About the cover: Pondering the water pollution problem ­ about 70 per cent of the total organic pollution of Philippine waters comes from untreated domestic wastewater. This serious threat to the country's freshwater sources and public health is something we just cannot afford to sit on. Urban Sewerage and Sanitation Lessons learned from case studies in the Philippines World Bank Water and Sanitation Program East Asia and the Pacific in partnership with The Government of the Philippines and The Government of Australia Published June 2003 World Bank Water and Sanitation Program ­ East Asia and the Pacific. This document is written by Andy Robinson based on his report, prepared with the Engineering & Development Corporation of the Philippines, Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: Final Report, released in April 2003, www.wpep.org Cover photo credits: Andrew Whillas The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data and images included in this publication. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the World Bank, AusAID or the Australian Government or the Government of the Philippines. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are the result of research supported by these organizations. They do not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, which are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its affiliated organizations, to AusAID, the GOA or the GOP. Urban Sewerage and Sanitation Lessons learned from case studies in the Philippines Contents Summary.......................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................... 3 Case Studies..................................................................................... 8 Factors of Success............................................................................. 14 Conclusions...................................................................................... 16 Recommendations............................................................................. 17 Summary Urban sanitation is one of the most serious inadequately treated sewage and effluent1 challenges facing the Government of the directly into stormwater drains, waterways and Philippines. As a result of rising urbanization over streets, with serious consequences for both water the last twenty years, more than half the quality and public health. population now live in densely populated cities and towns. By some estimates, about 80% of This bleak picture of urban sanitation in the these urban households have access to adequate Philippines reflects a prolonged lack of activity sanitation, such as toilets, but the vast majority or investment in the sector. WHO studies confirm of them are reliant on private sanitation facilities. that sanitation is the most effective single intervention for reducing diarrhoeal disease, Less than 8% of the households in Metro which is one of the biggest killers in the East Manila have sewer connections, and coverage Asia & Pacific region. Yet, in the last 30 years, is lower still in the rest of the country. Only investment in urban sanitation in the Philippines totals only 1.5% of that spent on urban water three of the 1,500 cities and towns in the supply. At least fourteen sewerage feasibility Philippines contain functioning public studies have been conducted in Philippine cities sewerage systems, and these are now old, in recent years, but none have come to fruition. undersized, and in need of major rehabilitation. A few communal toilets have However, there are signs of renewed interest been constructed in low-income urban areas, in the sector, driven by growing evidence of but there is little evidence of any other public environmental decline and fears of its impact on sanitation services. valuable tourist assets, and, by new approaches arising from institutional and technological Faced with this void, urban residents have innovations. In order to encourage this trend, and provided their own sanitation facilities. Many to frame the key issues in the sector, the Water households now own a private toilet and an Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement individual septic tank, while more expensive Project (WPEP) commissioned a study of Urban housing developments often include private Sewerage and Sanitation in the Philippines. This sewerage systems and communal septic tanks. field note summarizes the findings of the WPEP Unfortunately, there has been little control or Phase II Study2, in which seven case studies of regulation of these private facilities, and many urban sewerage and sanitation systems in the are badly designed and constructed. All too Philippines were used to investigate `factors of often, poorly maintained septic tanks discharge success' and key constraints within the urban sanitation sector. 1 Effluent = wastewater flow from a sanitation facility (e.g. sewage treatment plant or septic tank) 2 Robinson and EDCOP (2003) `Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: Final Report', Manila: WPEP URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 1 The Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) WPEP is an action research project in the Philippines, which is jointly funded by AusAID (the Australian Government's aid program), the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank and the Government of the Philippines (GOP). The executing agency for the GOP is the Water Supply and Sanitation Program Management Office of the Department of Interior and Local Government (WSSPMO-DILG), with support from the Water and Sanitation Program ­ East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP). The goal of the project is "to enhance the access of the under-served rural and urban poor to adequate water and sanitation services on a sustainable basis." The WPEP action research agenda is demand driven through consultation with a broad range of water supply and sanitation sector practitioners in the Philippines. In Phase I, WPEP funded six background studies, which provided the basis for the learning agenda. Following consultation on these studies, WPEP Phase II commissioned local consultants to undertake four field-based studies on the following topics: · Small Towns Water and Supply Management Models (STWSMM); · Urban Sewerage and Sanitation (USS); · Small Scale Independent Providers (SSIP); · Rural Water: Models for Sustainable Development and Sector Financing (RWSFin) This field note is one of a series summarizing the results of the WPEP research program. "Luxurious" open sea toilets ­ a luxury the country cannot afford. uxuroius" Less than U$30M is invested in sanitation every year, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems. Background The Philippines consists of a chain of over capita incomes lag behind those of its neighbors 7,000 islands, dominated by the three island (see comparative regional data on page 5). groups of Luzon (in the north), Visayas (in the center), and Mindanao (in the south). The Development potential in the Philippines rests islands are heavily populated, with a largely on the abundant natural resources and population density more than double the well-educated workforce, with major economic average for the East Asia & Pacific region. The challenges coming from rapid population majority of the 76 million inhabitants now live growth, high levels of poverty and inequality, in urban areas, but urban growth has not been low productivity and intensified global matched by economic development, and per competition. The Asian financial crisis, triggered in mid-1997, hindered the Philippine economy, leading to a loss of foreign exchange reserves, a higher debt burden and falling share prices. There have since been signs of recovery, with GDP growth increasing from 0.1% in 1998 to 3.0% in 2000, but the Philippine Peso continues to lose value1, and both oil prices and interest rates have risen sharply. The economic difficulties have been heightened by serious political and security problems. Charges of corruption and inefficiency have affected many agencies, delaying projects and discouraging investment. However, a new administration took office in January 2001, and it has initiated a gradual economic recovery, leading to improved stability and confidence. 1The official exchange rate has fallen from P40 = US$1 in early 2000, to P53 = US$1 in early 2003 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 3 Privatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro Manila The service area of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was divided into East and West Zones, and two separate concession contracts were let. The contracts required the concessionaires to carry out the following sewerage and sanitation activities: · Manila Water Company (East Zone Concessionaire) to expand coverage of Central Sewerage System and implement sanitation programs in densely populated urban areas (including septage collection, barge loading station, septage treatment plant, rehabilitation of sewage pumping station and sewage treatment plant) · Maynilad Water Services (West Zone Concessionaire) to rehabilitate and upgrade existing sewerage systems, expand sewer network and improve management of sewerage services (including construction of two sewage treatment plants, evaluation of alternative methods of sludge disposal) SewerageTargets1 2001 2006 2011 East Zone 3% 16% 51% West Zone 16% 20% 21% 1 Sewerage coverage targets are expressed as a percentage of the total number of households connected to the MWSS water system Sewerage charges were planned to increase from 50% to 150% of household water bill, and the 10% environmental fee (charged to MWSS customers without sewer connections) was to be replaced by a sanitation charge equal to 75% of the water bill. However, as of early 2003, these increases have not taken place. Adapted from Ancheta, 2000 and David, 2000 4 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION Comparative regional data Country Population Urban Pop. density GNP per Female Urban (millions) population (per sq.km) capita (US$) literacy1 sanitation2 The Philippines 76 59% 253 $ 1,040 95% 88% Thailand 61 22% 119 $ 2,000 93% 98% Malaysia 23 57% 71 $ 3,380 82% 100% East Asia & Pacific 1,855 35% 116 $ 1,060 78% 61% Source: World Development Report 2001/02 1 Percent of literate adult women (aged 15 and above) 2 Percent of urban population with access to sanitation (1996) Urban sewerage & sanitation sector Sanitation in the Philippines In the early 1970s, the establishment of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System The term `sanitation' usually refers to any service or facility that maintains (MWSS) marked the end of central government public health by safely disposing of control of urban water supply and sanitation human (or other) waste. However, the services in the Philippines. MWSS was tasked term `sanitation' is used slightly with providing services in Metro Manila and its differently in the Philippines: disposal contiguous urban areas, whilst management of systems are classed as either `sewerage' provincial and municipal water and sewerage (pipe networks to off-site treatment and systems in the 1,500 other cities and towns was disposal), or `sanitation' (on-site facilities such as toilets and septic tanks). passed back to local government. In this fieldnote, `sanitation' has been Metro Manila has grown rapidly over the last used in its more general form, referring thirty years, and in the 1990s MWSS admitted to all services and facilities that safely that it was struggling to attract the investment dispose of human (or other) wastes, needed to expand and improve its services. including sewerage systems. Therefore, in 1997, MWSS took the bold step of signing 25-year concession contracts with two private consortia for the provision of water condition when handed over, and the relevant supply and sanitation services to Metro Manila. Local Government Units (LGUs) rarely had the These contracts included ambitious targets for capacity, technical knowledge or funds needed expanding sewerage and sanitation coverage to manage or improve their systems. Therefore, (see box on previous page). To date, the in 1973, LGUs were given the option to form concessionaires have focused on water supply, semi-autonomous Water Districts to manage with little progress toward the sewerage or their urban water supply and sewerage sanitation targets, and the success of the systems, using support and financing from the privatization is now being questioned following specially created Local Water Utilities tariff increases and the recent application by Administration (LWUA). More than 400 Water one of the concessionaires to withdraw from its Districts have now been formed, but their main contract. concern is water supply, and very few are actively involved in the provision of sanitation Most of the water supply and sanitation services. This leaves LGUs responsible for systems outside the capital were in poor sanitation services in most urban areas. URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 5 Access to urban sewerage and sewage to a communal septic tank. sanitation Whatever the system, be it individual or communal, septic tanks in the Philippines Sadly, urban sewerage and sanitation does rarely use the effluent disposal systems not appear to be a priority of local required by national regulations, and are government. Outside of Metro Manila, public seldom desludged (see box on Septic Tanks, sanitation services are almost non-existent. next page). The three public sewerage systems that still operate (in Baguio City, Zamboanga City and There are now huge numbers of septic tanks Vigan City) predate independence, having being used in urban areas, with more than a million been built by the Americans in the late 1920s in Metro Manila alone. Despite this, sludge and early 1930s. These aging systems provide treatment and disposal facilities are scarce, and Sanitation services in the Philippines Population Access to sanitation services (million) Sewerage On-site None Metro Manila (MWSS service area) 13.3 4% 41% 55% Other urban and rural areas 63.0 0% 88% 12% National 76.3 1% 74% 25% Source: ADB, 2001 On-site sanitation = sanitary toilets, septic tanks etc. limited residential coverage, as their sewer there is little or no control of effluent discharge. networks are centered on the downtown As a result, indiscriminate disposal of inadequately business districts and have seen little expansion treated effluent and untreated sludge are over the last seventy years. widespread, with serious consequences for both water quality and public health1. The absence of sewerage or other public sanitation services leaves the urban population The urban poor remain excluded from with few options for safe excreta disposal. sanitation services. Sewer networks do not reach Non-poor urban households have responded the slum and squatter settlements found in most by building their own sanitation facilities. Flush Philippine cities, and their inhabitants seldom (or pour-flush) toilets are popular in the have enough space or cash to construct private Philippines, and the majority of urban facilities like septic tanks. Communal toilets have households have connected their toilets to been provided in some densely populated low- private septic tanks. Many private housing income areas, but these typically serve small developments now construct small groups of households and are rarely well- `independent' sewer networks, which serve managed. Instead, most urban poor rely on those within the development, and pipe their unsanitary toilets, or defecate in the open. 1 A recent MWSS report estimates that 60% of the pollution load in the Pasig River and Laguna Bay derives from septic tank effluent and domestic wastewater discharges 6 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION Septic Tank Systems Operation: a septic tank is a water-filled box designed to collect and partially treat toilet wastes (feces and urine). When the toilet is flushed, the wastes flow through a pipe into the top of the septic tank. Heavy solids, such as feces, settle to the bottom of the tank, while liquids pass through before overflowing into a disposal system. Over time, bacteria within the septic tank break down some of the organic matter, thus the larger the tank is, and the more chambers it has, the better the treatment provided. Nevertheless, however well the septic tank functions, both the solids within the tank and the liquid that overflows from it contain harmful pathogens, hence are a potential source of infection and disease. For this reason, the effluent liquid must always be safely disposed of, either by allowing it to soak into the ground (away from water sources), or by passing it into a sewer network. SEPTIC TANK Maintenance: settled solids gradually accumulate at the bottom of the septic tank. When this sludge, or septage, occupies two-thirds of the depth of the tank, it needs to be removed, otherwise there is a risk that excreta will pass directly through the tank and overflow into the disposal system. The sludge is smelly, wet and highly pathogenic, so should always be removed by mechanical means (e.g. using a vacuum tanker) before being taken to an approved sludge treatment and disposal site. Practice: two types of septic tanks are found in the Philippines: private septic tanks, which collect wastes from individual household toilets; and communal septic tanks, which collect wastes from a number of household toilets, generally through a small sewer network. Private septic tanks are the most common - usually small, single chamber tanks, which provide minimal treatment and limited sludge storage. Very few of these private septic tanks are regularly desludged, which reduces the level of treatment provided, and heightens the risk of untreated sewage and effluent finding its way into the local environment. According to the 1975 `Code on Sanitation of the Philippines', all private septic tanks should pipe their effluent to a `sub-surface adsorption system' (or other treatment device), but this type of soakaway system requires additional space and investment, thus most urban households in the Philippines prefer to pipe their septic tank effluent directly to a nearby drain, canal or watercourse. URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 7 Case Studies In 2003, WPEP completed a study of urban introduction of sustainable and large- sewerage and sanitation in the Philippines. scale sewerage and sanitation systems in This study combined participatory community the Philippines assessments (made using the MPA1) with case studies of seven urban sewerage and The case studies included examples of the sanitation systems in five Philippine cities. The following sanitation models: objectives of the study were to: · public sewerage systems (three case · assess the performance of the different studies) urban sewerage & sanitation systems · independent sewerage systems serving · analyze the parameters that underlie small housing developments (two case their successful or unsuccessful studies) performance, and · communal toilets in low-income urban · provide recommendations for the areas (two case studies) Case study details Location Urban System Management Population System population served coverage* Baguio City 252,000 Public sewerage LGU 5,300 2% Zamboanga City 402,000 Public sewerage Water District 3,700 1% Vigan City 45,100 Public sewerage Water District 1,360 3% Bacolod City 429,000 Independent sewerage LGU 1,030 0.2% Independent sewerage LGU 990 0.2% Dagupan City 130,000 Communal toilet LGU 308 0.2% Communal toilet LGU 204 0.2% * Proportion of the urban population served 1 Methodology for Participatory Assessments (MPA) provides indicators and tools that allow assessors (including the community themselves) to measure the sustainability and use of community water and sanitation services, and the process whereby they were established 8 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 1. Access to sanitation that enabled construction of a sewage treatment plant and rehabilitation of parts of the sewer It is clear that the case study systems have network. Since then, the city government has had little impact on access to sanitation. They funded further improvements and rehabilitation, cover only a fraction of their host cities and serve and overseen a 30% increase in the number of an insignificant proportion of the urban sewer connections. However, despite these population. efforts, residential coverage remains very low (2%). Four of the case studies involve small systems: the two independent sewerage systems MPA research conducted in small in Bacolod City serve housing developments, communities1(refer to Figure 1) within the service each containing less than 200 households, areas of the case study systems shows that, on while the two communal toilets in Dagupan City average, 92% of households have access to are used by some 40 ­ 60 households. The three piped water supplies or to private water facilities, public sewerage systems cover larger areas, while 82% have access to sanitation facilities. including substantial numbers of commercial The socio-economic data indicates that some properties, but even these systems serve less of those without water supply are middle class than 3% of their urban populations. families that share water supplies with their neighbors, whereas poor2 households are the The case study systems have seen little only ones without sanitation facilities. The MPA expansion or improvement during their lifetime, also reveals that, even in neighborhoods where with most operating at or beyond their capacity public sanitation services are readily available, for some time. The Baguio City sewerage system a significant proportion of the community has is the exception, thanks to the 1984 JICA grant invested in private septic tanks. Figure 1 1 Two sample communities were surveyed at each of the five case study locations 2 `Poor' as defined by the participants during the MPA process URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 9 The Philippines already has one of the lowest per capita water availability in Southeast Asia. Unabated dumping of untreated wastewater in the country's water courses further reduces the available resource for water supply Focus group discussions suggested that poor Metro Zamboanga Water District sets its households lack access to sanitation services sewerage charges at 50% of the water bill, and for the following reasons: has a 99% collection rate, allowing it to fully recover its O&M costs. All of the other systems · uncertain land tenure (limiting charge flat rate (or zero) tariffs, collect investment by both residents and service revenues lower than their costs and, are providers) dependent on subsidies from the LGU or, where · high cost of services (notably connection managed by a Water District, on cross-subsidies fees) from water supply income. · insufficient space for facilities (no room for septic tanks; no route for sewer lines) 3. Institutional arrangements · marginal location (below main sewer line; on slopes too steep for sewers) The public sewerage systems examined are managed at the city level, by either the city 2. Financial sustainability government or Water District, while smaller sewerage and sanitation systems are generally run None of the Philippine case studies have by lower level LGUs, such as Barangay Councils1, capital or financing costs to repay, as the or by some form of residents' association. sewerage and sanitation systems are all either more than twenty years old, or were wholly Water Districts and City LGUs provide urban government (or grant) funded. Despite this, only services under very different conditions. Water one of the case studies generates sufficient Districts operate within government regulations, revenue to cover its operation and maintenance but normally receive no government funding, (O&M) costs. thus rely on effective management of their water 1 Barangay is the smallest administrative unit in the Philippines (20­ 100 barangays per city) 10 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION Tariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio City In Baguio City, the Public Utilities & Safety Office (PUSO) manages the technical aspects of the sewerage system. Billing and collection are carried out by the City Treasurer's Office, while the City Accounting Office handles disbursements and accounts. In 1995, Baguio City government signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the Baguio City Water District, whereby the Water District would add sewerage charges to the water bills of those with sewer connections, and return this sewerage revenue to the city government. The sewerage charges were to be set at 60% of the water bill, and the water district was to receive a collection fee equal to 10% of the sewerage revenues to recompense for its administrative costs. Unfortunately, immediately prior to implementation, the Water District decided that their collection fee was inadequate, and called off the agreement. Unable to charge based on actual water consumption, the LGU uses a flat rate sewerage tariff (based on average water consumption in four categories). However, there is no effective sanction for non-payment of sewerage fees, and less than 25% of costs were recovered in 2001. The City Treasurer's Office recently declared that commercial customers would not receive their business permit until they paid their annual sewerage fees, but this appears to have had little impact on revenues to date. Sewerage and sanitation is often an after-thought in the development of Philippine towns. Crowded cities allow insufficient space for the establishment of sewer lines or septic tanks. Environmental performance Case study Sewage Treatment facility Sludge Effluent Effluent treatment disposal disposal testing Baguio City Full Sewage treatment plant Drying beds River Yes Zamboanga City None None None Sea outfall No Vigan City Partial Communal septic tanks None River/fields No Bacolod City Partial Communal septic tank None Creek No Partial Communal septic tank None Open drain No Dagupan City Partial Septic tank None Soil No Partial Septic tank None Swamp No and sewerage systems to generate revenues. 4. Environmental sustainability As a result, Water Districts use relatively sophisticated systems for setting, billing and Environmental sustainability is a serious collecting tariffs, and carefully monitor problem. The Baguio City sewerage system performance and expenditure. In contrast, City is the only case study that safely disposes of LGUs receive substantial government funding the sewage and wastewater that it collects. on top of their local revenues, but usually have Thanks to the generous JICA grant received, no budget allocation for sewerage or sanitation, the Baguio City sewage treatment plant now and no dedicated sanitation staff. To make produces treated effluent suitable for matters worse, the financial results of LGU disposal into the nearby river, and has sludge sewerage and sanitation systems are combined thickeners and sludge drying beds that yield with those of its other government offices, dried solids suitable for use as agricultural making budgeting and planning of sanitation fertilizer. services very difficult. The other case study systems offer no Small LGUs have even less success in sewage treatment, other than the limited managing sewerage and sanitation systems. treatment and solids removal provided by Typically, they have very low revenues from their their septic tanks, and have no facilities to systems, negligible government funding, no safely dispose of the sludge collected, or to sanitation staff and limited technical capacity. test the quality of the septic tank effluent Therefore, they are reliant on external flowing from their systems into local assistance and user contributions whenever watercourses and fields. repairs or rehabilitation are required. 12 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 5. User satisfaction The MPA investigated user satisfaction with Urban households using septic tanks were existing sewerage and sanitation services. These generally very satisfied, noting that the satisfaction levels reflect, among other things, facilities were reliable and almost the performance of the system, the level of maintenance free, whereas sewer service provided, and the cost of the service. connections were perceived to be expensive The highest satisfaction levels were found and to require frequent maintenance. The among users of heavily subsidized LGU only drawbacks relating to septic tanks were sewerage systems, while the lowest were among found among those living in more marginal users of the communal toilets. Both poor and areas: the urban poor in riverine and coastal non-poor households remarked that they expect neighborhoods, where high water levels a high standard of service when they have to cause frequent blockages; and, households pay for it, and users of the two Water District living on steep slopes, which make building managed sewerage systems stated that the and maintaining adequately-sized septic current sewerage charges were too high for the tanks difficult. quality of service provided. Public toilets visited by the study team were so ill-maintained, it was no wonder their users were the least satisfied of all. URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 13 Factors of Success Baguio City can look forward to continuing income from tourism, thanks to foreign aid and subsidies. What will other cities do that are not so lucky? Whilst the negligible benefits or · autonomous management (political impacts achieved by the sewerage and and fiscal) sanitation systems examined by the WPEP · local political support study inevitably limit the positive lessons learned, the following common `factors of In most cases, those managing urban success' emerged from the analysis: sewerage and sanitation systems are local · dedicated sanitation units (trained government officials or Water District staff, with technical staff and separate sanitation many other duties and responsibilities, and little budget) time or incentive to improve the provision of 14 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION sanitation services. The establishment of a good cooperation between local stakeholders, sanitation unit comprising trained staff, whose especially when elected officials are sensitive main responsibility is the effective to popular concerns regarding tariffs. management of the sewerage or sanitation system, clearly improves the chances of Key Constraints success. However, small systems can rarely afford to employ specialist sanitation staff. The scarcity of success stories reflects the Instead, they require professional support and massive constraints upon the urban sanitation monitoring, which is currently unavailable in sector in the Philippines. Key constraints most Philippine cities and towns. identified by the WPEP study include: The importance of the autonomous · limited demand for alternatives to septic management of water supply and sanitation tanks (users are satisfied with their services is well-recognized, being the central systems) idea behind the creation of Water Districts. The · shortage of financially viable options for freedom to set cost-reflective tariffs that urban sanitation improvements generate reliable revenues, and to allocate · low awareness of environmental health these revenues according to operational and impacts of present sanitation strategic priorities, are vital for the effective arrangements financial management of sanitation services. · ineffective enforcement of sanitation Detailed and transparent sanitation accounts, regulations or user charges based on accurate billing and collection · competition from urban water supply (for systems, create a tight focus on cost recovery funding, resources, political support) and, when reinforced by regular performance monitoring, provide sound incentives for There are also institutional constraints. efficient management. LGUs are currently unable to provide efficient sanitation services. They lack technical capacity, Political support is essential to the financing and are run by elected officials with strong of new sanitation facilities, and to their incentives to keep tariffs low and allocate funds sustainability. Neither local authorities nor to other more popular activities. Water Districts Water Districts have the necessary capital or appear to offer an alternative, being relatively leverage to finance expensive sewer networks autonomous and having a tight focus on or sewage treatment facilities. Therefore, major operational efficiency and cost recovery. sanitation improvements are dependent on a Unfortunately, inflexible government financing delicate mix of government funding, external rules give Water Districts few incentives to invest assistance and increased user charges. in either sanitation services or infrastructure in Obtaining these funds, and enacting the low-income areas, which greatly limits their reforms needed to manage the systems ability to provide sanitation services to the sustainably, requires careful negotiation and urban poor. URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 15 Conclusions There are few upbeat conclusions that can the competition for funding and resources. This be drawn from this examination of urban was borne out by the case studies, which sewerage and sanitation in the Philippines. generally lacked funding and support. The few Aging public sanitation systems provide variable successes involved relatively large sewerage services to a tiny minority, while the urban poor systems, whose managers had sufficient funds remain largely without adequate sanitation. to set up autonomous sanitation units, with their Participatory appraisals confirm that most non- own resources and budgets. However, it was poor urban households have invested in private also clear that both `independent' sewerage sanitation facilities, and are satisfied with their systems and communal toilets are viable options simple septic tank systems, despite external for urban sanitation on a smaller scale, concerns about the environmental health risks provided that demand is genuine, and that associated with inadequately treated septage sustainable local financing and management and improperly disposed septic tank effluent. can be established. Conventional alternatives to this status quo The magnitude of the urban sanitation generate minimal interest. Urban households problem in the Philippines cannot be overstated. appear reluctant to pay for public sanitation It requires careful targeting of the limited services when there seems little wrong with their resources available, and a more incremental private facilities, leaving service providers with approach to sanitation improvements. Low-cost few incentives to make the huge investments sanitation technologies will be vital, in tandem involved in starting city-wide sewerage systems with the provision of improved services to from scratch. Breaking this deadlock will require smaller areas, using `neighborhood a much wider awareness of the problems approaches' to build local consensus and caused by inadequate sewage and wastewater demand. Sanitation improvements will also treatment, plus access to lower cost sanitation need more local and national support, through technologies, and the use of more demand- dedicated local sanitation units, enforceable responsive approaches to implementation. regulations, and strategic planning. More government funding is essential, notably for the Urban sanitation services are often lumped provision of sanitation services to the urban together with water supply, and supplied by the poor, who remain excluded from public same provider. Sadly, sanitation services are less sanitation services, and unable to develop popular with politicians, so always lose out in private alternatives. 16 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION Recommendations URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION 17 1. Financing urban sanitation City case illustrates, the water service provider improvements is not always willing (or able) to collect sanitation charges. Furthermore, whilst there are strong The central problem is that urban sanitation synergies in financial management, sanitation improvements are expensive, and the market for services require different skills and resources to these services is small. Most septic tank users those needed for water supply, and thus benefit are non-poor urban households, who pay no from being managed by an autonomous unit. sanitation charges. As a result, sanitation service providers have lost their main revenue base. The fact that LGUs have the final responsibility for urban sanitation services, and Densely populated urban housing rarely has the importance of local political support, the space or ground conditions necessary for the recommends that LGUs retain overall control of septic drainage fields required by law. However, their local services. However, this does not mean it is unrealistic to expect thousands of urban that LGUs have to be service providers. LGUs households to stop using their private septic tanks need to establish sanitation units to monitor and simply because others believe that the effluent is regulate (at the city level), while contracting out harmful. This sea change will require substantive as many sanitation services as possible, evidence of the environmental health risks including: billing and collection of sewerage and associated with current septic tank systems, to sanitation charges; desludging and sludge pave the way for enforceable sanctions against treatment services; and, effluent testing. The the discharge of inadequately treated effluent. benefits of linking water and sanitation charges Until awareness of the environmental health risks also suggest that LGUs should encourage and increases dramatically, it will be very difficult to assist water service providers to establish persuade either the Philippine public, or its sanitation units (or link with other sanitation political representatives, that more investment in service providers) wherever possible. urban sanitation is necessary. 3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the A more practical solution is to begin charging urban poor septic tank users for their discharges (based on the `polluter pays' principle), and then use this The majority of the urban population has revenue to develop sludge and effluent collection, access to adequate sanitation services, even if and treatment facilities. Political approval and these services currently lack appropriate effective administration of such an environmental treatment or disposal. However, most of the tax will be difficult but, if successful, would create urban poor living in slum and squatter housing considerable demand for improved sanitation throughout the Philippines have no access to services. In Manila, households without sewer sanitation services. The urban poor bear the connections already have a 10% environmental brunt of the environmental and health costs tax added to their water bills, which is helping to caused by inadequate sanitation and, fund the development of free septic tank therefore, the top priority for the urban desludging and sludge disposal services. sanitation sector must be to provide sanitation services to these disadvantaged groups. 2. Management models for urban sanitation Those with no sanitation facilities rarely have Urban sanitation charges are most successful sufficient space or legal tenure to allow the when added to water bills, as charges can be construction of private septic tanks, whether linked to water consumption, and disconnection they can afford them or not. Most also lack the of water supply provides an effective sanction reliable water supply required to flush wastes against non-payment. However, as the Baguio through a sewer network. This leaves few 18 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION immediate options for sanitation The independent sewerage systems currently improvements, other than communal toilets. in use by private housing developments are The lessons learnt from the case studies good examples of neighborhood solutions, and suggest that communal toilets can be prove that private demand for sewerage exists. successful, if sited according to demand These systems have the potential to be and willingness to pay, with strong combined into larger urban systems, or community involvement and the upgraded with low-cost sewage treatment establishment of sustainable management. facilities. The development of technologies Meanwhile, longer-term efforts should capable of upgrading individual septic tank focus on developing viable low cost systems and incorporating them into low cost sanitation systems for the urban poor, while sewer networks will enable more improving the water supply, land tenure neighborhoods to opt for this sort of improved and microfinance options that will enable local sanitation. private sanitation facilities to develop in low-income areas. Neighborhood solutions allow a more incremental (and flexible) approach to sanitation improvements, with progress depending on the 4. Neighborhood solutions to urban demands and capacity of each neighborhood sanitation problems and its service provider. They also provide a method of targeting sanitation investments more A neighborhood approach, whereby closely, and thus of ensuring that benefits reach urban sanitation problems are solved on a excluded groups like the urban poor. This local scale, breaks the enormous challenge incremental and targeted approach helps to of improving citywide sanitation coverage spread the cost of sanitation facilities over time, down into more manageable units. while the demonstration effect of successful local Neighborhood solutions require participatory systems gradually increases the number of appraisal of sanitation priorities, with local households willing to pay for sanitation services. NGOs and community groups providing Eventually, these combined effects may persuade intermediation between user groups and local and national government that investment service providers, in order to build local in urban sanitation services is both vital and consensus and demand for improved services. affordable. Despite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene among all the communities, this did not translate into improvement in sanitation behavior. The underlying reason is the lack of access to sanitary disposal facilities. References ADB (2001) `Water supply & sanitation sector profile: Philippines', Manila: Asian Development Bank Ancheta, C (2000) `Urban sewerage and sanitation: 30 years of experience and lessons', Manila: Water Supply & Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project ­ Phase I David, C (2000) `MWSS Privatization: Implications on the price of water, the poor and the environment', Manila: Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-14 Mukherjee, N and van Wijk, C (2003) `Sustainability planning and monitoring in community water supply and sanitation: a resource guide on the Methodology for Participatory Assessments (MPA) for CDD Programs', Washington DC: Water and Sanitation Program/ IRC International Water and Sanitation Center Robinson, A and EDCOP (2003) `Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: Final Report', Manila: WPEP Acknowledgements The inputs of Philippine and international peer reviewers, members of WPEP Project Steering Committee and Technical Working Group and World Bank staff have been helpful in ensuring the quality of this document. 20 URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITATION