms

The first important institutional reform was made by 1977. It had as a main objective the integration in
one hand of water and sanitation activities to take advantage of scale economies and to optimize and
enhance the systems. The new entities were designed to work on a regional basis.
Semi-autonomous utilities. Two semi-autonomous utilities were created, EMOS in the metropolitan
region and ESVAL in the 5th region. Eleven regional services were also established, one in each of the
remaining 11 regions of the country. EMOS integrated EAPS, Empresa de Alcantarillado de Santiago and
the other public water services in the region.
Regulation. A regulator body was instituted, Servicio Nacional de Obras Sanitarias (SENDOS), as a main
division of the Ministry for Public Works. SENDOS was made responsible for central planning, financing
and administration of the regional services and became the regulator and controller of services and
utilities. SENDOS made tariffs proposal for being presented for approval to the Ministry of Economy.
However, tariffs level was kept low in the regions and the regional services continued receiving financial
assistance from central government. EMOS and ESVAL benefited from water and sewerage integration,
had some tariff increases and started to use its own financial resources for investments.
System Upgrades Begin. In 1980, EMOS received a $26 million loan from the World Bank to upgrade
the water system according with a $70 million investment plan. This plan included the first master plan
for wastewater treatment and safe disposal in the metropolitan region. It also included a master plan to
extend the sewerage system.
In 1986, EMOS received a $60 million second loan from the World Bank, to be applied in a $150 million
new investment plan that included the basic works for wastewater treatment. By the same period,
SENDOS received a loan from IDB to upgrade regional services.
Second Wave of Reforms

Coverage continued increasing throughout the country. However, the low level of tariffs still did not allow
all services and utilities to grow.
By the end of the 1980s (1988-1989) a second important institutional reform was applied to the Chilean
water and sanitation sector. Its main objective was to give financial stability to water and sanitation
activities, while reinforcing the regulatory capacity of the government. A set of law and regulations were
passed and a regulatory body, totally separated from operational activities, was created. The reform also
included laws that allowed the selling of EMOS and ESVAL to the private sector.
With the new orientation and the funds coming from fair tariffs, public companies started a period of
enhancement and high investments.
Tariff Increases. The first 5-year tariffs period began in 1990, and considered a gradual annual rise to
reach the legal limit. This meant, on the average, a total increase of about 70% in real termsthat is
without taking into account adjustments for inflation. The second 5-year tariff's period started in 1995.
The average tariffs rise was now about 6% and was to be maintained until 1999. The growth of public
utilities infrastructure was outstanding: Urban water and sewerage coverage reached the highest levels
of Latin America. The demand for water and sanitation was increasing, and because of the extension of
water and sanitation systems to poor neighborhoods.
System Improvements. The first works for wastewater treatment and safe disposal started to be built
and operated by the beginning of the 1990s. EMOS and ESVAL initiated the construction of wastewater
discharges interceptors (big collectors). In 1992, the first wastewater treatment plant, a pilot
nonconventional plant was built in Santiago. The definitive plan for wastewater treatment in the
metropolitan region was completed in 1994.
In 1995, the decision of building three large plants was taken, to reach sewage treatment coverage of
about 70 % within 15 years. In other regions, wastewater collectors, nonconventional wastewater
treatment plans and marine outfalls for safe sewage disposal were designed, and started to be built and
to be operated.
Impact on Public Health Risks. Cholera was controlled in Chile as a result of emergency measures
taken by the Ministry of Health. Yet, it is important to take into account the rise in sewerage coverage
and the initiation of the basic works for wastewater treatment and safe disposal in the metropolitan
region and in other regions.
Other waterborne diseases, as typhoid, decreased from 6,700 cases in 1989 to 1,400 in 1995. The
decrease of typhoid cases was even more important in the metropolitan region, from 4,100 cases in 1989
to 390 cases in 1995.
Lessons Learned
Building an effective water and wastewater sector can take a number of years, during which the roles and
responsibilities of various players may changewith government becoming more of a regulator and less of a
financier.
Low tariffs mean low service because there is little money to cover operational costs, not to mention funds to
expand infrastructure and, in turn, services. But, building wastewater systems may require financial contributions
in addition to tariffsfrom government, donor agencies, and the private sector.
The private sector can play an important and effective role at providing and/or improving wastewater services.
Again, we see that development of the wastewater systems contributed to reducing outbreaks of typhoid and
cholera.
Remaining Challenges
Although most of the public companies are well run, some of them lack business administration capacity,
and technological development. On the other hand, large infrastructure investments, yearly increasing,
are required. The main investments are required for providing service to new urban population, for
upgrading deteriorated systems, for building wastewater treatment plants, for developing new raw water
sources, etc.
Competition normally leads private companies to constant growth to survive in an always changing
business environment. Public companies lack enough flexibility to face a continuous situation of
advancement and renewal. Political interference could be also a menace to modern management of
public companies. Thus, the sale of the public water and sanitation companies to the private sector could
be an advisable government policy.
By the middle of 1995, the government presented to Congress a proposal to modify the current law. The
main aims of the proposal were: to join in one legal document the different laws in action; prevent
power concentration (majority of shares of many sector companies in one hand); ensure that urban
development is supported by water and sanitation infrastructure; and protect and introduce some forms
of competitiveness.
Lessons Learned
Building an effective water and wastewater sector can take a number of years, during which the
roles and responsibilities of various players may changewith government becoming more of a
regulator and less of a financier.
Low tariffs mean low service because there is little money to cover operational costs, not to
mention funds to expand infrastructure and, in turn, services. But, building wastewater systems
may require financial contributions in addition to tariffsfrom government, donor agencies, and
the private sector.
The private sector can play an important and effective role at providing and/or improving
wastewater services.
Again, we see that development of the wastewater systems contributed to reducing outbreaks of
typhoid and cholera.
For Further Reading About Lessons Learned

Sanitation for the Poor: The experience of the Indian alliance of SPARC, Mahila Milan and NSDF (1984 to
2003) reports on nearly 20 years of experience implementing sanitation programs in India.
Water and Sanitation Program Knowledge Network: http://www.wsp.org/ and its regional networks: East
Asia and Pacific: http://www.wsp.org/07_EastAsia.asp and South Asia :
http://www.wsp.org/07_SouthAsia.asp.
The Development Gateway: http://home.developmentgateway.org/
ELDIS: funded by Sida, NORAD, DFID and SDC, ELDIS is one of a family of knowledge services provided
by the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex http://www.eldis.org/index.htm
The Sanitation Connection, a site developed by IRC and WEDC on behalf IWA, UNEP (GPA), WSP, WSSCC
and WHO: http://www.sanicon.net/topics.php3
Un Habitat: Best Practices in Improving the Living Environment, http://www.bestpractices.org/
Patel, Sheela, Sanitation for the Poor: The experience of the Indian alliance of SPARC, Mahila Milan and
NSDF (1984 to 2003) , SPARC (Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres) Mahila Milan
(`women together) and NSDF (National Slum Dwellers Federation), October 2003
Conclusion: What Lessons Remind Us

The challenges are great and the solutions are not simple or easy. One of the lessons from history is
that the problems will not go away by themselves and must be solved sooner or laterand it will be
better to solve these problems sooner to avoid potentially dire consequences and increasing costs . Doing
nothing is not an option.
In fact, doing nothing is a public health risk. Lack of sanitation and wastewater is linked to disease and
disease traps people in poverty. However, some of the poor are not aware of the linkages between
waste and disease; even if they were aware, they may not know how to solve this problem effectively.
Once people know the link between sanitation and diseaseand they know how to fix this problemthey
will likely take action. Public involvement and commitment on sanitation and wastewater projects are
essential.
Recognizably, the costs of effective sanitation and wastewater systems are significant and people are not
usually willing to pay to establish themespecially when they have a tradition of on-site sanitation. Even
developed countries have faced the challenge of funding these systems and resorted to a combination of
government and citizen funding. The challenge in developing countries is even greater and financial
assistance is essential.
Even still, money is not enough. Taking effective action in sanitation and wastewater requires a
framework of institutions, capabilities, regulations, resources, and commitment. It takes time to develop
a good framework. It takes time to build the capacity of people to manage sanitation and wastewater
systemsbut in many cases the capacity of people is the key ingredient for project success.
Theres a risk in framework building, though. While we study the sanitation situation of our country,
study it again, and study it some more, the problems get worse. While governments debate laws and
regulations over the course of years, they do their citizens a disservice. With the successful approaches
and models that exist in the world today, no country needs to reinvent the wheel. Other countries can be
a rich source of examples and modelsas long as people do not discount these resources just because
the other countries have more resources.

Smarter Sanitation How To Clean Up Your Sanitation and Wastewater Mess

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Smarter Sanitation How To Clean Up Your Sanitation and Wastewater Mess

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

This section, Attitudes and Misconceptions, identifies some of the

Business as usual approach

Business unusual approach

Keep the same attitudes.

One Major Attitude Problem

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Adopt new attitudes.

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Business unusual approach

Continue the debate over water as either a

Agree to disagree on the debate.

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Major Misconception #1: Infrastructure is too costly to implement.

Business unusual approach

It is too expensive to invest in sanitation and

First, commit to invest in these sectors and find

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Business unusual approach

Raise the public's awareness about the need for

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Business unusual approach

1. Demand to be true partners in development.

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Business unusual approach

Keep the same attitudes.

Adopt new attitudes.

Continue the debate over water as either a social or

Agree to disagree on the debate.

People are not willing to pay for sanitation and

Raise the public's awareness about the need for

It is too expensive to invest in sanitation and

First, commit to invest in these sectors and find

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 1 - Attitudes and Misconceptions - Smarter Sanitation

Business as usual approach

Business unusual approach

Infrastructure and facilities are the solution.

Prior to investing in sanitation and wastewater

The government asserts itself and seeks collaboration

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap1.html[7/19/2012 10:09:49 AM]

Chapter 2 - Working the Policy - Smarter Sanitation

Business as usual approach

We consider the funding requirements and

Centralized: "Top-Down", and Ineffective at "The Bottom"

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap2.html[7/18/2012 2:45:47 PM]

Chapter 2 - Working the Policy - Smarter Sanitation

Decentralization: Time to Take It Seriously

Business as usual approach

Business unusual approach

Undertake reforms that delegate different kinds of

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap2.html[7/18/2012 2:45:47 PM]

Chapter 2 - Working the Policy - Smarter Sanitation

Environmental policy- commitment to national action plans, procedures for environmental

Examples of strategies, laws, and policies

file:///C|/Users/Rx/Documents/Water/KPs/Smarter%20Sanitation/_chap2.html[7/18/2012 2:45:47 PM]

Chapter 2 - Working the Policy - Smarter Sanitation

For further reading:

Business unusual approach