WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM: RESEARCH BRIEF 88258 Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery A Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities April 2014 KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION Globally, the great majority of urban dwellers, especially poor Fecal sludge is poorly managed people, rely for their sanitation on non-sewered systems that • Almost two-thirds of households in the cities studied rely generate a mix of solid and liquid wastes generally termed on on-site sanitation facilities. • On average, fecal waste from only 22 percent of house- “fecal sludge.” In poor and rapidly expanding cities, fecal holds using on-site systems is safely managed. sludge management (FSM) represents a growing challenge, • In only two of the 12 cities studied was fecal waste from generating significant negative public health and environ- more than 50 percent of households using on-site sys- mental risks. Without proper management, fecal sludge is tems safely managed. often allowed to accumulate in poorly designed pits, is dis- Fecal sludge management is “invisible” to policymakers charged into storm drains and open water, or is dumped into • Most fecal sludge management is unsystematic and unplanned, and provided by informal private service waterways, wasteland, and unsanitary dumping sites. This providers. study seeks to assess the extent of this issue, and the major • Fecal sludge management is widely seen as a stop-gap constraints that need to be overcome to improve fecal sludge solution for informal areas, but it actually serves many legal settlements too. management. • There is a bias toward sewerage over fecal sludge man- agement in most policies and projects. ACTION • Very little data or information is available. Study Cities Technical and institutional issues requiring resolution A desk study of 12 cities (see Table 1) was undertaken as a • Fecal sludge collection is poorly regulated, if at all, and illegal dumping is common. first step toward analyzing fecal sludge management in a va- • The construction of most toilets does not take emptying riety of cities representing various regions, sizes, types, and into account. levels of service delivery. • Unhygienic manual emptying and overflows to drainage systems are widespread. • Appropriate treatment and disposal facilities are gener- ally lacking. Sanitation Service Chain1 • There is insufficient empirical data for estimating fecal Figure 1 sets out the interlinked steps required to deliver sludge accumulation rates and demand for fecal sludge urban sanitation. Sewerage systems combine the emptying management services. and transport functions in the sewer network, whereas on- site systems are emptied by a combination of mechanical suction or manual excavation, with the sludge being carried to treatment by road. 1 The term “value chain” is often used interchangeably with “service chain” (Trémolet 2011) but in this study the term “service chain” is preferred. 2 The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns TABLE 1: The 12 City Case Studies % Households Using Population Country City (millions) On-site Systems Sewerage Open Defecation Latin America Bolivia Santa Cruz 1.9 51% 44% 5% Honduras Tegucigalpa 1.3 16% 81% 3% Nicaragua Managua 1.0 56% 40% 4% Africa Mozambique Maputo 1.9 89% 10% 1% Senegal Dakar 2.7 73% 25% 2% Uganda Kampala 1.5 90% 9% 1% South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 16.0 79% 20% 1% India Delhi 16.3 24% 75% 1% East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 1.6 72% 25% 3% Indonesia Palu 0.4 91% — 9% Philippines Dumaguete 0.1 97% — 3% Philippines Manila 15.3 88% 9% 3% Totals 64% 34% 2% Figure 1: Sanitation Service Chain Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse/ Disposal This service chain was used as a framework for analyzing cient to provide a robust overview, given the extent of the how fecal waste physically flows through the system. A fecal problems this analysis revealed. Figure 2 illustrates the situa- waste flow matrix and diagram were developed to summarize tion in Dhaka, Bangladesh. city-level outcomes and highlight bottlenecks in fecal waste management.2 Even where limited primary data are available, The width of the arrows and the percentages shown rep- the use of best estimates based on available data, expert resent the proportion of the population whose fecal waste opinions, and thorough checking with field staff was suffi- takes each route. Although nearly all waste is effectively con- tained at the household level, unsafe management of on-site 2 The flow diagram developed and used is similar to concepts developed facilities combined with highly inadequate sewerage and independently by Scott (2011) in Dakar, Senegal, who uses the term “sanitation cityscape” and also by Whittington, et al. (1993) in Kumasi, Ghana. Other wastewater treatment mean that fecal waste is distributed similar frameworks and approaches may also exist. throughout the urban environment. www.wsp.org Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery 3 Figure 2: Fecal Waste Flows in Dhaka, Bangladesh Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse/ Disposal Leakage WC to Not sewer effectively treated Effectively treated 2% Safely Illegally emptied dumped Unsafely emptied On-site facility Left to overflow or abandoned Open defecation % 1% 69% 9% 9% 1% 9% Residential Drainage Receiving environment system waters Service Delivery Assessment Scorecard Figure 3: Fecal Sludge Management Scorecard for Dhaka, Bangladesh The second analysis tool used was the Service Delivery Assessment (SDA) scorecard (Figure 3).3 This tool ana- Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Disposal lyzes the enabling environment, the level and management Enabling of budgets and other inputs needed to develop adequate Policy 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 fecal sludge management services, and the factors con- Planning 0 0 0 0 0 tributing to service sustainability.4 The scorecard was ap- Budget 0 0 0 0 0 plied to each step of the sanitation service chain, resulting in a two-dimensional matrix in which bottlenecks and gaps Developing at any point along the chain are identified and classified Expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 according to whether the issues are in the enabling envi- Equity 0 0 0 0 0 ronment, in service development, or in sustaining services. Output 0 0 0 0 0 3 The SDA was originally developed to provide a national-level overview of the Sustaining quality of urban and rural sanitation and water supply service delivery. 4 The tool generates a score ranging from zero (worst case) to three (best Maintenance 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 case) in response to a set of specific questions relating to components of Service expansion 0 0 0 0 0 the enabling environment (policy, planning, budget), development of services (expenditure, equity, outputs), and sustainability of services (maintenance, User outcomes 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 service expansion, user outcomes). It uses a red, amber, and green color- coding to highlight the scores. Poor Improving Good www.wsp.org 4 The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns KEY FINDINGS • Sewerage is usually seen as the “proper” solution. Fecal Sludge Is Poorly Managed Drivers for this include the technical bias often imparted Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) figures show that 64 per- during engineer training, and the nature of many invest- cent of the population of the study cities relies on on-site ment projects that may favor simple, single lumpy invest- sanitation and therefore on fecal sludge management ser- ments over ongoing service delivery approaches. vices. A population-weighted average derived from the fecal One result of this official neglect is that there is very little data waste flow matrices for each city shows that fecal waste on fecal sludge management, regarding both its current sta- from only 22 percent of households using on-site systems tus in any given city, and field-based technical data on deliv- is safely managed. It is only in the two smallest towns (Palu, ering effective fecal sludge management services. Indonesia, and Dumaguete, Philippines)—where there is no sewerage—that more than 50 percent of fecal sludge is ad- equately managed. Technical and Institutional Issues Requiring Resolution Fecal Sludge Management Is Invisible The data collected and made available by city authorities is to Policymakers weak, often contradictory, and rarely disaggregated in a use- The study found little systematic management of fecal ful way. However, it is clear that fecal sludge management sludge. Most existing services tend to be informal and out- services are generally highly unsatisfactory. The following side public sector control. Most cities had low scores for significant observations stand out: policies, planning, and budgeting around all elements of the • Illegal dumping by private manual and mechanical pit service chain, indicating the low priority placed on this as- emptiers into the sea, rivers, wasteland, and landfill sites is pect of urban sanitation in most countries. Possible reasons common in all but two cities: Dumaguete and Palu. Fecal for this include: sludge management services are mostly unregulated, • Fecal sludge management is seen as a “temporary” or and no specific regulatory framework for these services stop-gap solution and primarily for illegal or informal was encountered. settlements. For example, although some city authori- • The quality of household containment is generally in- ties provide limited services with a small fleet of vacuum adequate and adversely affects owners’ ability to have trucks, in most cities an unregulated private sector steps their units emptied. Poor-quality pits are often abandoned in to fill the gap. In South Asia and particularly in Africa, unsafely with risks to the environment and public health. unhygienic manual emptying predominates, whereas in This situation was reported in all but two cities. However, Latin America and East Asia, mechanical emptying using in a few cases where space allows, mostly on the urban vacuum trucks is the norm. Whilst policy mostly remains fringes rather than in dense slums, the fecal sludge may focused on long-term provision of sewerage,5 the study remain safely buried, with the user covering the pit once showed that fecal sludge management is often the long- it is full.6 term solution, and that the private sector may be quicker • There is a lack of treatment facilities for fecal sludge. to recognize this than public policymakers. Fecal sludge Usually fecal sludge is dumped into the existing wastewa- management services have been provided by private ter treatment plant, which may jeopardize sewage treat- companies for more than 20 years in, for example, Santa ment. Dedicated sludge treatment facilities exist in only Cruz, Bolivia; Managua, Nicaragua; and Phnom Penh, five of the twelve cities. Cambodia. • Only two cities had any mechanism for formal reuse of treated sludge (Dumaguete and Manila in the 5 This is also reflected in local building regulations and/or technical standards that fail to specify appropriate on-site systems but are predicated on the 6 assumption that new housing will be provided with networked sewerage. Often this mimics the operation of an “arborloo” (see Tilley et al. 2008). www.wsp.org Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery 5 Philippines). However, in neither city is reuse well devel- termed “institutionalized open defecation.” These include oped or profitable. Managua, Delhi, Phnom Penh, and Dhaka. • Sludge accumulation rates vary widely, and it is almost • Basic fecal sludge management, where some of the impossible to generate norms that could be used to de- service delivery framework is in place and there is lim- termine requirements for emptying and transport (in terms ited service provision. This category includes Manila and of both capacity and the nature of the fecal sludge to be Kampala. emptied and transported), which in turn has implications • Improving fecal sludge management, where most of the for the types of transport and treatment required. framework is in place and services exist, but there is still room for improvement. These include Dumaguete and Palu. Scorecards and a Typology for City Fecal Sludge Management Services Figure 4 shows a summary scorecard for each of the three city types. Based on this scorecard, Table 2 gives an over- Based on a review of their fecal sludge management score- view indicating the level of fecal sludge management service cards and fecal waste flow diagrams, the 12 cities were that is being delivered, and the proportion of fecal waste grouped according to the effectiveness of the service deliv- safely managed, in each of the 12 cities. ery framework and the level of service being achieved. Three city types were identified among the 12 case studies: The fecal sludge management scorecard for Dhaka is pre- • Poor fecal sludge management, with no framework for sented in Figure 3, and is typical of a type 1 city. The policy service delivery and almost no services, which could be and regulatory environment is predicated on sewerage, and Figure 4: Typology of Cities and Summary Scorecards Enabling Developing Sustaining Type 1 Poor FSM e.g., Delhi, Dhaka Type 2 Basic FSM e.g., Kampala Type 3 Improving FSM e.g., Dumaguete, Palu, Dakar Comparator: Good FSM e.g., Malaysian cities Poor Improving Good www.wsp.org 6 The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns Table 2: Overview of Fecal Sludge Management Service Delivery in the 12 Cities % Households Using % Fecal Waste Safely Managed On-site Open On-site Country City FSM Type Systems Sewerage Defecation Systems Sewerage Total Latin America Bolivia Santa Cruz 1—poor 51% 44% 5% 38% 100% 59% Honduras Tegucigalpa 1—poor 16% 81% 3% 31% 8% 11% Nicaragua Managua 1—poor 56% 40% 4% 38% 81% 52% Africa Mozambique Maputo 1—poor 89% 10% 1% 28% 12% 26% Senegal Dakar 3—improving 73% 25% 2% 39% 12% 31% Uganda Kampala 2—basic 90% 9% 1% 37% 80% 40% South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 1—poor 79% 20% 1% 0% 10% 2% India Delhi 1—poor 24% 75% 1% 0% 46% 34% East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 1—poor 72% 25% 3% 0% 0% 0% Indonesia Palu 3—improving 91% — 9% 95% — 86% Philippines Dumaguete 3—improving 97% — 3% 95% — 92% Philippines Manila 2—basic 88% 9% 3% 41% 90% 44% Totals 64% 34% 2% 22% 42% 29% the only acknowledgement of on-site sanitation is the limited pathways it takes from containment to disposal. The fecal acceptance of on-site facilities. waste flow analysis developed here provides a building block for developing the assessments further. Figures 5 and 6 depict the situation in a type 3 city: Dakar, Senegal. Although there is an established framework for A number of knowledge gaps need to be addressed in order FSM, the downstream end of the sanitation service chain is to design effective and sustainable interventions. These still deficient and its sustainability is in doubt. The amount include: of fecal sludge directly polluting residential areas is about • The extent and economic value of public health, envi- 30 percent, as compared to about 70 percent in Dhaka. ronmental, and financial benefits arising from effective containment of fecal sludge within the sanitation service WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO KNOW? chain, from containment to reuse; As the challenge of fecal sludge management is generally over-simplified and underestimated, tools to help practitio- • The development of viable market and business models ners make rapid assessments could significantly improve the along the fecal sludge management service chain, from scale and impact of interventions. This could be achieved by toilet construction, to emptying and transport, to reuse; further developing the scorecard, and by systematically as- • The establishment of innovative institutional and man- sessing the volume of fecal sludge generated and the various agement arrangements that allow for clear responsibility www.wsp.org Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery 7 Figure 5: Type 3 City—Dakar, Senegal. Improving Fecal for fecal sludge management, and also tie this into the Sludge Management (Framework in Place, Services broader local government, utility, and community systems Exist) of governance, participation, and feedback; Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Disposal • How most effectively to fit the range of fecal sludge man- Enabling agement technologies to the potential market opportuni- Policy 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1 ties, and how to link these with innovative and effective financial arrangements; Planning 3 3 3 3 0 • The range of regulatory approaches and instruments Budget 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 across the service chain that could best incentivize op- Developing timum behaviors by users of fecal sludge management Expenditure 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 services, service providers, and managers, and effectively link the elements of the service chain together. Equity 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 Output 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 REFERENCES Sustaining Scott, P. C. 2011. “Unbundling Tenure Issues for Urban Sani- tation Development.” PhD dissertation, Loughborough Maintenance 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 University of Technology, United Kingdom. Service expansion 1 1.5 1.5 1 0 User outcomes 2 1 1 0 0 Tilley, E., C. Lüthi, A. Morel, C. Zurbrügg, and R. Scherten- Poor Improving Good leib. 2008. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Figure 6: Fecal Waste Flows in Dakar, Senegal Containment Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse/ Disposal Leakage WC to sewer Not effectively treated Legally Effectively dumped treated 21% 2 Safely Not emptied effectively treated Illegally dumped On-site facility Unsafely emptied Safely abandoned when full 10% 1 Open defecation 6% 17% 2% 29% 10% 5% Residential Drainage Receiving environment system waters www.wsp.org 8 The Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery Targeting the Urban Poor and Improving Services in Small Towns Technologies. Dübendorf, Swit- Chowdhry, S., and D. Kone. 2012. zerland: Swiss Federal Insti- “Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge WSP and Urban tute of Aquatic Science and Management: Emptying and Trans- Sanitation Technology (Eawag). http://www portation Services in Africa and Over half the world’s population .wsscc.org/node/831. Asia.” Seattle: The Bill & Melinda now lives in urban areas, with Gates Foundation. http://www the number living in slums Trémolet, S. 2011. “Identifying the Po- .wa s hdo c.wats a n.net /c onte nt / growing by more than 20 million tential for Results-Based Financing d o w n l o a d / 2 7 6 2 5 9 / 2 9 9 8 74 9 / every year, and ever more urban for Sanitation.” Washington, DC: ve rsion /1/f ile / Chowdhr y-2012- dwellers lacking access to Water and Sanitation Program, The Business.pdf. improved sanitation. Because World Bank. this is an increasingly important Strande, L, M. Ronteltap, and D. Brdja- issue for urban managers in Whittington, D., D. T. Lauria, K. Choe, novic, eds. Forthcoming (2014). Fae- the developing world, WSP J. A. Hughes, V. Swarna, and A. cal Sludge Management: Systems carried out a global review Wright. 1993. “Household Sanitation Approach for Implementation and on challenges, trends, and in Kumasi, Ghana: A Description of Operation. London: IWA Publishing. approaches to achieve viable Current Practices, Attitudes, and poor-inclusive urban sanitation Perceptions.” World Development ACKNOWLEDGMENTS at scale. One of the key findings 21(5): 733–748. Philadelphia: Else- This research brief was prepared by Isa- was that effective urban vier, Inc. bel Blackett, Peter Hawkins, and Chris sanitation depends on a chain Heymans. The authors wish to acknowl- of services, and that one of the RELATED READING edge the fundamental contribution to largest gaps in the chain is fecal Hawkins, P., I. Blackett, and C. Hey- the research by consultants Andy Peal sludge management (FSM). mans. 2013. “Poor-Inclusive Urban and Barbara Evans, the active engage- This study represents WSP’s Sanitation: An Overview.” Washing- ment and support of Ravikumar Joseph initial steps towards raising the ton, DC: Water and Sanitation Pro- and Zael Sanz Uriarte in developing the profile of FSM and gaining a gram, The World Bank. http://www analytical framework, the many WSP deeper understanding of the .wsp.org/wsp/sites/wsp.org/files/ staff who took time out to gather the issue. More detailed work is in publications/WSP-Poor-Inclusive- basic data, and the encouragement of progress. For more information, Urban-Sanitation-Overview.pdf. the WSP management team. please visit www.wsp.org. Contact us For more information please visit www.wsp.org or email Isabel Blackett or Peter WSP is a multidonor partnership created in 1978 and administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. Hawkins at worldbankwater@ WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates worldbank.org. Foundation, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. © 2014 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank