Water Environment Partnership in Asia

Policy Brief

SeriesMarch 2014

DECENTRALISED DOMESTICWASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN
ASIA –
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
1. Introduction
Toward the end of 20st century, it has been
widely accepted that sustainable economic
growth requires not just accumulation ofphysical capital, technologies and labour orincreasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), butalso the preservation of the natural resources,
and the protection of our environment as wellas our sustainable future. This message is
especially becoming more and more important
for the Asian region, which is a focal point
for the world’s rapid growth, demonstratinga 120% increase in GDP in the region andaccounting for 60% of the world’s population
growth (WEPA-IGES, 2012). The rising
Asian economies are incredibly successfulwhen judged by their rapid economic growth,
but less so when environmental damage isaccounted for (Howes and Wyrwoll, 2012).
As Asia’s population and economies continue
to grow, the need to collectively deal with theincreasing pollution caused by poor sanitation
and wastewater discharges becomes one of
the biggest challenges and urgent issue ofmany countries in the region.
Recently, global attention has focused on
sanitation targets in the United Nations
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
aiming to increase proportion of population
using improved toilet facilities including
ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, pit latrinewith slap, composting toilet, and flush or pourflush to (i) piped sewer system; (ii) septic
tank; or (iii) pit latrine, rather than paying
appropriate attention to the consequences of
its effluent. Corcoran et al. (2010) estimatedthat globally two million tons per day ormore than 80% of sewage, agricultural andindustrial waste in the world is discharged
untreated into water bodies and at least 1,8
million children under 5 years-old die every
year, or one every 20 seconds, because

1of water and sanitation related-diseases.
The United Nations estimates that the total
amount of global wastewater produced
annually is about 1,500km3 per day for 1995.
It is assumed that each litre of wastewaterpollutes at least 8 litres of freshwater, andthen an estimate of 12,000 km3 of the globe’s
water resources is not available for use. If theworld population keeps growing to 9 billion
by 2050, the world’s water resources would
be reduced by some 18,000 km3 (UNESCOWWAP, 2003). Nelson and Murray (2008)
and Baum et al. (2013) have stressed thenecessity of defining sanitation more broadly
to include treatment of all waste materials as“the entire community, as well as downstream
populations, must be protected fromdischarge of untreated wastes”. Althoughconventional centralised wastewater
management system has been utilized indensely populated areas for decades, mainly
in urban centres of developed countries, tosolve the problem of wastewater treatment,
but unfortunately it has been provenunfeasible and unsustainable in many
areas of Asian developing countries. Many
drawbacks associated with the centralised
approach for wastewater treatment havebeen pointed out in literatures, such as
its huge investments as well as operationand maintenance cost requirements. In
addition, restricted local budget allocations,lack of expertise for properly operationand maintenance, unfeasible technology
selection under local contexts due to lackof stakeholder involvements in the decision
making process, and often inappropriate
management models have resulted ininadequate operation of wastewater
treatment plants in many countries, and theireffluents have caused many threats to our
natural water resources and human health. It
is estimated that about 85% - 89% of Asian’s
wastewater is discharged untreated, polluting

1both groundwater and surface water sources(Chiplunkar, 2011).
A new alternative approach has recently
been introduced, namely decentralised
wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS),
which have several advantages compared
to conventional approach. The systememphasizes on small-scale, onsite
wastewater treatment and reuse, often
at community level. Therefore, in manycases, long and large collection pipeline
network may not be necessary. As a result, it
significantly reduces the costs of seweragesystem. Despite these facts, several
limitations and obstacles are emerged while
introducing and replicating these systems in
Asian countries such as the issue related toenergy efficiency of decentralised systems,

2. Challenges and Prospects for
S u s t a i n a b l e D o m e s t i c Wa s t e w a t e rManagement Systems
a. Why sanitation systems fail in WEPA
countries

Figure 1

Challenges in effective wastewater
management are quite similar in WEPA
countries. These include low percentage
of improved sanitation ratio, especially inrural areas, inadequate sewerage network
coverage, and lack of sewage treatment
facilities. Most of WEPA countries, especiallycountries in Southeast Asia, still dependon septic tanks and other low-cost onsite
sanitation facilities such as ventilated
improved pit toilets, double-vault latrines,
composting toilets, and pour-flush toilets with
twin pits. However, approximately 90% ofhouseholds have septic tanks in Sri Lanka,
77% in urban area of Vietnam, 85% in Metro
Manila of Philippines and 62% in urban areaof Indonesia having septic tanks (AECOM& SANDEC, 2010). Numbers of septic
tanks are expected to grow rapidly in the
future. Unfortunately, septic tanks are poorly
designed and not properly constructed,
operated and maintained in many cases.
In addition, low contribution of septic tanks
to water quality conservation is pointed out
as a problem, because septic tanks in mostareas treat only black water and grey water22

requirements for operation and maintenance,
required skilful and highly-qualified humanresource, difficulties in effective sludge
collection, treatment and disposal.
This policy brief investigates on a numberof challenges, prospects as well as enabling
environment and strategies to support forpolicymakers, local governments, water
professionals and relevant stakeholders inAsia, especially member countries in the
Water Environment Partnership in Asia
(WEPA) network, in searching for efficientand reliable wastewater treatment systems,
appropriate management models under
their local context, and pursuing their longterm goal of community-wide sanitation
improvements.

is directly discharged to the environment
without any treatment. Low treatment
performance efficiency, only 20-30% of BOD
removal, has been observed in Vietnam (Anhet al., 2002). Although septic tanks are widelyused in WEPA countries, but most of thesecountries do not have specific policies, legal
and institutional frameworks for appropriates e p t a g e m a n a g e m e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y,
septage treatment is almost ignored (Fig. 1).
Only 4% in Indonesia, 5% in Metro Manilaof Philippines, less than 4% in Vietnam, lessthan 1% in Nuwara Eliya of Sri Lanka, and
30% of generated septage has been treatedin Thailand (AECOM & SANDEC, 2010).

Open discharge of septage to fishpondSource: Author

Figure 2 presents the latest relationshipbetween GDP per capita in 2012 and thecoverage ratio of urban wastewater treatment
in WEPA countries. From this figure, it canbe seen that urban wastewater treatment
ratio in many WEPA countries such as Lao
PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nepal, Vietnam,
Sri Lanka, Indonesia is still low, less than
35%. Only in Malaysia and other developed
countries such as Japan, Republic of Korea,
Thailand, the ratio is higher than 60%.
Ratios of urban wastewater treatment inthese countries are 78%, 96%, 61% and62%, respectively. Meanwhile, wastewater
treatment ratio in rural areas is much lower
in most of the countries, with an exception

Figure 2of Japan, Malaysia and Republic of Korea.
Figure 2 also revealed that Asian countries
with GDP per capita less than 5,000 US$
still have low coverage ratios, with less than
45%. Thus, GDP growth can be considered
one of the key driving factors required toachieve target ratio of wastewater treatment
in each country.
However, it may take such a long time fordeveloping countries in Asia to gain a highlevel of GDP per capita like developed
countries. Therefore, an alternative solution
to conventional wastewater management
approach is urgently needed.

GDP per Capita in 2012
(in US$)Japan

Republic of Korea

Nepal
MyanmarCambodia
Lao PDR

Malaysia
China
Indonesia
Vietnam

Sri Lanka

ThailandPhilippines

Urban Wastewater Treatment Ratio (%)

Relationship between urban wastewater treatment ratio and GDP per capita
Source: See References

It has been seen that construction of largescale, conventional centralised wastewater
treatment systems with advanced
technologies imported from developed
countries have been failed in many cases as
it is not a cost-effective and feasible option
for many developing countries in Asia. A
new approach of decentralised wastewater3

management option, which has been
recommended worldwide recently, would be
a promising and viable alternative solution for
WEPA countries with inadequate wastewater
treatment facility, but at the same time having
rapid urbanisation and population growth (Fig.
3).

Figure 3

Citywide piped sewerage network
Centralised wastewater treatment

Increasing Cost

Off-site Sanitation

Simplified sewer system
Community-based sanitation systems (e.g. SANIMAS)
Decentralised Sanitation
Decentralised wastewater treatment (e.g. anaerobic baffled reactor)
VIP, Soak pit, Septic tankOn-siteSanitati

Open defecation
Increasing Complexity
Decentralised sanitation fills the gap between on-site and centralised sanitation options
Source: Modified from (WSP, 2013)of DEWATS lies in new urban centres, periurban and rural areas. Good examples havebeen observed in case studies in Indonesia,
Malaysia, and Manila city of Philippines.
Successful cases of decentralisation are
also recognised in Japan, where about
2,500 decentralised systems are associatedwith large blocks of building that treat andreuse their own wastewater (Yamagata
et al., 2012). It is strongly believed that
decentralised wastewater treatment systems
or DEWATS could fill the gap between onsite system like septic tank and centralised
treatment option, both in term of treatment
performance, costs and reliability.

Decentralised wastewater treatment systems(DEWATS) are becoming of special interest
because of its possibility of reducing
treatment costs in long term, minimizing
environmental impacts and facilitating
wastewater reuse (Daigger, 2009; Nhapi,2004). It is estimated that costs for thesewers network of a centralised system
can be up to five times higher than the
sewage treatment plant itself. In contrast,
DEWATS can reduce sewers network costs
significantly. In addition, the cost of thetreatment unit should also be lower, due
to a less-sophisticated technical layout(BORDA, 2009). DEWATS have been provenin many countries in Asia, highest potential
Figure 4

Estimated cost per person (US$)
0

200

400

600

800
Tertiary wastewater treatment

Sewer connection and secondary
wastewater treatment

Mainly applied inurban areas

Connection to conventional sewer
Sewer connection with local labour
Septic tank latrine
Pour-flush latrine

Mainly applied inperi-urban and rural

Ventilated improved pit latrine
Simple pit latrine

Cost estimate for different levels of sanitation technologies
Source: UNDP, 2006

4

In WEPA countries, a wide range of technicaloptions for domestic wastewater collection
and treatment have been currently utilised
depending on their local socio-cultural,
economic and environmental conditions.
However, in term of collection systems,
it can be divided into 3 main categories:(a) conventional combined gravity sewer
system, (b) conventional separated gravity
sewer system and (c) simplified gravity
sewer system. For example, simplified sewer
system has been offered as one of threechoices for sanitation system improvement
in a community-based sanitation program,namely SANIMAS, in Indonesia. For thisTable 1

Collection and Treatment Options
On-site or Cluster System (Decentralised)

Category

Individual
No treatment

Blackwater treatment only

option, the individual household has toprovide its own toilet, usually septic tank, andconnection to the sewer.
In term of treatment options, either onsite/decentralised or off-site/centralised
system, it can be characterised into 3
types: (i) no treatment; (ii) blackwater
treatment only and (iii) treatment of bothg r e y w a t e r a n d b l a c k w a t e r ( Ta b l e 1 ) .
Based on several factors such as influent
wastewater characteristics, required effluent
standards, economic considerations, etc.
so either aerobic or anaerobic process
based technologies for domestic wastewater
treatment are introduced.

Cluster(Community-based system)

Off-site/Centralised

With/without sewers network+ no treatment
Individual septic tank with/
Communal septic tank (e.g. Individual or communal
without connected to sewers baffled septic tank) + with/ septic tank connected to
network
without connected to sewers sewers network + With/
Individual night soil treatment network
without sewage treatment
tank (e.g. Johkasou system)
plant
Direct discharge fromhousehold without treatment

without connected to sewers
network
Individual septic tank + with/ Communal septic tank
Individual or communal
without connected to sewers (e.g. baffled septic tank,septic tank connected to
network
decentralised wastewater
sewers network + with/treatment facilities) + with/without sewage treatment
without
connected
tosewersTreatment of both greywaterplant
networkand blackwater treatment
Other dry sanitation systems Communal sewage treatment Sewer network + with/(VIP, composting latrine,
facility (e.g. SANIMAS) +without centralised sewageetc.)
with/without connected totreatment facility
sewers network

Domestic wastewater collection and treatment in WEPA countries

b. Constraints and prospects for replicationof DEWATS model
Although, DEWATS has offered a number ofpotential benefits compared to conventional
centralised wastewater management
approach. However, after many years ofpromoting DEWATS concept with many
good pilot and demonstration projects, they
still have not led to large or city wide-scale
replications. It is believed that there aremany reasons behind the lack of wide-scale
implementation of DEWATS (Fladerer, 2010).
One of the major problems for effective
wastewater management in many developing
countries is the poor coordination among
the responsible and relevant ministries
and departments of central government(Kamal et al., 2008). Besides, lack of long-5

term planning and enabling environment
f o r e ff e c t i v e w a s t e w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t
are also found in many WEPA countries.
Decentralised wastewater management
often requires political will, commitment andclosely coordination between responsible
local governments and relevant stakeholder
groups in order to support the deliveryof wastewater services. Although many
countries recognized the need of having
wastewater management supporting policies,
but these policies are often designed forcentralised infrastructure, and may not beappropriate for decentralised systems (Bernaland Restrepo, 2012). Thus, it is difficult toimplement this approach because of lacking
resources, especially human and financial
resources from local governments, andmanagement capacities (Parkinson andTayler, 2003). There are also several otherfactors behind the fact that why DEWATS
has not yet been widely replicated in Asia,
particularly in WEPA countries such aslack of knowledge of management andtechnical options; lack of suitable andtransparent institutional arrangements,
inadequate legal framework, policies andincentives measures, which encourage
the application of decentralised approach;lack of involvement of relevant nongovernmental stakeholders from the
beginning of the decision making process.
Although decentralised systems may offersome benefits in term of greater end-user
involvement in operation and maintenance,
but at the same time it often suffersfrom very limited accessed to skilled
professionals (WHO, 2010).
Limitations to decentralised management
systems, according to many waterauthorities and engineers, are based on
three arguments: (i) low performance- thisargument is based on the fact that most of
the decentralised technologies commonly

Figure 5

3. Enabling environment and strategies
for efficient and reliable decentralised
wastewater management in WEPA
countries
Identifying and promoting favourable
environment such as strategic, long-termplanning, supportive legal framework andinstitutional arrangements, pro-active
participations of all relevant stakeholders
including service end-users, appropriatetechnology selection, financial stability andsustainability, and appropriate management
model are the key strategies for improving
the situations of domestic wastewater
management in WEPA countries.
A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l y, D E W AT S h a s
gradually become a promising solution
for effective domestic wastewater
management in many Asian countries,
although it is not a universal solution for
any local problem. However, in order toaddress the constraints and make use of allof its advantages as well as contribute to
the efforts of replicating good practices of
DEWATS in WEPA countries, the following
strategies have been recommended:

6

used such as septic tanks often offer very
low treatment performance, and the poor
maintenance is usually receive; (ii) costs –construction and operating cost, mostly forenergy consumption, of a large number ofdecentralised systems is assumed to be far
more expensive than once large centralised
system. Also, requirements for effective
operation and maintenance of decentralised
systems will be more than those of one
centralised system; e.g. it must be operated
and controlled by a number of skilful andhighly-qualified people (Wilderer andSchreff, 2000; Bakir, 2001). Decentralised
treatment approach can only be considered
as a viable alternative if it is highly effective
and provide advanced treatment, easy tooperate and maintenance, and low cost
(Wilderer and Schreff, 2000); (iii) difficulties
in effective sludge management based onevidences mentioned earlier, it can be seenthat effective sludge collection, treatment
and disposal from decentralised wastewater
treatment facilities such as septic tanks ismuch more complicated and costly thanthose of centralised treatment system.

Centralised vs. Decentralised System

Development of strategic plan for
wastewater management
Development of strategic and long-term planfor domestic wastewater management is vitalfor each WEPA country. The plan is not only
limited to national targets and strategies on
how to achieve country’s sanitation targets,e.g. percentage of treated wastewater, withina given time frame, but also need to integrateother components related to wastewater
management such as how to reduce theamount of wastewater generation, how topromote wastewater reuse and utilize it as aresource for some purposes, e.g. agriculturaland aquaculture activities. Central or
local governments should also express
their strong, long-term commitments andpolitical will for improvement of wastewater
management system in the plan, including
allocation of sufficient human and financial
resources.

Decentralisation of decision making in
wastewater management
In many countries in Asia, especially inSouth and Southeast Asia, wastewater
management policies are often incorporated
in national environmental protection law(Vietnam) or national policy (Bangladesh),national plan (Nepal, Thailand), national
programs (Sri Lanka) or national strategy(Philippines). Central governments often
provide assistance for policy formulationof wastewater management, while local
authorities are responsible for sewerage
services. However, problems of wastewater
treatment and management are quite
diversity under different local socio-economic
contexts. Only local actors know well theirchallenges. Top-down decision making often
make policies difficult to implement effectively( U N D P, 2 0 0 8 ) . T h u s , e ff e c t i v e p o l i c yformulation and successful implementationof such policies require the involvement of all
relevant stakeholders, including local actors,
in the early process of decision making.
Decentralisation of decision making andactive participation of multi-stakeholders
are critical for sustainable wastewater
management in WEPA countries.
Stringent legal framework and transparent
institutional arrangements
Legal framework for wastewater managementof WEPA countries is normally inadequate
and there is a lack of stringent enforcementof regulations, except in some countries like
Japan, Malaysia and Republic of Korea.
Meanwhile, institutional arrangements often
characterized by separate and fragmentary
management. Roles of different governmental
departments or agencies are sometimes
overlapped and not yet well-defined. For
instance, in Vietnam; Ministry of Construction(MoC) takes responsibility for urban andindustrial wastewater management. However,the provision of sewerage and solid waste
collection services is the responsibility ofmunicipalities. Ministry of Agricultural and
Rural Development (MARD) is responsible
for rural water supply and sanitation
management. Ministry of Health takes
responsibility for guiding medical wastewatercollection and treatment as well as othersanitation matters relating to preventive
health such as hand washing and general
hygiene. Meanwhile, Ministry of Natural

7

Resources and Environment (MoNRE) takes
responsibility for overall environmental
management. Thus, in order to overcome theshortcomings of wastewater management,strong legal framework and clarificationof institutional roles and responsibilities is
one of the key strategies. There are always
inter-connections between wastewater andother relevant sectors such as water supply,
solid wastes management, water resourcesmanagement, etc. Therefore, a unified or
integrated strategy for managing various
components of water management, including
wastewater treatment, under the coordinationof a single governmental department or
agency is vitally important.
Pro-active participations of all relevant
stakeholders
Community wastewater management
project must involve all relevant stakeholder
groups, including both governmental andnon-governmental stakeholders such as
local actors or private sectors at the earlystage of decision making process in orderto ensure transparency in management
and sustainability of the project. Examplesof good practices have been observedin several countries such as Malaysia,
Indonesia and Manila of Philippines. In
Malaysia, for instance, privatization has beenutilized as an effective tool to improve themanagement of water services by the State
Government of Selangor (ADB & NUS, 2012).
Another example is from Indonesia. The
Government of Indonesia through Ministryof Public Works (MoPW) has committed toincrease resources to support replication andscaling-up approach to community-based
decentralised sanitation nationwide through a
program entitled SANIMAS since 2006. The
SANIMAS program is based on communitydriven development principles. SANIMAS is a
program to provide wastewater infrastructure
for the people in the crowded urban
slums (Fig. 6). After 2007 this approachis considered a success and the central
government was adopting SANIMAS as
national program to accelerate sanitation
development by replicating it to other
cities, in order to achieve the MDG targets.
SANIMAS uses a demand responsive
approach (DRA) principle. Local Government
has to express their interest, indicatedby budgeting on budget plan. Central
government will select the participating city/community by several criteria, such as join
PPSP program (or Accelerated Sanitation
Development in Human Settlements), alreadyhave city sanitation strategy and have a Midterm Investment Planning for wastewatersector. Participating cities/communities
were selected through a transparent andcompetitive process. Based on the standard
criteria that included technical feasibility,
willingness to contribute and experience
with other self-help projects. SANIMAS was

implemented in more than 569 locations in 31
provinces by Indonesia central government
in 2012. The program goal is to encouragecommunity initiatives in an open, participatory
and self-reliance approach. Community
involvement is also required in financing thefacilities, both in construction and operational
phase.

a. Outside MCK Plus + buildingc. Washing block

Figure 6

b. Bathing and toilet blockd. Utilizing biogas for cooking

SANIMAS system using MCK Plus+ facility in Bekasi City, Indonesia(Enhanced communal bathing, washing and toilet block, often referred to as “MCK Plus+” facility)
Source: Author, 2013

Appropriate technology choices
In many cases, application of advanced
technologies for wastewater treatment are
not feasible for local communities, mostly
because of huge costs for investment,
operation and maintenance, skilled workers
requirements for proper operation of system.
Depending on local physical and socioeconomic conditions, sustainable wastewater
treatment technologies should be selected.
In order to be considered sustainable,
selected technologies should be not only
socially acceptable, economically viable,technically and institutionally appropriate,
but it should also protect the environment
and the natural resources (Langergraber,2013). Although there is no single solution
for all countries or cities, or even areas
and the selection of technology choices
is depended on various technical, sociocultural, institutional and economic factors
including consumer’s affordability and their
willingness to pay, but appropriate lowcost, environmentally sound, socially andtechnically acceptable technologies withhigh reliability and simplicity in operation andmaintenance should be given high priority,especially in developing countries, after
taking into account their socio-economic
conditions. For instance, in China, the8constructed wetland system has beenutilized for domestic wastewater treatment
without the use of electricity. According to
the Ministry of Environmental Protection in
2011, among 2,738 urban treatment plants,
86 operating domestic treatment plants
applied the constructed wetland system.
In Chongqing city, there are two domestic
wastewater treatment plants constructed
through a Japan-China cooperative project in2008. These plants introduced a constructedwetland system after the contact aeration
process and activated sludge process inorder to reduce electricity consumption.
These facilities achieved 43-98% and 6297% of BOD removal rates respectively,
based on monthly data for water quality
monitoring conducted over a one-year period
following construction (MoE, 2012)
Financial stability and sustainability
One of the key issues in any wastewater
management project is how to ensure
f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y a n d s u s t a i n a b i l i t y.
Traditionally, costs for investment, operationand maintenance of wastewater projects
are often covered by central or local
governments. However, budget allocations
from local governments for wastewatertreatment projects are usually very limited.
Therefore, in order to sustain wastewater
services delivery, innovative and effective
financial management mechanisms andeconomic instruments or tools have to beconsidered, e.g. privatization, public-private
partnerships, micro-financing or revolving
funds, which have been successfully appliedin some WEPA countries such as Malaysia,
Philippines and Vietnam, respectively.

each concession area will be fully coveredby sewerage system with complete sewage
treatment. Outside of Metro Manila, anumber of Local Government Units (LGUs)
and Water Districts (WD) are responsible forplanning, implementation and monitoring ofsanitation programs through the provincial,city of municipal health offices. Besides,
there are a number of private companies inmajor cities providing septic tank desludging
services.

Public-Private partnerships

Experience with privatization of sanitationand sewerage services in Philippines has
been mixed. Although both concessionaires
suffered pressures of currency devaluation
since the start of concession contracts,
but after the first five years of operation,
Maynilad experienced considerable
difficulty in obtaining loans to finance capital
expenditures, while Manila Water was making
profits. This is just because they adopted
different financing models and approaches inaddressing the problem. Manila Water usedthe cooperative approach, which recognizedthat people wanted to pay as little aspossible for their water services. Therefore,
they focused more on the urban poor andlow-income communities, where pipelines
were shared by several households. By
doing this, the fixed installation cost can be
reduced. As a result, the problem of illegal
connections can be controlled and the
network has been protected. On the other
hand, Maynilad took a threatening strategy.
People who were caught for water theft were
penalized. Unfortunately, this monitoringand enforcement approach was not very
effective (Chia, et al., 2007). Therefore, it
can be seen that before determining to gowith privatization, governments may needto consider many other important factors aswell such as proposed financing models aswell as approaches to address the problem.

Nowadays, many countries are searchingfor viable models to improve and provide
better infrastructure services including
sanitation and sewerage services becauseof the current public backlash and depressed
investor outlook. Privatization is one ofthese viable options. Good practices
have been observed in Philippines andMalaysia. However, this model is still new
to most of countries in Southeast Asia,
thus it is important to keep in mind thatthe governments should not rush into
privatization if they may not find many goodand well-qualified candidates for making
privatization become success.
In the Philippines, a public company namely
the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS), the largest sanitation andsewerage service provider, took an important
positive step of signing 25-year concession
contracts in 1997 with two private water
utilities for providing water supply andsanitation services to Metro Manila. About 10
years later in 2007, 15 years term extension
was given to these two private watercompanies. The decision of privatization
was aimed at transferring financial burden to
private sector, improving service standards
a n d o p e r a t i o n a l e ff i c i e n c y, a s w e l l a s
minimizing tariff impact. However, assets
are still belonged to MWSS. The service
area of MWSS was divided into East andWest Zones, and two separate concession
contracts were signed with Manila Water
Company, Inc. (MWCI) and Maynilad Water
Services, Inc. (MWSI), respectively. They
provide sewerage and septage management
to their customers in the Metro Manila
Region and adjoining provinces, serving
approximately 15 million people and covering
an area of 1,940km2. It is expected that by
the end of the concession period in 2037,

9

Another good example has been observedin Malaysia, one of the few countries inSoutheast Asian region that achieved
great success in both wastewater andseptage management through privatizationof sewerage services. Until 1994, many
local governments still controlled sewerages e r v i c e s c o v e r i n g t h e e n t i r e c o u n t r y.
Unfortunately, these services were notconsistent and in many areas, standards
were not met. Understanding the needof improving the sanitation level of thecountry, the federal government passed
the Sewerage Service Act (SSA) in 1993
and signed a concession agreement with
Indah Water Konsortium (IWK), a private
contractor, to deliver the management ofsewerage services. The contract included
operation, maintenance, and developmentof sewerage infrastructure over a 28-year
concession period. However, the governmentof Malaysia, under the Ministry of Finance,
controlled capital expenditure and similar toPhilippines case, assets still belong to thegovernment.
According to JSC (2011), since the startof concession agreement, the ratio of
connected households to the seweragesystem has significantly increased to about
70% in 2010, compared to 5% in 1993.
Number of wastewater treatment plants thatcomply with the standards for discharged
effluent has also increased from year to year.
In 2006, up to 69% of wastewater treatment
plants met the BOD standard and 88% ofthem complied with the total suspended
solid (TSS) standard. IWK operates andmaintains about 5,800 wastewater treatment
facilities across the country, which covers apopulation equivalent of 19,500,000 people

4. Conclusion and Recommendations
Most of WEPA member countries have madesignificant progress to improve proportionof people access to improved sanitation
facilities in the last decade. However,challenges of effective domestic wastewater
management in WEPA countries should not
merely place on efforts to increase proportionof population using improved toilet facilities tomeet sanitation targets of MDGs set by eachmember country, but appropriate attention
should be given to the performance of these
toilet facilities as well as the consequencesof its effluent.
Decentralised wastewater treatment system
are becoming a promising solution for
effective domestic wastewater managementin WEPA countries for the time being, even
they also have some limitations comparedto centralized systems. Therefore, in orderto take the full advantages and replicate
appropriate DEWATS models in WEPA
countries, the following points should beconsidered:10

by 2010. Meanwhile, by the year 2010,
total population in Malaysia is estimatedat 28,400,000 people. In the past, acommunal septic tank used for an apartment
was considered a wastewater treatment
plant, but it now regarded as an individual
household septic tank. In term of septage
management, IWK started the scheduled
desludging program; consequently, thepercentage of desludged septic tanks has
drastically increased from 2% in 1993 to 58%
in 2001. Recently, an increasing number of
septic tank owners showed unwillingness
to pay the desludging fee and contacted asludge extractor only when their tanks had
trouble. To tackle this issue, the governmentof Malaysia has adopted a new policy fordesludging which requested that sludge must
be collected once every 3 years either by
IWK or a private contractor holding a permit
from SPAN. If septic tanks are not desludged
within 3 years, owners can be fined up to
50,000 Ringgit (about US$16,500). Under
Water Service Industrial Act (WSIA), the fines
for non-compliance have significantly been
increased to oblige owners to comply with
their desludging duty and pay for sewerage
services in covered areas (JSC, 2011).

- A strategic and long-term plan for domestic
wastewater management is essential, wherestrong commitments and political will fromboth central and local governments should beemphasized, including allocation of sufficienthuman and financial resources. At the sametime, septage management especially inurban areas should be considered a criticalaspect of sanitation planning.
- Decentralisation of decision making andactive participation of multi-stakeholders
are proven to be critical for sustainablewastewater management, especially in
WEPA countries. Although, theoretically,
decentralised system still has somedisadvantages, especially in term of energy
efficiency as mentioned earlier, however,by utilizing decentralised energy sources,
e.g. distributed solar photovoltaics (PV),this problem can solved. The experience ofJapan in effective decentralised sanitation
management with Johkasou might be useful
and applicable to other countries as aprevalent measure of sanitation.

- Stringent legal framework and transparent
institutional arrangements are needed. Rolesand responsibilities of different governmental
departments or agencies should be clearly
defined.
- Pro-active participations of all relevant
stakeholders, especially private sector
involvement and investments in in sanitation
sector should be considered in the sanitation
planning process.

- Selection of technological choices should
depend on local socio-cultural, institutional,
technical and economic conditions. However,appropriate low-cost, environmentally soundand socially acceptable technologies withhigh reliability and simplicity in operation andmaintenance should be given a high priority.
- Ensure financial stability and sustainabilityof the project by utilizing innovative andeffective financial management mechanisms
and economic instruments.

5. References
ADB & National University of Singapore (NUS). (2012). Good Practice in Urban Water Management – Decoding Good
Practices for a Successful Future. Edited by Anand Chiplunkar , Kallidaikurichi Seetharam and Cheon Kheong Tan.
Manila, Philippines.
AECOM & SANDEC (2010). A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia: Policies and Practices in India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA)- United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Thailand. Available on internet: http://www.waterlinks.org/
library/septage-management/septage-report
Anh, N.V., Ha, T.D., Nhue, T.H., Heinss, U., Morel, A., Moura, M., Schertenleib, R. (2002). Decentralised wastewater
treatment - new concept and technologies for Vietnamese conditions. Proceedings of the 5th Specialised Conference on
Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, Istanbul-Turkey, 24-26 September 2002.
Bakir, H. A., (2001), Sustainable Wastewater Management for Small Communities in the Middle East and North Africa,
Journal of Environmental Management, 61, 319-328.
Baum, R., Luh, J., and Bartram, J. (2013). Sanitation: A Global Estimate of Sewerage Connections without Treatment
and the Resulting Impact on MDG Progress. Environmental Science and Technology, 47, 1994-2000.
BORDA. (2009). Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) and Sanitation in Developing Countries: A
Practical Guide. Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), Loughborough University, UK.
Bernal, D.P., and Restrepo, I. (2012). Key issues for decentralization in municipal wastewater treatment. 12th edition of
the World Wide Workshop for Young Environmental Scientists (WWW-YES-2012), Arcueil, France. Available on internet:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00731140 [18th July 2013].
Chia, P.L.G., Chua, C.K., Kim, F.C., Teo, S., Toh, K.L. (2007). Water Privatization in Manila, Philippines – Should
Water be Privatized? A Tale of Two Water Concessions in Manila. INSEAD –Economic and Management in Developing
Countries. Available on internet: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Insead_Water_
Privatization_Manila_Philippines.pdf
Chiplunkar, A. (2011). Promoting Wastewater Management Revolution in Asia-Pacific. Powerpoint Presentation at the“Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) for Urban Environments in Asia”. Manila, Philippines. Available
on internet: http://www.borda-net.org/fileadmin/borda-net/Knowledge/Workshops/7_BNS_Workshop%28DEWATS%29_
Manila/IWA%20DEWATS%20Brochure%20Rev3.pdf [15th July 2013].
Daigger, G.(2009). Evolving Urban Water and Residuals Management Paradigms: Water Reclamation and Reuse,
Decentralization, and Resource Recovery. Water Environment Research, 81, 809-823.
Fladerer, F. (2010). Mainstreaming DEWATS and the subsequent need to introduce a quality management system. Water
Practice & Technology, 5(4).
Howes, S. and Wyrwoll. P. (2012). Asia’s Wicked Environmental Problems. ADBI Working Paper 348. Tokyo: AsianDevelopment Bank Institute. Available: http://www.adbi.org/working-paper/2012/02/28/5009.asia.wicked.environmental.
problems/
JSC (2011). Country Sanitation Assessment in Malaysia Report. Japan Sanitation Consortium (JSC)-Solving Sanitation
issues in the Asia Pacific. Available on internet: http://jsanic.org/publications/Country_Survey_Reports/Malaysia/JSC_
Malaysia_Sanitation_Assessment_Report.pdf
Kamal, A.S.M., Goyer, K., Koottatep, T., Amin, T.M.N. (2008). Domestic wastewater management in South and Southeast
Asia: the potential benefits of a decentralised approach. Urban Water Journal, 5(4), 345-354.
Langergraber, G. (2013). Are constructed treatment wetlands sustainable sanitation solutions? Water Science andTechnology. 67(10), 2133-2140.

11

MoE (2012). Outlook on water Environmental management in Asia 2012. Author: WEPA Secretariat -&Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Ministry of the Environment (MoE), Japan. Available
on internet: http://www.wepa-db.net/activities_201203outlook2012.htm [15th July 2013].

Authors:
NGOC BAO Pham
Policy Researcher
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies(WEPA Secretariat), Japan

Tetsuo Kuyama
Manager(Water Resource Management)
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies(WEPA Secretariat), Japan

Mursito, D (2013). Introduction of decentralised wastewater management system in Indonesia. Presentation
at the WEPA Workshop on “Decentralised Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Asia”, hold in SARI Pan
Pacific Hotel on14th November 2013 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Nelson, K. L.; Murray, A. (2008). Sanitation for unserved populations: Technologies, implementation
challenges, and opportunities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 119−151.
Nhapi, I. (2004). A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in Zimbabwe. Physics andChemistry of the Earth, 29, 1265–1273.
Parkinson, J. & Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralised wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income
countries. Environmental and Urbanization, 15, 75-90.
UNDP (2008). No 1. Decentralisation of Water Decision Making. UNDP Water Governance Facility at
SIWI Issue Series. Available on internet: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20
and%20Energy/Water%20and%20Ocean%20Governance/water_supply_and_sanitation/Issue_Sheet_no1_
Decentalisation.pdf
UNESCO-WWAP (2003). Water for People, Water for Life. The United Nations World Water Development
Report. Published in 2003 jointly by the United Nations Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), and Berghahn Books. Available on internet: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1-2003/
WEPA-IGES (2012). WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia - 2012 (Summary
Report). Published by WEPA, IGES and Ministry of Environment-Japan. Available on internet: http://www.
wepa-db.net/pdf/1203outlook/02.pdf
Wilderer, P. A., Schreff, D., (2000), Decentralised and Centralized Wastewater Management: a Challenge
for Technology Developers, Water Science and Technology, 41 (1), 1-8.
WHO (2010). Vision 2030 - The resilience of water supply and sanitation in the face of climate change,
Technical report. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
WSP (2013). Review of Community Managed-Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in Indonesia.
Water and Sanitation Program (WSP): Technical paper, World Bank.
Yamagata, H., Ogoshi, M., Suzuki, Y., Ozaki, M., Asano, T. (2002). On-site insight into reuse in Japan.
Water21, 4, 26-28.
Figure 1: Picture was taken in Haiphong city of Vietnam

Layout:Yumi NishimuraInstitute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Japan

Figure 2.: Data for the relationship between urban wastewater treatment ratio and GDP per capita in WEPA
countries- GDP per capita in 2012 of WEPA countries, except Myanmar (current US$): http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD- GDP per capita of Myanmar: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2013/cr1313.pdf- Urban wastewater treatment ratio of WEPA countries: ADB. (2013). Asian Development Outlook 2013 –Measuring Water Security in Asia and the Pacific. Manila, Philippines.
Figure 4: Data for cost estimate for different levels of sanitation technologies- UNDP (2006). Human Development Report 2006. Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global watercrisis. United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA.
Figure 6: Pictures were taken during the field visit in Indonesia (2013)

Contact:
WEPA secretatiat
Institute for Global Envrionmental Strategies[IGES]Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa,
240-0015, Japan

Acknowledgements:
Following WEPA advisor kindly provided valuable comments and suggestion for this policy brief;
Kensuke Fukushi, Professor, The University of Tokyo

TEL: +81-46-855-3700, FAX: +81-46-855-3709
E-mail: contact@wepa-db.net
URL: http://www.iges.or.jp/12