Water Environment
Partnership in Asia

Third Phase Final ReportWater Environment
Partnership in Asia

Third Phase Final Report
Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report
Copyright © 2019 Ministry of the Environment, Japan. All rights reserved.
No parts of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,without prior permission in writing from the Ministry of the Environment Japan through the Institute for
Global Environment Strategies (IGES), which serves as the WEPA Secretariat.
ISBN: 978-4-88788-224-9
This publication is created as a part of WEPA and published by the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES).
Although every eﬀort is made to ensure objectivity and balance, the publication of study results does not
imply WEPA partner countries’ endorsement or acquiescence with its conclusions.
Ministry of the Environment, Japan
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8795 Japan
Tel: +81-(0)3-3581-3351
http://www.env.go.jp/en/
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-(0)46-855-3700
http://www.iges.or.jp/
The team for WEPA Third Phase Final Report 2018 includes the following IGES members:[Editor]Takeda, Tomoko Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services[Authors]
Kumar, Pankaj Senior Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Mitra, Bijon Kumer Senior Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Mizuno, Osamu Principal Fellow, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Ngoc Bao, Pham Senior Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Shivakoti, Binaya Raj Senior Water and Adaptation Specialist, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Takahashi, Ai Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Takeda, Tomoko Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services[Support]
Fushimi, Emma Editing Coordinator, Strategic Management Oﬃce
Kadoshima, Saeko Programme Coordinator, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
Kitamura, Eiko Publication Coordinator, Strategic Management Oﬃce
Sakoguchi, Sadamitsu Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services

Printed in Japan

Table of Contents
Preface1

Message from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan3

1. The Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)

4

2. Summay of the Third Phase of WEPA

6

3. Situation Analysis on Water Environmental Management8

3.1 Overview

8

3.2 Domestic Wastewater and Septage Management13

3.3 Industrial Wastewater Management15

3.4 Groundwater Pollution Control

18

4. WEPA Action Programs20

4.1 Introduction

20

4.2 Waste and Wastewater Management of Pig Farms in Viet Nam

22

4.3 Groundwater Monitoring for Industrial Eﬄuent Management in Sri Lanka

24

4.4 Pollution Load Management in Citarum River, Indonesia

26

5. Feedback from WEPA partner countries

28

5.1 Results of Surveys

28

5.2 Proposals from WEPA Partner Countries

30

Appendix

33

WEPA Focal Points

34

WEPA Advisory Board Members

36

List of Activities and Publications

36

References

38

Preface
Asia is home to 60% of the world’s total population,

NGOs and citizens. Among these actors, oﬃcials inwith further population growth forecast in the future. In

central government play a vital role as they have primary

addition, the region accounts for 30% of global GDP and

responsibility in planning and implementing the waterby 2050 this share is expected to exceed 50%, making

environment management policy in each country. It

Asia the region with the most dynamic growth in theis essential to improve their capacity to ensure thatworld. Against this background, there is a worsening

appropriate water environment management can be

impact on the environment, and this is causing serious

put in place. What is required for policymaking suited toproblems. Rapid population growth, extreme populationeach country’s situation is proper information on water

concentration in urban areas, unregulated industrial

environment management systems and technologies,

development as well as changes in consumption patterns

but unfortunately this information is often lacking inincluding a shift to foods such as meat that require moredeveloping Asian countries.

water to produce – all these factors put pressure on

Recognising this, the Ministry of the Environment,water resources both in quality and quantity, and there
is a risk that this will become an obstacle for sustainable

Japan proposed an initiative called the Water
Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) in 2004, with thedevelopment. There is also concern that climate change

aim of strengthening water environment governance inwill further exacerbate the situation.

the Asian region. WEPA conducts its activities on a 5-year

Building on the outcomes of the Millennium
Development Goals ( MDGs), the Sustainable

cycle. Utilising the knowledge accumulated and theDevelopment Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the UN

phase of WEPA focused on knowledge-sharing to ﬁndmember states in 2015. Targets on water environment

solutions to water environment problems. Subsequently,

were proposed under SDG 6 and emphasise not onlyin the third phase which began in 2014, WEPA continued

the importance of on-site sanitation facilities but also

to conduct knowledge-sharing and also made progress

the entire water cycle including management of water,

with a new scheme called WEPA Action Programs. These

wastewater and biological resources. However, it is not

are developed and implemented by a WEPA partner

easy for countries in Asia to achieve the targets set out incountry with the aim of solving speciﬁc issues andSDG 6. For example, according to the report by UN Water

thereby improving the water environment in the country.

in 2017, in South and Southeast Asia, between roughly 60

WEPA supports the planning and implementation ofand 80% of wastewater is still being discharged without

actions proactively carried out by each of the WEPA

treatment. A WEPA survey revealed that the sources ofpartner countries.

human network developed in the ﬁrst phase, the second

water pollution in Asia are diverse, such as domestic

We have now reached the end of the third phase ofwastewater, industrial wastewater, and agricultural

WEPA, and as we reﬂect on the outcomes and experiences

wastewater, and the situation diﬀers greatly dependingof the activities carried out so far, I hope that WEPA willon the country and watershed.

continue to develop to further strengthen and improve

A great deal of time and expense is required towater environment governance in the Asian region.

restore the water environment once it has been polluted.
Therefore it is absolutely crucial to manage the water
environment appropriately before recovery becomes
too diﬃcult. Water environment governance involves aMarch, 2019wide range of actors including related oﬃcers in central

Mitsumasa Okada

and local governments, water experts, the private sector,

Chair of WEPA Advisor Meeting

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report1Message from the Ministry of theEnvironment, Japan
Recognising

that

the

improvement

of

water

governance and the challenges faced by WEPA

environmental governance is essential to solve water

countries. Second, it gives an overview and presents thepollution problems in the Asian region, the Water

outcomes of third phase activities, in particular activities

Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) was launched

implemented in Viet Nam (wastewater management ofin 2004 by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

pig farms), Sri Lanka (groundwater management), andDuring the ﬁrst phase of WEPA (FY2004 to 2008), it was

Indonesia (pollution load control for rivers) under arealised that information sharing among stakeholders is

new scheme called “WEPA Action Programs” which area key point for better water environmental governance.

developed and implemented by WEPA partner countries

To this end, WEPA developed a human network whichwith the aim of solving speciﬁc issues. The report also

was made up of policymakers dealing with water

introduces the results of a questionnaire survey carriedenvironmental management in the Asian region, and atout to ensure future activities are in line with the needs

the same time developed an information platform onof all partner countries and summarises suggestions

water environment in the region. In the second phasereceived from partner countries for WEPA activities

of WEPA (FY2009 to 2013), activities were conductedgoing forward.

to improve the water environmental governance ofFinally, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation

WEPA partner countries by promoting information andto all WEPA partners who have made major contributions

knowledge sharing for ﬁnding solutions to priority issues

to activities in the third phase of WEPA. It is my sincere

such as “domestic wastewater treatment” and “climate

wish that many more people will take an interest inchange and the water environment” through workshops

WEPA through this report.

and dialogues. Subsequently, in the third phase of
WEPA which began in FY2014, support was provided
for speciﬁc actions by partner countries to overcome
the challenges facing the regional water environment
based on the information and knowledge shared up to
the second phase.

March 2019

Kazuya KumagaiThis report aims to introduce the detailed activities

Director of the Water Environment Division,and outcomes obtained in the third phase of WEPA. First,

Environmental Management Bureau,

it reports on the current state of water environmental

Ministry of the Environment, Japan

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report3

1

The Water Environment Partnershipin Asia (WEPA)

The Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) is a regional network aiming to improve thewater environment in Asia by strengthening water environmental governance. It is intended to raise
the well-being of the people in Asia by catalysing knowledge and action on water governance.

WEPA FACTS

When did it start?

WEPA was proposed at the 3rd World Water Forum held in Kyoto, Shiga andOsaka in 2003 by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and was launched in
2004; activities follow a 5-year cycle and the Third Phase started in April 2014.

Who are the constituents?

Currently, WEPA comprises 13 Asian
countries: Cambodia, China, Indonesia,
Japan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka,
Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet
Nam. Each partner country appoints
focal points who actively participate in
WEPA activities and facilitate the samein their respective countries.

Republic of Korea

China

Japan

Partnership of
13 Asian Countries
13 countries in Asia
participate in WEPA
including Japan

Nepal
MyanmarLao PDR
Viet Nam

ThailandPhilippines

Cambodia

Sri Lanka

Malaysia

Indonesia

How is it governed?

The plan of activities under WEPA is discussed and endorsed at the
WEPA Annual Meeting. According to the plan, the WEPA Secretariat
implements activities in close collaboration with partner countries.

4

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportWhat is the mission of WEPA?

Based on partnerships between policymakers and relevant stakeholders in Asia, especially through those of WEPA
Focal Points, WEPA aims to:enhance capacity of policy planning and implementation of policymakers, mainly via the WEPA Focal Points,
through facilitating exchange of knowledge and dialogue on water environmental management of the partnercountries
identify critical water environmental issues and key institutional issues for management thereof, support such
eﬀorts in resolving them, and share the lessons learnt from these activities with WEPA partner countries and related
stakeholders
enhance cooperation within WEPA partner countries and with international organisations and donor agencies toresolve existing water environmental issues and to improve water environmental management

The WEPA Database –an information platform forwater environmental
management
Developed in collaboration with thepartner countries, this four-part databaseholds information on the related policies,
technologies and NGO & CBO activities,
as well as links to other resources.
The database also holds the bulk of
WEPA meeting presentation material andpublications.

Technology
Database

Policy Database-State of water
environment-Legislative
framework, etc.

Wastewater treatment
facility underoperation in Asia

www.wepa-db.net

Activities by
NGOs and CBOs
Water environmental
conservation
activities

Information
SourceLinks to useful sites onwater environmental
management

What’s new in the third phase?

The WEPA Action Program
To promote concrete actions for improving water governance in each country, a new scheme named “WEPA Action
Program” was introduced in the third phase. WEPA Action Programs aim to take actions to resolve speciﬁc problems
on water governance in partner countries, with support provided by WEPA. Practical lessons learnt from the program
are shared with other WEPA partner countries.

WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia
Considering the importance of a common understanding among stakeholders to solve water
quality issues in the region, the “WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management”
has been published every three years and is based on the accumulated information andknowledge, as well as the human network developed under this initiative. The report aims
to provide the most up-to-date and useful information on the water environment and its
management in WEPA partner countries.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

5

2
Year

Summay of the Third Phase of WEPA

Month

Oct

Bilateral meeting with Viet Nam (Hanoi, Viet Nam)
23rd Meeting of the United Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Board on
Water and Sanitation ( Tokyo, Japan)

Nov

11th International Symposium on Southeast Asian Water Environment (SEAWE11)- WEPA Sessions on Water Environmental Governance in Asia

Feb

The 10th Annual Meeting (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
WEPA Workshop on Wastewater Management (Colombo, Sri Lanka)

2014

2015

Issued a pamphlet on the overview of the third phase of WEPA
Developed plan of Action Program on Waste and Wastewater Management of Pig Farms
in Viet Nam

Others

Year

Month

2015

Apr

7th World Water Forum (Daegu & Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea)- Official session “Strengthening Frameworks for Governing andManaging Water Quality”

2016

Jan

WEPA Workshop on Industrial Wastewater Management ( Vientiane, Lao PDR)
The 11th Annual Meeting ( Vientiane, Lao PDR)

Year

Month

Others

Event

Jul

Conference on Watershed Management for Controlling Municipal Wastewater inSoutheast Asia (Nagoya, Japan)
MOEJ and MLIT, Japan

Nov

12th International Symposium on Southeast Asian Water Environment (SEAWE 12)(Hanoi, Viet Nam)
- WEPA Session on Groundwater Pollution Control
12th Annual Meeting (Hanoi, Viet Nam)

Feb

WEPA group workshop on pig wastewater management in Asia
(Chiang Mai, Thailand)

2016

2017

Event

Conducted WEPA Action Program on Waste and Wastewater Management of Pig Farms
in Viet Nam

Other

6

Event

Conducted a follow-up study on Waste and Wastewater Management of Pig Farms
in Viet Nam
Developed plan of Action Program on Groundwater Monitoring for Industrial Effluent
Management in Sri Lanka

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

Year

2017

2018

Month

Event

Sep

WEPA International Workshop on Industrial Wastewater Management(Jakarta, Indonesia)
The 13th Annual Meeting (Jakarta, Indonesia)

Nov

Workshop for Introduction of Multistage Hybrid Wetland Systems (Hanoi, Viet Nam)

Dec

Preparation Workshop on the Asia Wastwater Management Partnership (AWaP)(Yangon, Myanmar)

Mar

8th World Water Forum (Brasilia, Brazil)- Official thematic session “Understanding the Water Quality from Ridge to Reef”- Regional Process Workshop “Towards Improving Sanitation and Wastewater
Management: Challenges and Good Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region”
Conducted WEPA Action Program on Groundwater Monitoring for Industrial Effluent
Management in Sri Lanka
Developed Action Program on Pollution Load Management in Citarum River, Indonesia
Started development of a WEPA action program in Cambodia
Conducted an online survey to WEPA partner countries

Others

Year

Month

2018

Sep

IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition (Tokyo, Japan)- Workshop “Toward the Achievement of SDGs Relating to Sanitation andWastewater Management (SDG 6.2, 6.3)”

2019

Feb

International Workshop on Decentralised Wastewater Management (Tokyo, Japan)
14th Annual Meeting (Tokyo, Japan)

Others

Event

Conducted WEPA Action Program Pollution Load Management in Citarum River, Indonesia
Conducted WEPA Action Program on Groundwater Monitoring for Industrial Effluent
Management in Sri Lanka (continued)
Developing WEPA Action Program in Cambodia (continued)
Conducted an online survey on feedback towards WEPA
Conducted a survey on water environmental governance

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report7

3

Situation Analysis on
Water Environmental Management

3.1. Overview

Control (Cambodia), Water Pollution Control Law(Japan) and Clean Water Act (the Philippines). Myanmar
has no such basic law but did pass the “Environmental
Conservation Law” in 2012, and in 2015 adopted theDeterioration of water quality is one of the most pressing

Myanmar National Water Policy with aims to establish aenvironmental problems threatening human healthframework for developing relevant laws and institutions.

and sound economic development. It remains a criticalproblem in many WEPA partner countries. The WEPA
partner countries have developed their own policies
and measures to combat the growing threat of waterpollution in critical areas and to avoid future pollution
risks in other areas.

3.1.2. Ambient water quality standards in
WEPA countries
Ambient water quality standards are the administrative
targets dictating the levels of water quality that need to

Certain aspects of water environmental management

be maintained. Table 3.1.1 shows the status of standard-

diﬀer across the partner countries – due to contextual

setting for ambient water quality in each partner country.

factors such as the duration, gravity, cause and level

With the exception of Myanmar, all WEPA countries

of socio-economic development – but some, such as

have established surface water quality standards.

pollution source control, are common to all as basic

Myanmar has yet to formulate ambient water quality

measures. Conducting reviews of water environmental

standards but formulation of the National Environmental

management in the partner countries is useful in order

Quality Standards is underway as mandated by theto understand what progress has been made so far

Environmental Conservation Law passed in 2012.

and to identify common management challenges, aswell as to promote more knowledge-sharing for future
WEPA activities. To this end this summary on water
environmental management in WEPA partner countries

3.1.3. Water quality monitoring in
WEPA partner countries

gives an overview of the state of water environmental

Most of the WEPA partner countries conduct regularmanagement and some of the common challenges

monitoring of ambient water quality except Nepal

being faced.

and Lao PDR. In Lao PDR, ambient water quality
monitoring is carried out on an ad-hoc basis. In Nepal,

3.1.1. Basic environmental law in
WEPA countries

8

diﬀerent ministries and agencies carry out water quality
monitoring, but there is no systematic ambient water
quality framework. National or local government

It is important to set clear policy objectives and targets.

agencies conduct ambient water quality monitoring in

Clear goal-setting enables actions taken by governments

public water bodies. Table 3.1.2 shows the number ofand managers of facilities that discharge pollutants to bemonitoring stations and evaluation methodologies ofreviewed at a later stage. Most WEPA countries have set

water quality used in WEPA partner countries.

out a basic environmental law stipulating protection of

The methodologies of evaluation of water quality

human health, ensuring a safe human environment andapplied in the WEPA partner countries can be primarily

protection of the environment as a basis for sustainabledivided into two types. In the ﬁrst type, water quality isdevelopment, and these objectives also apply for water

evaluated based on preset criteria and classes, which

environmental management. More detailed deﬁnitions ofis practiced in Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines,

water environmental management objectives are laid out

Thailand and Viet Nam. In this method, based on thein laws or acts speciﬁc to water pollution control in someresults of water quality monitoring, governments

countries, such as the Sub-Decree on Water Pollution

determine whether each water body satisﬁes the Water

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportTable 3.1.1. Status of ambient water quality standards in WEPA partner countries
Country

Surface Water

Groundwater

Cambodia

Water Quality
Standards in Public
Water Areas

Water Quality
Standards in Public
Water Areas

China

Environmental Quality
Standards for Surface
Water

Marine/Coastal Water

Sources

Water Quality
Standards in Public
Water Areas

Sub-Decree on Water Pollution Control(No.27, 1999)

Quality Standard for
Ground Water

Sea Water Quality
Standard

Environmental Quality Standards for
Surface Water (GB3838-2002)
Quality Standard for Ground Water(GB/T 14848-9)
Sea Water Quality Standard (GB30971997)

Indonesia

Water Quality Criteria

Water Quality Criteria

Standard Quality of
Seawater

Government Regulation Number 82(2001)
Decree of the State Minister of theEnvironment Number 51 (2004)

Japan

Environmental Quality
Standards for Water
Pollution

Environmental Water
Quality Standards ofGroundwater

Environmental Quality
Standards for Water
Pollution

Environmental Quality Standards for
Water Pollution (1971, latest amended in2016)
Environmental Water Quality Standardsof Groundwater (1998, latest amended in2012)

Republicof Korea

Environmental
Standards for Water
Quality and Aquatic
Ecosystem

Environmental
Standards for Water
Quality and Aquatic
Ecosystem*

Environmental
Standards for Water
Quality and Aquatic
Ecosystem

President Decree under Framework Act
on Environmental Policy (1990)

Lao PDR

Surface Water Quality
Standard

Groundwater Quality
Standard*

Malaysia

National Water
Quality Standards**

Marine Water Quality
Criteria and Standard

National Water Quality Standards for
Malaysia
Marine Water Quality Criteria andStandard

Nepal

***

***

***

Nepal Gazette (No.10, 16 June 2008)

Philippines

Water Quality
Guidelines andGeneral EﬄuentStandards of 2016

Water Quality
Guidelines andGeneral EﬄuentStandards of 2016

Water Quality
Guidelines andGeneral EﬄuentStandards of 2016

Water Quality Guidelines and General
Eﬄuent Standards of 2016

Sri Lanka

****

****

****

Potable Water Standards (SLS614) (2013)
Ambient Water Quality Standards

Marine Water Quality
Standard

Notiﬁcation of the National
Environmental Board, No. 8, B.E. 2537
(1994)
Notiﬁcation of the National
Environmental Board, No. 20, B.E. 2543
(2000)

National TechnicalRegulation on Coastal
Water Quality

No. QCVN 08:MT2015/BTNMT National
Technical Regulation on Surface Water
Quality
No. QCVN 09:MT2015/BTNMT National
Technical Regulation on Ground Water
Quality
No. QCVN 10:MT2015/BTNMT National
Technical Regulation on Coastal Water
Quality

The Agreement of National Standards ofEnvironment in Laos (2009)

MyanmarThailand

Viet Nam

Surface Water Quality
Standards

National TechnicalRegulation on Surface
Water Quality

Groundwater Quality
Standards*

National TechnicalRegulation on
Ground Water Quality* For groundwater used for drinking, the groundwater quality standard for drinking is applied.
** Although no water quality standard is established, groundwater quality status is determined based on National Guidelines For Raw Drinking
Water Quality from the Ministry of Health (Revised December 2000) as the benchmark in Malaysia.
*** Nepal sets water quality standards according to objective (for drinking water, irrigation water, livestock watering, and industry).
**** Sri Lanka evaluates water quality according to objective category (potable water, water source for simple treatment, bathing and contact
recreation, ﬁsh and aquatic life, water source for general treatment, irrigation and agriculture, minimum water quality). The ﬁrst ambient water
quality standards and classiﬁcations have been approved and are in the process of publication as of 2018.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report9Quality Standard or not, which is used to express thecategorised into six classes (I, II, III, IV, V and worse than V)

overall water environmental standard for these countries

based on the classiﬁcation stipulated in its Environmental

as a percentage. This evaluation methodology also

Quality Standard. In Malaysia and Thailand, the sameclassiﬁes water bodies for suitability for diﬀerent uses.

evaluation methodology concept is applied, but theseIn the second type of evaluation methodology, water

countries use the Water Quality Index (WQI) insteadbodies are classiﬁed based on the results of water qualityof the classiﬁcation within the Environmental Quality

monitoring and classiﬁcation in the Environmental

Standard.

Quality Standard. For example, in China, river sections are
Table 3.1.2. Number of monitoring stations and methodologies of evaluation of water quality in
WEPA partner countries
Countryies
Cambodia

Number of monitoring stations

Water quality evaluation methodology

River

Lake

Groundwater

Coastal

10

2

N/A

5
Classiﬁcation, using monitoring stations, based on resultsof monitoring and Environmental Quality Standard(Surface water, marine water and groundwater)

China

2,424

343

6,124

147,940 km2(Spring)
135,420 km2(Summer)Indonesia

598

N/A

N/A

N/A

Achievement rate of environmental standard for water inpublic water zones (Surface water)Japan

3,934a4,578b
1,783c

401a
477b
168c

3,196d818e
4,313f

1,060a2,054b293c

Achievement rate of environmental standard for waterin public water zones (Surface water, marine water andgroundwater)

Lao PDR

-

-

-

-

Malaysia

904

90

105

Myanmar

-

-

-

-

Nepal

-

-

-

-

Philippines

172

42

-

28

Achievement rate of environmental standard forwater in public water bodies and rating based on theachievement rate of each water body (Surface water andmarine water)

Republicof Korea

1,745

191

3,353

N/A

Achievement rate of environmental standard for water inpublic water zones (surface water and groundwater)

Sri Lanka

-

-

-

-

Thailand

600

35

620

221

Classiﬁcation of monitoring stations, based onmonitoring results and Water Quality Index (WQI)

Viet Nam

522

-

-

145

Achievement rate of environmental standard for water inpublic water zones

151 (coastal) Classiﬁcation of monitoring stations, based on
76 (estuary) monitoring results and Water Quality Index (WQI)

a: indicators for human health protection, b: indicators for living environment,
c: indicators for aquatic biodiversity, d: summary survey, e: survey of area surrounding polluted wells,
f : continued surveillance (a–c: 2016, d–f: 2017)

3.1.4. Eﬄuent quality standards andcompliance status

10(Source: See References)environmental or ecosystem conservation areas. Japanand Republic of Korea introduced a system to control
total pollution loads in speciﬁc water bodies in addition

Except Myanmar, all WEPA partner countries have set

to eﬄuent control via pollutant concentration. For further

industrial eﬄuent standards. Standards for eﬄuent

strengthening of water environment management,

discharge vary from country to country – China, Lao PDR,

Indonesia is developing a methodology for total

Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam based theirs on

maximum daily load (TMDL). Although Myanmar does

the type of industry, whereas Cambodia’s was set up

not have an industrial eﬄuent standard, it has developed

according to proximity of pollution sources to sensitive

guidelines for industrial eﬄuents. Of the 13 WEPA partner

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Reportcountries, eight have established eﬄuent standards for(industries and domestic wastewater treatment facilities)

agro-industries.

exceeding certain volumes. Malaysia introduced an on-

Monitoring of eﬄuent quality is necessary to check online reporting system for industry to self-report eﬄuent

levels of compliance with standards. Despite obligations

monitoring results through a website. In Japan, recording

on owners or managers of pollution sources andof monitoring results became mandatory under a revisionwastewater treatment facilities to monitor eﬄuent quality,

to the Water Pollution Control Law in 2010. According

this is not comprehensively carried out in all countries andto a recent survey conducted by the WEPA Secretariat

results sometimes do not reach the intended authorities.

and other sources, the compliance rate of industrial

In Cambodia and Sri Lanka the central government

eﬄuent varies from country to country – it is 100% in

conducts monitoring at sites suspected of discharging

Japan and the Republic of Korea, 99% in Malaysia, 90% inhigh concentrations of eﬄuent. On the other hand, inCambodia, 87% in Indonesia, 82% in Sri Lanka and 75%

Republic of Korea, centralised monitoring of eﬄuent

in the Philippines (Figure 3.1.1).

using tele-metering was introduced for pollution sources
100%
90%

100%

99%

87%

100%
&RPSOLDQFH£UDWH
1XPEHU£RI£WDUJHWHG
LQGXVWULHV

82%

10,000

80%

75%

1,000

60%

100

40%

10

20%

1

Cambodia Indonesia

Japan

Malaysia

Phillipines

Republicof Korea

Sri Lanka&RPSOLDQFH£UDWH

1XPEHU£RI£WDUJHWHG£LQGXVWULHV

100,000

0%

Figure 3.1.1. Compliance rates of industrial eﬄuent in selected WEPA partner countries (Source: See References)
All WEPA partner countries have legislations in place tofor treatment facilities under construction or being

prevent or mitigate pollution from untreated or partiallyupgraded. Indonesia launched its Program for Pollution

treated industrial wastewater. For enforcement of existing

Control Evaluation and Rating (PROPER) to encourage

legislations, various measures including onsite inspectionindustries to comply with environmental regulations byprovision, governmental guidance and violation penalties

publishing their environmental performance, including

have been introduced to ensure industrial eﬄuent quality

whether they meet designated eﬄuent qualities or not.

complies with eﬄuent standards. For example, economic
instruments such as Viet Nam’s environmental protection
fee on industrial wastewater have been introduced, and3.1.5. Institutional arrangements

polluters will be charged depending on the pollutant andIn general, the environmental line ministry and agencies

load emitted (MoEJ, 2018). Inspections and penalties play

are in charge of pollution control. However, national andan important role in addressing non-compliance.

local government agencies play distinct roles in water

Some WEPA partner countries have attempted toquality management that diﬀer in respective WEPA

encourage industries to comply with regulation using

partner countries. In general, national governments

alternative measures. For instance, Japan has introduced

develop policies, laws and set overall goals, targets andprovisional eﬄuent standards for speciﬁc types ofrules, which are implemented by local governments.

industries that face diﬃculties to comply with original

Local governments handle local water environmental

eﬄuent quality standards in order to encourage technicalmanagement in many countries. Further, the concept

improvements by specifying a time limit. Malaysia alsoof ‘basin management’ has been gradually spreading

has introduced lax policy that exempts industries from thein water environmental management in WEPA partner

immediate need for compliance with eﬄuent standards

countries. In Viet Nam, for example, a basin-level

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report11management plan covering water quality aspects in threesetting up and revisions to eﬄuent standards.

major river basins is underway; in the Philippines, “water

ii. China, Japan, and Republic of Korea apply the Total

quality management areas” (under the Clean Water Act)

Pollutant Load Control (TPLC) system to the whole

have been created, which are designated by hydrologicalcountry or speciﬁc water bodies in addition to eﬄuent

instead of administrative boundaries. To incorporate thecontrol via wastewater quality control.

basin management concept and further raise the wateriii. Some countries such as Indonesia and Thailand

quality of water bodies, it is necessary to encourage

have attempted to introduce the TMDL system tostakeholder participation and increase awareness. The
overlap of responsibilities and institutional coordination

strengthen water environment management.
iv. Strengthening

institutional

coordination

andis one of the major challenges for water environment

minimising overlapping responsibilities by institutional

management in WEPA partner countries. In 2018, China

restructures, such as China’s establishment of theestablished a new Ministry of Ecology and Environment

Ministry of Ecology and Environment, with broader

to minimise this problem and strengthen institutional

mandates for pollution control and ecologicalcoordination on ecological environmental protection

protection, including for air, water, sea, soil, noise,

responsibilities.

light, odor, solid waste, chemicals, vehicles, andnuclear facilities1.

3.1.6. Data availability on wastewater
management

v. Incorporation of concerns surrounding ecosystemconservation.

Reliable and timely data on volume of wastewater

WEPA Outlook 2018 identiﬁed the following challenges

generation and treatment is important in evidence-based

for water environment management in this region:

decision-making to ensure good water governance,

i. Absence of detailed rules and guidelines forand also facilitates eﬀective monitoring of SDG targets

wastewater management: In the absence of rules andon water and sanitation. However, comprehensive

guidelines, industry uses diﬀerent eﬄuent monitoringassessments of water have not be carried out in WEPA

procedures and analytical methods that make thepartner countries except Japan, Republic of Korea andassessment of eﬄuent quality data less reliable andPhilippines. A survey conducted by the WEPA Secretariat

less comparative, which creates problems in proving

in 2019 found that data on wastewater generation andstatus of treatment are not available or publicly accessible
in the other 10 WEPA partner countries.

non-compliance.
ii. Weak institutional coordination: Multiple agencies(covering environmental and industrial sectors) have

Most WEPA partner countries have policies tobeen assigned water environment management

disclose ambient water quality monitoring, and many

mandates, which leads to overlapping responsibilities,

partner countries including China, Japan, Republic of

weak coordination and conﬂicts of interest.

Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Viet Nam make results ofiii. Availability and accessibility of reliable data:

ambient water quality monitoring available to the publicInformation on industries and their wastewater – notby publishing environmental quality reports. Some

only number and type of industry but also wastewater

countries such as China, Republic of Korea, Thailand,

volume and quality data – is insuﬃcient in partner

and Viet Nam disclose real-time monitoring data fromcountries. Reliability of data of eﬄuent quality is

automated monitoring stations on designated websites.

another challenge as most WEPA partner countries
lack lab-based capacity, standardised sampling and3.1.7. Recent developments andfuture challenges

analysis methodology.
iv. Lack of human resources: In most WEPA partnercountries, water environment management agencies

All WEPA partner countries have attempted to strengthen

often suﬀer from human resources shortages both attheir water environmental management systems

national and local government levels, which creates aover the past decade. The “WEPA Outlook on Water

barrier to enforcing regulations in terms of not only

Environmental Management 2018” (WEPA Outlook 2018)

staﬃng levels but also implementation capacity.

(MoEJ, 2018) identiﬁed the following key developments in

v. Lack of ﬁnancial resources: resources are required

WEPA partner countries:

for establishing databases and inventories, as well as

i. Strengthening of eﬄuent management, including

conducting water quality monitoring.

1 Partially updated with information from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, 2015-2016 (See References)

12

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report3.2. Domestic Wastewater andSeptage Management

negative impacts on the nearby water environment.
Low treatment eﬃciencies, often ranging from 30–60%
based on results from several studies, which is lower
than centralised sewerage systems using aeration,

The Asia-Paciﬁc region continues to experience rapid

have been observed in these countries (MOEJ, 2015).

population growth, urbanisation, industrialisation andAlthough septic tanks are widely used in WEPA countries,changes in consumption patterns, including shifting diets

most of these countries lack speciﬁc policies and legal/

toward highly water-intensive foods such as meats, which

institutional frameworks covering appropriate design,

combined have led to a signiﬁcant increase in water

construction, operation and maintenance. A recent

demand, placing a huge burden on water infrastructures

estimate showed that 75% of septic tanks in Viet Nam

in many countries of the region. Consequently, theand 66% in Indonesia, for example, have never been

quantity and pollution loads of wastewater produced

emptied (World Bank, 2015).

are constantly increasing. Unfortunately, a considerable
amount of wastewater in this region is not properly
treated before being discharged. Estimates show that

3.2.2. Lack of proper septage management

85–89% of generated wastewater in Asia is discharged

The sludge generated from these on-site systems

directly into water bodies without any treatment or only

(hereafter referred to as “septage”) is rarely collected,

partially treated by simple on-site sanitation systems

and even when collected is often illegally dumped orsuch as septic tanks (Kuyama, 2017), causing substantial

improperly or only partially treated before discharge intolevels of contamination in drinking water sources, as well

the open environment. Figures reported for safe disposal

as inland and coastal ecosystems.

or treatment of septage vary widely – 4% in Indonesia,
10% in Philippines (mainly in Metro Manila), 4% in Viet

3.2.1. Predominance of septic tanks withpoor performance in urban areas

Nam (World Bank, 2013), less than 1% in Nuwara Eliya of
Sri Lanka, and 30% in Thailand (AECOM & SANDEC, 2010).
In many cases, septage is not prioritised by either central

Asia’s developing countries share several challenges

or local governments, and is often handled by private

in common for eﬀective wastewater management,

service providers, as practiced in Indonesia, Philippines,

including a low percentage of improved sanitation

Thailand, and Viet Nam. In Indonesia, for instance, more

systems, especially in rural areas, inadequate seweragethan 150 septage treatment plants were constructed

network coverage, and insuﬃcient sewage and sludge

since the 1990s, but due to the lack of eﬀective septage

treatment facilities. WEPA partner countries, especiallyemptying services, many plants stopped functioning

those in Southeast Asia, are still heavily dependentand less than 10% still operate – many of which do not

on septic tanks and other low-cost on-site sanitation

function properly either (World Bank, 2016).

facilities such as ventilated improved pit toilets, doublevault latrines, composting toilets, and pour-ﬂush toilets
with twin pits. It is reported that approximately 88% ofhouseholds in urban areas of Viet Nam have a septic tank–with respective ﬁgures for Thailand, Philippines, Lao
PDR, Indonesia and Cambodia being 83%, 72%, 58%,
63% and 44% (WHO and UNICEF, 2017).
The number of septic tanks is expected to accelerate
in the future. Although the presence of septic tanks is an
improvement over having no sanitation facilities at all,in many cases there is still much to be done in terms ofthe design, construction, operation and maintenance of
septic tanks. In addition, the low contribution of septic
tanks to water quality conservation is pointed out asa problem, since septic tanks in most areas treat only
black water, while gray water is directly discharged tothe environment without any treatment, thus causing

Figure 3.2.1. Discharge of collected septage at“dumping points” in Bandung, Indonesia (Source: Bao, 2018)

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report133.2.3. Poor management of domestic
wastewater and septage

domestic wastewater treatment as developed countries.
This may not always be an economically/environmentallyfeasible option, and alternative solutions to conventional

As a result of poor domestic wastewater and septage

centralised wastewater management are being explored.

management, many major rivers and lakes in WEPA

Meanwhile, decentralised wastewater treatment systems

countries have been polluted, mainly by organic(DEWATS) have received increasing attention from WEPA

contaminants and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

partner countries as a promising approach to address

In Indonesia, for instance, results of water quality analysis

the limitations described above.

showed that most analysis parameters for water samples

Advocates of decentralised wastewater management

collected from rivers across the country have exceeded

opine that the construction of conventional, large-scale

the national water quality standard; and these rivers havecentralised wastewater treatment systems with advanced

been severely polluted due to poor management oftechnologies, often imported from developed countries,

domestic wastewater and septage from septic tanks. In

have failed in many cases as these are not consideredaddition, it is estimated that about 70% of groundwater

feasible, cost-eﬀective options for many developingin cities in Indonesia is heavily polluted with sewage

countries in Asia. Instead, decentralised wastewater

bacteria as a result of leaking septic tanks – yet half of citymanagement has been shown to be a viable alternative

dwellers use groundwater for their daily needs (Worldfor developing countries in Southeast Asia with rapidly

Bank, 2013).

accelerating populations and urbanisation, which lack

Water pollution due to poor sanitation not only

adequate wastewater treatment facilities (Figure 3.2.2).

aﬀects the environment and human health, but also has

Citywide piped sewerage network
Centralised wastewater treatmenthuge economic impacts. A study from the World Bankin the East Asia and Paciﬁc region covering Indonesia,

Off-site sanitation

Philippines and Viet Nam showed that the previously
ecological and environmental impacts in these countries.
The economic impact of inadequate sanitation in thesethree countries is rising, with total costs estimated at 8.5
billion USD. The breakdown of this cost is comprised ofIndonesia with 6.3 billion USD (2.3% of GDP), Philippines
with 1.4 billion USD (1.5% of GDP) and Viet Nam with 780
million USD (1.3% of GDP) (World Bank, 2008).

3.2.4. Limits to centralised wastewater
treatment
The urban wastewater treatment rate in Lao PDR,

14

Increasing cost

described situation has caused negative socio-economic,

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-site Sanitation
Open defecation
Increasing complexity

Figure 3.2.2. Decentralised sanitation ﬁlls the gap
between on-site and centralised sanitation options

Cambodia, Myanmar, Nepal, Viet Nam, Sri Lanka, and(Source: Modiﬁed from WSP, 2013)

Indonesia continues to be below 35% and mainly relies

Interest in DEWATS is rising due to their potential toon conventional centralised wastewater treatment

reduce treatment costs over the long term, minimise

methods. Meanwhile, in emerging economies like China,

environmental impacts and facilitate wastewater reuse

Malaysia and Thailand, this rate ranges from 60 to 80%. In(Daigger, 2009; Nhapi, 2004). In Japan, sewer networks

Japan and the Republic of Korea, the rate is much higher

in centralised systems can cost ﬁve times more thanand exceeds 90% (Bao and Kuyama, 2013). Meanwhile,the sewage treatment plant itself. In contrast, DEWATS

the wastewater treatment rate in rural areas is much

reduces sewer costs signiﬁcantly (Figure 3.2.3), andlower in most countries, with the exception of Japan,

can reduce costs of treatment units too if anaerobic

Malaysia and the Republic of Korea. Time, continuous

treatment technologies are utilized. The areas withinvestments, capacity development and a vast amount ofhighest potential to implement DEWATS are peri-urban

infrastructure construction will be required for developing

and rural areas with a low-income population. Good

countries to build, operate and maintain centralised

examples have been observed in case studies fromwastewater systems in order to gain similar rates ofIndonesia, Malaysia, and Manila City in the Philippines.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportSuccessful cases of decentralisation are also recognised

for all local problems and still incurs the issues of sludge

in Japan, where about 2,500 decentralised systems

management and unsatisfactory eﬄuent water quality.

with modern treatment technologies are associatedSince there is no single solution to all problems, thewith large residential blocks that treat and reuse theirselection of any technological option should take into

own wastewater (Yamagata et al., 2012). It is strongly

account local contexts, including in particular technical,

believed that decentralised wastewater treatment

socio-cultural, institutional and economic factors such

systems could ﬁll the gap between on-site systems likeas consumer aﬀordability and willingness to pay, cost

septic tanks and centralised treatment options. Thus it

eﬀectiveness, as well as use of environmentally sound,is considered a promising solution for eﬀective domesticsocially and technically acceptable, highly reliable,

wastewater management in many Asian countries,

simple, easily maintainable technologies, especially inalthough anaerobic DEWATS is not a universal solution

developing countries.

Figure 3.2.3. Example of anaerobic type DEWATS system installed and managed by
a community-based organisation in Bandung, Indonesia

3.3. Industrial Wastewater
Managementwith Indonesia representing the largest market and thePhilippines the highest growth rate (ADB, 2016). For
industries in most WEPA partner countries, managing
sludge in addition to wastewater remains a challenge,

The rapid pace of population and economic growth indisparate developing WEPA partner countries have led toa huge gap between the amounts of industrial wastewater
generated and the infrastructure available to treat it. Asa major cause of water pollution, this poses a serious
threat to the environment and human health, as well asa serious challenge for governance. The main challenges
regarding wastewater treatment and management,
especially in developing countries, are the lack ofmonitoring data, especially for small to medium scaleindustries, insuﬃcient treatment infrastructure and lackof strict enforcement. While most WEPA countries havemade signiﬁcant progress in eﬄuent/septage treatment
and management over the last decade, a signiﬁcantamount of industrial wastewater is still unaccounted
for and released in the ambient environment without
proper treatment – Japan, Republic of Korea, and China
are exceptions (MoEJ, 2018). In addition, the market for

owing to the lack of infrastructure, poor governance, lackof awareness and limited capacity.
The following describes country-speciﬁc ﬁndings on thestatus of industrial wastewater management, as well as
future challenges and opportunities (WEPA Website).

1

Cambodia – Of 1,144 industries, around 10% werenon-compliant with eﬄuent standards wheninspected by responsible ministries. After inspection,
facilities in 99 industries were improved for small
malfunctions; however, 10 industries were issued legal
orders and penalised for not following the eﬄuent
standard issued by the Ministry of Environment. The
government is increasing eﬀorts to revise the sub-decree
on water pollution control by streamlining the guidelineon eﬄuent treatment and management, and developing
capacity (MoE Cambodia, 2019).

2

China – In 2015, the Action Plan for Prevention
and Control of Water Pollution was issued by theindustrial wastewater and its treatment in Southeast Asia

government, and in response, industrial wastewater

alone is estimated at over 4 billion USD by year 2020,

treatment facilities with a total capacity of up to 10 million

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report15

m3/day have been built in industrial agglomeration

coordination among diﬀerent stakeholders are the mainareas. Total COD discharged into the environment fromdrivers for poor water environment in the country.

sources with daily discharge volume over 100 m3 is

Therefore, the government is attempting to strengthen

estimated at 172,414 t/year (MEE, 2017).

institutional and governance capacity on a priority basis.

3

Indonesia – The Program for Pollution Control
Evaluation and Rating (PROPER) evaluated 1,872

Nepal – Despite very low industrial growth, water
bodies are severely polluted in the country due toindustries in 2017-2018, and found that 13% of thethe lack of wastewater management infrastructure andindustries failed to comply with environmental regulations.

policies/regulations. Since Bagmati River in Kathmandu isLack of pollution prevention policies especially for small-the most polluted river in the country, the government

scale industries/enterprises and insuﬃcient capacity ofconsidered prioritised eﬄuent management in Kathmandu

wastewater treatment plants resulted in severe pollution

Valley.

of river bodies. The national government is dealing withthis issue on a priority basis and is implementing/amending diﬀerent rules and policies such as the Decreeof the Ministry of Environment in 2014 for the next 5
years on wastewater quality standard to improve eﬄuent
treatment (MoE Indonesia, 2019).

4

9Philippines – According to an Environmental
Management Bureau, Department of Environment

and Natural Resources (DENR-EMB) annual report(DENR, 2016), only around half (45.4% Manila Bay, 50%
whole country) of the total inspected industrial
establishments were complying with the effluent

Japan – With strict enforcement of the Water

discharge guideline issued by DENR, mainly due to

Pollution Control Law as deﬁned by the national

insuﬃcient eﬄuent treatment plants as well as poor

government as well as stricter regulations by local

governance. The government is addressing this throughgovernments, most stakeholders are aware of theireﬀorts to increase the capacity of treatment plants.

responsibilities to maintain the quality of treated eﬄuent

Further, violations of the General Eﬄuent Standards are

before discharging it to ambient water bodies.

dealt with by the Pollution Adjudication Board and a

Approximately 40,000 site inspections were conducted“Cease and Desist Order”, with penalties for non-each year, of which around 10 improvement orders forcompliance and closure of the facility in the worst case.

existing treatment systems were issued, and only a few

Republic of Korea – 92% of the industries wereviolations of eﬄuent standards were observed. Increasing

10

importance is placed on: a) improving water quality ofeﬄuent regulation (MoEJ, 2018). However, to further

enclosed water bodies, b) improvement of waterfront
areas, and c) consideration of eﬀects of climate change in
wastewater management (MoEJ, 2019).

found to be compliant with environmental

improve surface water quality and conserve aquatic
ecosystems, the Korean government is planning toincrease the number of parameters from 20 in 2012 to 35

Lao PDR – Despite having 62 river basins, mostfrom year 2025. New parameters planned include

surface water is rapidly deteriorating due topharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides,

regular discharge of untreated industrial eﬄuents, poor

micro-plastics, nanomaterials, persistent organic

laws and governance. The main challenge is lack ofpollutants, and other micro-pollutants.

5

regular monitoring, policy enforcement and lack ofbudget for wastewater treatment infrastructure.

6

11

Sri Lanka – As of 2018, 85% of 23,495 surveyed
high- and medium-polluting industries, complied

Malaysia – With signiﬁcant progress over the lastwith national wastewater guidelines. On the other hand,

10 years, about 99% of 11,410 industries inspected

for most small-scale industries, regular monitoring data

were showing environmental compliance for industrial

on eﬄuent treatment and discharge is not available due

eﬄuent discharge in 2014. However, major pollutants

to ﬁnancial constraints. Major actions being consideredidentiﬁed for the rivers are BOD, ammonium nitrogen

include implementation of a monitoring plan for major

and suspended solids with respectively 11%, 5.7 % andwater bodies, provision of proper guidance to industry

12% of contribution coming from the industrial sector.

through relevant authorities and establishment of public-

The government has introduced performance monitoring

private partnerships for improved coordination.

through its Industrial Eﬄuent Treatment System (IETS),

Thailand – It is reported that industrial eﬄuents

which involves a self-regulatory mechanism based on

12

online monitoring and reporting.

pollution load discharged to the diﬀerent surface water

7

16

8

contribute to about 33% of point sources ofMyanmar – Rapid industrial development withbodies. Also, only around 48% of industries comply withlimited monitoring capacity, infrastructure andthe law on wastewater treatment and management. The

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Reportmain challenge identiﬁed is the lack of an industrial zoneof non-compliance. In addition, it is planned for theeﬄuent standard.

monitoring frequency to be increased in certain

13

Viet Nam – Between 2016–2017, 3,225 industrial
facilities located in the three largest river basins inViet Nam were investigated for eﬄuent treatment andmanagement. 939 industries were found to be noncompliant with environmental eﬄuent regulations, andﬁnancial penalties were imposed according to the extent

monitoring points to stem industrial non-compliancewith eﬄuent standards.
The prime regulatory bodies and recent developments
in policies and guidelines taken by these agencies are
summarised in Table 3.3.1.

Table 3.3.1. List of key regulatory bodies for industrial eﬄuent management and recent developments in policies
and frameworks to further improve eﬄuent treatment and management
Country

Regulatory bodies forindustrial wastewater management

New developments in laws, policies and guidelines
regarding industrial wastewater management

Cambodia

Dept. of Environmental Pollution Control
Oﬃce of Water and Soil Quality management

Management of wastewater treatment system and better
coordination between central and sub-national level

China

Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE)

New environmental protection law with priority on stricter
eﬄuent discharge standard and penalty for non-complianceIndonesia

Ministry of Environment

Strict implementation of industrial eﬄuent quality guidelines
Ambient water quality monitoring and enforcement of penalty
for non-complianceJapan

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism
Ministry of the Environment
Government Ordinance City

Establishment of more stringent environment quality standard
More stringent eﬄuent standards
Regulations for private companies

Lao PDR

Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Department of Communications, Transport, Post andConstruction (DCTPC) at provincial level.
Special municipal committees under provincial
governors

Revision of national environmental standard
Revision of water and wastewater resources management law
Strict industry wastewater discharge regulation
Introducing industrial processing law

Malaysia

Department of Environment

Revision of national water quality standard
Revision of the industrial eﬄuent discharge standard for water
ways and land

Myanmar

City Development Committees
Ministry of Industry

Recently adapted National Environmental Quality Guidelines
Recently adapted National Water Policy

Nepal

Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation
Department of Environment
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

Strict implementation of the right to a clean environment, withindustries obliged to abide by eﬄuent standards andcompensate victims in event of failure to comply

Philippines

Local Government Unit/ Dept. of Interior & Local
Government
Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Revision of water quality standard and eﬄuents standards fordiﬀerent types of industries
Introduced penalties and liabilities for non-compliance witheﬄuent standards

Republicof Korea

Ministry of Environment

Increasing water quality and eﬄuent standards
Strengthening water quality monitoring

Sri Lanka

Water and Energy Commission Secretariat
Water Resources Board
National Water Supply & Drainage Board

Introduction of regulatory tools like EIA, EPL, WML to improve
wastewater discharge standards

Thailand

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Department of Industrial Works

Designed eﬄuent control standards for speciﬁc industries
related to desalination, leather processing and pulp and paper
Set plan for legal and economic measures to control industrial
wastewater discharge

Viet Nam

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Urban Environment Companies

Diligent monitoring and introduction of penalties and liabilities
for non-compliance with eﬄuent standards
Strengthen law on environment protection for control ofdischarge

Summary and way forward
Common challenges for wastewater management

data or information, c) lack of coordination between key
players involved in wastewater management, and d )among many WEPA partner countries include: a) lackabsence of proper law enforcement mechanisms.

of suﬃcient state-of-the-art infrastructure for eﬄuent/In this context, the platform for sharing knowledge

septage treatment and management, b) lack of inventory

and experience which WEPA has made available in these

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report17

countries plays a pivotal role in providing the necessary

Nai Province and Mekong delta face the problem oftools to enable the required actions to take place in agroundwater salinity. Groundwater pollution is a serious

timely manner for improving eﬄuent management

problem for many WEPA partner countries, as it requires

systems, and ultimately revitalising the ambient water

extensive time and ﬁnancial resources to treat polluted

environment. As stated in section 5 of this report, it isgroundwater. Similarly, monitoring and assessment of

expected for WEPA to play an increasingly important

groundwater are challenging due to inherent invisibility

role in monitoring progress to achieve the Sustainableof the aquifers and pathways of contamination.

Development Goals (SDGs).

3.4.2. Legislative frameworks

3.4. Groundwater Pollution Control

Groundwater pollution control is addressed by one ormore legislative frameworks in most WEPA partnercountries. In China, the Water Pollution Prevention andControl Law is the main legislation for groundwater

3.4.1. Status of groundwater pollution

pollution control. China also has its Action Plan forPrevention and Control of Water Pollution which outlines

Groundwater is an important source of water in WEPA

speciﬁc measures on pollution control. In Indonesia,

countries and many cities heavily rely on it for their

groundwater protection is covered by the National

water supply. For instance, over 30% of water supply for

Constitution (# 32, 2009), individual government

domestic and industrial use comes from groundwater inregulations (# 43, 2008; #69, 2014; # 121, 2015), and theThailand. In China, over 60% of cities utilise groundwater

Decree of Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources

for drinking. Groundwater pollution mostly occurs(#1451, 2000). In Japan, the Water Pollution Control

through the disposal of untreated domestic and industrial

Law and Soil Pollution Control Law, as well as othereﬄuents, leaching of agro-chemicals and organic waste

legislations related to solid waste, chemical substance,from farmlands, illegal dumping of wastes, and unsafe

and air pollution are relevant for groundwater pollution

sanitation practices. In addition, geogenic arsenic, iron,control. The Republic of Korea has the Groundwater

ﬂuoride, and seawater intrusion are other challenges in

Act for pollution control and legislates measurement

groundwater quality management in WEPA countries.

of water quality pollution, water quality testing, andGroundwater contamination is also associated with

enforcement decrees outlining measures and orders tomining activities and leaching from certain industrial

prevent groundwater pollution.

settings. In China as of 2017, the main indices found tobe over the standard limits for groundwater quality aretotal hardness, total dissolved solids, iron, manganese,

18

3.4.3. Institutional arrangements

nitrogen, ﬂuoride, sulfate and chloride. Heavy metals

WEPA partner countries generally have one or

including arsenic, hexavalent chromium, lead andmore agencies to deal with groundwater pollution:

mercury exceeded standards in some monitoringin Indonesia, multiple agencies and institutions aresites (MEE, 2017). In Japan, nitrate/nitrite, arsenic,

responsible for groundwater pollution control, thus

ﬂuoride, boron, trichloroethylene, chloroethylene, lead,inter-agency coordination represents a big challenge; intetrachloroethylene, and cadmium exceeding standards

Japan, the Ministry of the Environment is the key agency

were detected in groundwater (MoEJ, 2017). Faecal

dealing with groundwater pollution; in the Republic ofcoliform was found to be a common issue in Cambodia

Korea, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

and the Philippines. In the Philippines, groundwaterand Ministry of Environment can order enforcement ofquality was assessed through the Tap Watch Program of

the Groundwater Act; and in Thailand, the Department

the Environmental Management Bureau, and 27 out ofof Groundwater Resources and the Pollution Control

88 shallow wells were found to have faecal coliform levels

Department are the lead agencies dealing withexceeding the standard for drinking water (MoEJ, 2018).

groundwater pollution.

Arsenic exceeding limits were observed in some areas

WEPA partner countries have adopted diﬀerentof China, Japan, Lao PDR, and Nepal. Salinity or saltwater

strategies to control groundwater pollution. China

intrusion is a growing concern in some areas of Myanmar

places higher emphasis on prevention and control ofand Viet Nam (MoEJ, 2018). In Viet Nam, the coastal

groundwater pollution by strengthening groundwaterzones, especially in the Central South Region, Dong

environmental supervision and management of key

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Reportindustries, which involves regular assessments of safety(NAHRIM) (research and modelling). The objectives

risks related to the groundwater environment of relevantof groundwater monitoring by JMG are to determine

enterprises and their surroundings, focusing on theambient/background water quality and regional waterindustries that discharge heavy metals and other toxic

quality trends, meet regulatory requirements, determine

and hazardous pollutants such as oil reﬁneries, coking,contamination/pollution eﬀects of a facility discharging

ferrous metal smelting and rolling processing, andto the groundwater, examine the eﬀects of particularpublishes lists of key enterprises polluting groundwater.

activities on the groundwater environment and provide

It can shut down industries in the event of a severe

early warning of onset of contamination. In the case ofgroundwater pollution accident. According to theDOE, groundwater quality monitoring is practiced to

National Plan for Groundwater Pollution Prevention andestablish groundwater quality status within the country,

Control (2011-2020), China also takes special measuresdevelop a Malaysian standard for groundwater quality,

to prevent groundwater pollution by petrochemical

identify locations requiring intervention, and for initiating

industries, which include seepage prevention measures

remedial action at sites identiﬁed as contaminated. In

at collection, storage, treatment and disposal facilities ofThailand, the Ministry of Industry Decree on Soil andwastes and avoiding installation of oil and gas pipelines

Groundwater Contamination Control B.E. 2559 (2016)

near protected areas of drinking water sources. Similarly,

obliges business owners to collect soil and groundwater

any newly built, refurbished or expanded construction

samples and maintain contamination (esp., VOC, heavyof underground oil tanks after 2012 is mandated tometals, pesticides/insecticides) below a speciﬁed level.

be of double layer structure or installed with leakage

Initial sampling must be conducted within 180 days

prevention tanks. Under the Water Pollution Control

after this regulation and monitoring reports must be

Law, Japan has adopted a prevention, remediation andcompiled within 180 days after monitoring. After the

self-management approach to control groundwaterﬁrst inspection, a second sampling is conducted within

pollution, in which prevention regulates handling and

180 days and the results reported within 120 days. Whenstorage of hazardous waste to avoid potential seepage

contamination is detected above a permissible level, theunderground, while remediation outlines measures to bebusiness in question is required to propose and undertaketaken after accidental spills and orders issued by local

remediation measures within 180 days.

governments to polluters to undertake remediation.
Thailand has adopted risk management, regulation andremediation for contaminated sites, under which notices

3.4.5. Challenges and next steps

are issued on groundwater pollution, suggestions are

WEPA partner countries also face challenges inissued for well cleanup, and alternative water supplies arecontrolling groundwater pollution. Contamination

arranged. Regulations set the standards for groundwaterof groundwater by industrial activities has become aand soil contamination such as regular monitoring after

growing concern in Sri Lanka (MoEJ, 2018), leading thecontamination and remediation. There are manuals andCentral Environment Authority to address the issue

guidelines on risk assessment, damage assessment, andthrough a WEPA action program (see section 4.3). In Viet

remediation.

Nam, planning, licensing and assigning restricted zones
are the key issues. Improvement in groundwater quality

3.4.4. Monitoring and inspection

monitoring, enhancing coordination among agencies
and stakeholders, and enforcement of regulations are

WEPA partner countries have established a system ofother problems faced by some of the WEPA countries

groundwater monitoring. In the case of Japan, baseline

including Indonesia and Viet Nam, as are prevention

monitoring takes place via observation wells. If aand control of groundwater contamination. These

contaminated well is found, detailed monitoring in therequire strengthening of enforcement capacity as well assurrounding area is conducted. For contaminated wells,

introduction of measures to monitor contamination andfollow-up monitoring is also conducted to comprehend

undertake remediation in contaminated areas.

historical changes in contamination over time. In

WEPA countries have diﬀerent capacities in terms

Malaysia, groundwater monitoring is carried out byof monitoring as well as regulating compliance inmultiple agencies, such as the Minerals and Geosciencegroundwater

Department (JMG), Department of Environment (DOE),

exchange could be carried out for sharing of good

local councils, water agencies, universities (special projects),

practices and lessons learnt, including monitoring

and National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia

approaches and regulatory tools.

management.

Further

information

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

19

4

WEPA Action Programs

database. They were also shared with other countries at

4.1. Introduction

international forums such as the World Water Forum andAsia Paciﬁc Summit.
During the third phase, three WEPA Action Programs

WEPA Action Programs were introduced in the third

were oﬃcially proposed by WEPA partner countries andphase to address requests from WEPA partner countries

developed in consultation with the WEPA Secretariat

to resolve speciﬁc problems in the water environment.

and the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MoEJ), with

Practical lessons learned and good practices from thefunding from MoEJ. Table 4.1.1 gives an overview of theimplementing countries were shared with other WEPA

programs. Regarding Cambodia, the Action Program ispartner countries at WEPA International Workshops andbeing developed by the WEPA Focal Points as of MarchWEPA Annual Meetings, and were published on the WEPA

2019 and details are pending.

Table 4.1.1. Overview of WEPA Action Programs in the third phase
Country

Term

Title of Action Program

Viet Nam2014 – 2017

Sri Lanka

2015 – 2019

Cambodia2017 –
ongoingIndonesia

2018 –
ongoing

Objectives

Outputs/Outcomes

Waste and Wastewater
Management of Pig Farms in
Viet Nam

To determine pollution load
units in pig wastewater in Viet
Nam

Establishment of Eﬄuent Standard
for Livestock Industry (QVCN622016/BTNMT)(2016)

Improving Industrial Waste andWastewater Management in
Gampaha District, Sri Lanka

To develop/improve policy/
guidelines related toindustrial siting and waste/
wastewater disposal to prevent
groundwater pollution

Provision to legalise the industrial
siting procedure as amendment
to National Environmental Act
No.47 of 1980 (planned)(Action Program currently in development)
Application of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) forEﬄuent Discharge Permit andCapacity Building for LocalOﬃcials to Implement the
TMDLs in Indonesia

4.1.1. Selection criteria
In identifying critical and common issues among WEPA
countries to be addressed under the Action Program, thefollowing points have been considered in the selection
process of the proposals:a ) Needs of the country
The government of the proposed WEPA country has
assigned urgent priority status to an issue in water
environmental management.
An issue is a prioritised area in national policy (e.g.,national long/mid-term development plans include
an issue as an action plan, policy commitments
include an issue).

20

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

To improve the water quality ofCitarum River

Establishment of new regulation
for TMDLs in Indonesia (planned)

Social needs regarding an issue is high in an area
where an Action Program will be conducted.
b) Sustainability
Addressing the issue can or is expected to be fundedinternally by the government even after WEPA support
ends.
c) Inﬂuence on other areas and countries
Addressing an issue is expected to positively inﬂuenceother areas in the country.
The Program on an issue can be applied to or serve as
a lesson for other WEPA partner countries.
d ) Feasibility
The Program on an issue is feasible in terms ofduration (within the action program period) and canavailable their practices and experiences related toachieve a certain result.

Action Programs via meetings or introduction ofexperts.

4.1.2. Implementing structure
Implementing agency- In most cases, implementing agencies are the
WEPA Focal Points or a local agency assigned by
the Action Program.
Support team
- A support team is formed to ensure implementationof the Program.

- At WEPA Annual Meetings, partner countries willadvise on the feasibility of Action Programs inother countries as well as in their own country
considering their experiences and conditions. If an
Action Program appears to be feasible in their own
country, they will convey the information to related
persons at home.
WEPA Secretariat- The WEPA Secretariat will coordinate communication- Comprises ﬁve members: a Focal Point (unlessbetween an Action Program country and others

assigned as implementing agency), domestic andrelated to the Program, such as the support teamneighbor WEPA countries’ experts (academics),

and other WEPA partner countries.

a WEPA Secretariat member and a Japaneseexpert (academics, private companies and local
governments).
- Is responsible for providing advice and guidanceon practical problems, and conducting monitoring.
WEPA basically supports costs for these support
team activities.
Other WEPA partner countries- In accordance with requests from the WEPA
Secretariat, other WEPA countries will makeWater Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report214.2. Waste and Wastewater
Management of Pig Farms in
Viet Namfrom pig farms has been established and proposed for
future use.

4.2.3. Description
The study was conducted at 40 household pig farms and4.2.1. Overview

25 large-scale pig farms across the selected provinces

Oﬃcial Title of Action
ProgramSituation Analysis on Pig Manure andEﬄuent Management in Viet Nam

Term of the Action
Program2014 – 2017

Location of Action
ProgramHanoi, Hung Yen, Thai Binh,
Thanh Hoa and Bac Giang (Viet Nam)

Dr. Dinh Thi Hai Van
Deputy Head of Environmental
Management Division
WEPA Focal Person(s)Department of Environmental
responsible for program
Management
Faculty of Environment, Viet Nam
National University of Agriculture

and cities in the Red River Delta, Viet Nam. For household
farms, the survey was conducted in four provinces andcities, namely Thai Binh, Bac Giang, Thanh Hoa andHanoi. In each province or city, 10 household pig farms
were randomly selected from the obtained list of pig
farms to conduct interviews using a questionnaire form.
For large-scale pig farms, the survey was conducted inthree provinces, namely Hanoi (in Ung Hoa, Son Tay, Gia
Lam district), Hung Yen (Van Lam district) and Thanh
Hoa (Van Xuong district). In each district, ﬁve large-scale
farms were selected randomly to conduct the interviews
and questionnaire surveys.

4.2.2. Background and objective
Pig farming represents a key contribution to theeconomic development of Viet Nam as it creates jobs
and raises income for millions of households in the
country. However, rapid growth of the sector has recently
resulted in negative impacts to the environment due tothe large amount of untreated or improperly treatedwastewater and manure discharges from the farms. A key
related problem is the lack of accurate data on discharge
pollutant loads, which leads to inaccurate forecasting ofgenerated waste volumes and inappropriate design oftreatment systems. This Action Program was therefore
designed to plug this gap, and involved conducting
a comprehensive, in-depth investigation of existing

Figure 4.2.1. Urine and manure sampling

practices and technical approaches for wastewaterand manure management involving 40 household
pig farms and 25 large-scale pig farms located in ﬁve
representative cities and provinces of the Red River Delta
in Viet Nam – Hanoi, Hung Yen, Thai Binh, Thanh Hoa

It was found that mixed waste (urine, manure, wastewater)and Bac Giang. An innovative methodology has been

led to complications in treatment. About 50% of surveyed

proposed to accurately estimate units of pollutant load

households mixed waste prior to treatment and disposal

discharged per pig head for diﬀerent types of pigs. Bothat their pig farms; meanwhile this ratio rose to 65% inprimary and secondary data (including from literaturelarge-scale farms.

reviews, ﬁeld surveys such as those using questionnaires,
sampling and water quality analysis, and laboratory tests)

22

4.2.4. Outcomes

The material ﬂow in a life cycle for diﬀerent types ofpigs was estimated as shown in Figure 4.2.2.

have been collected as important inputs for estimation.

Accurate estimation of average pollutant load

As a result, a reliable and comprehensive set of Viet Nam

discharge units per pig (including urine, manure, andcontext-speciﬁc data on pollutant load discharge units

wastewater) in a life cycle plays an essential role for

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportManure: 168 kg/head

Bran: 276 kg/head

Gilt

Drinking water:
1,020 L/headWashing effluent: 2,628 L/head(120 days)

Washing water:
2,628 L/head

Urine: 408 L/head

Procedure for sows production
life cycle:
145 days (5 months)
Bran: 333.5 kg/head
Drinking water: 1,130 L/head

Manure: 55 kg/head
Bran: 57.5 kg/head
Drinking water:
110 L/headLactating sow

Washing effluent: 547.5 L/head(25 days)

Washing water:
547.5 L/headWashing water: 3,175.5 L/head

Urine: 523 L/head

Urine: 115 L/headBran:
24 kg/head

PigletManure: 223 kg/head

Drinking water: Bran:
69 L/head
50 kg/headWashing water:
495 L/head

Drinking water: Bran:
Drinking water:
185 L/head
117 kg/head 202.5 L/headWashing water:
Washing water:
1,115 L/head
927 L/head

Porker lifetime:
165 days
Bran:
233 kg/headPig weight<15kg

Bran: 12 kg/head
Drinking water:
21 L/head(30 days)

Pig weight
15 – 30kg(30 days)

Pig weight
30 – 60kg

Pig weight>60kg(60 days)(45 days)

Drinking water:
Selling

477.5 L/head
Manure:Washing water:
966 L/head

135 kg/head
Urine:
254 L/head
Manure:3 kg/head

Urine:
Manure:6 L/head
12 kg/headWashing effluent:
966 L/head

Urine:
Manure:9 L/head 30 kg/headWashing
effluent:
495 L/head

Urine:
Manure:95 L/head
90 kg/headWashing
effluent:
1,115 L/head

Urine:
144 L/headWashing effluent:
927 L/headWashing water:
3,503 L/head

Figure 4.2.2. Estimation of input and output ﬂows in large-scale pig farms

environmental protection and the decision-making

on the Eﬄuent of Livestock QCVN 62-MT: 2016/

process of policymakers. This data is crucial for calculating

BTNMT, and urgent action is needed.

waste streams or ﬂows when designing waste treatment
systems/facilities as well as for the processes of inspection,
pollution control and waste auditing carried out by stateagencies. Quantifying pollutant load discharge units canalso assist in calculating the greenhouse gas emission

Mixing diﬀerent types of waste (urine, manure, andwastewater) complicates treatment, thus improved
architectural and procedural design for farms isrequired.

inventory due to pig production in Viet Nam. Results

Separating solid and liquid contents of wastefrom the study have been utilised in the establishment ofsigniﬁcantly reduces wastewater pollutants.

an eﬄuent standard for livestock wastewater (QVCN622016/BTNMT).

4.2.5. Conclusions and recommendations

Reducing cleaning/washing water in large-scale pig
farms also leads to reduction of pollutants in
wastewater.
A combination or coordination of eﬀective treatment

Currently, most pig farms in the Red River Delta of Viet

options should be considered in both household-

Nam fail to satisfy the National Technical Regulationlevel and large-scale pig farms in Viet Nam.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report234.3. Groundwater Monitoring for
Industrial Eﬄuent Management
in Sri Lanka
4.3.1. Overview
Oﬃcial title of Action
Program

Improving Industrial Waste andWastewater Management in
Gampaha District, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Term of the
Action Program

2015 – 2019

Location of
Action ProgramGampaha District, Sri Lanka

WEPA Focal Person(s)responsible for program

R.M.S.K. Ratnayake
Director, Environmental Pollution
Control, Central Environmental
Authority

Figure 4.3.1. Inspection at wastewater treatment
facility in one investigated industry

4.3.2. Background and objectives
In Sri Lanka industries are categorised into threebroad groups, namely Type A, B and C by the Central
Environment Authority (CEA) depending upon theseverity of their pollution potential and to guide thesiting of such industries. According to the data, a total

Figure 4.3.2. Installation of well data loggerof 11,449 high polluting industry units (Type A) and
10,711 medium polluting industrial units (Type B) operate

on program implementation. Wastewater treatment

within Sri Lanka. It is mandated by law that eﬄuentsand sludge management systems for all 13 investigatedfrom industry be treated according to the designatedindustries were reviewed, which revealed that wastewater

national eﬄuent standards prior to discharge; however,treatment systems are generally constructed in-house

the rise in industry density, lack of ﬁrm commitments andfor the majority of industries. However, the level ofloopholes in regulations have together led to an increase

treatment they oﬀer is still very basic and at the primaryin the prevalence of industry-related pollution issues

level, mainly consisting of a settling tank, sand ﬁlter,of late, chief of which is groundwater table pollution.

aeration chamber and maturation tank. Some industries

The WEPA Action Program in Sri Lanka was launchedwere in the process of upgrading treatment facilities

in Gampaha District to evaluate wastewater pollution

such as through introducing ion exchange, ozonation

control strategies and sludge disposal methods in orderor other tertiary treatments. For sludge, some industries

to prevent groundwater pollution.

still rely on oﬀ-site management facilities, while others
are seeking environmentally and economically eﬃcient

4.3.3. Description

solutions through using sludge materials as inputs toother by-product stage industrial processes.

The Action Program evaluated wastewater managementin 13 Type A industries and conducted water quality
surveys in wastewater treatment facilities (Fig 4.3.1) and24

4.3.4. Outcomes

96 groundwater wells in the vicinity of selected industries.

Figure 4.3.3 shows a map of the investigated industries

Data loggers were also installed in 13 reference wells to

together with the COD concentrations in groundwater

monitor water depth and temperature (Fig 4.3.2). Fiveat various distances from the respective industries. Fromrounds of surveys were conducted during 2017 andthe multi-season survey on groundwater wells, it was

2018 for all 96 wells to cover all four major seasons.

found that the majority of water quality parameters did

The project also involved dispatching groundwater

not exceed tolerance limits set by CEA for the majority ofexperts from Japan to provide on-site technical advice

the samples. For COD, only one well which was 63 meters

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Reportfrom industries A & B on the map exceeded the 50 mg/L

being processed. Parameters such as Pb, Cr, Cu, Fe, andtolerance limit value for outfalls leading up to nearshore

phosphate were mostly below instrument detection

water. While no strong correlation between concentration

limits. Further analysis is required to consider otherand distance from wells was found, groundwater closeparameters which may aﬀect the data, such as depth ofto certain industries such as A & B showed signiﬁcantly

the surveyed well/aquifer, baseline groundwater quality,

higher levels of COD compared to others.

other pollution sources, quality of the actual industrial

Other parameters including temperature, EC, TDS,eﬄuent discharged, or statistical analysis of daily/ammonia, nitrate, and Cl were analysed and results aretemporal ﬂuctuations.

60

$£ £%

50

C

D

E

F

G

H

,£ £-

K

L

M

Tolerance limit value for outfalls leading up to nearshore water (50mg/L)&2'£ PJ/

40

30

20

10

0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

'LVWDQFH£IURP£LQGXVWU\£ P

Figure 4.3.3. Map of investigated industries and COD concentrations of groundwater at diﬀerent distances fromthe investigated industries2(Source: See References)

4.3.5. Conclusions and recommendations

improving their wastewater treatment to add tertiary
treatment and appropriate sludge management

Further analysis on the raw industrial wastewater inpractice, to avoid pollution of groundwater andaddition to other potential pollution sources should

surface water compared to the relatively unaﬀected

be conducted to determine contamination pathways,

current state. With a view that this will be beneﬁcial toespecially for wells near industries A & B. Based on thethe local communities which utilise these watercontamination pathways identiﬁed, potential solutions

sources, ﬁnancial instruments such as subsidies fromcan be investigated as the next step.

the national or local government to these practices

The observed parameters could be used as a

could be considered.

benchmark to assess any future changes orProper policies and regulations for zonation should

deterioration in groundwater quality in the area. The

be made eﬀective and consideration should be given

data obtained from the Action Program as well as

for areas where groundwater usage is common. Also,

follow-up monitoring could prove valuable inthe siting of highly polluting industries as well as

assessing future impact on groundwater due to thedisposal options should be thoroughly scrutinised.

likely rise in industrial activity in this area, includingthat of small and medium enterprises which are notwell regulated at present.
Certain industries, especially the larger ones that

Identiﬁcation of general hydrology and hydrogeology
of areas intended for industries and design ofappropriate eﬄuent discharge systems in accordance
therewith should be considered.

generate high volumes of wastewater, could consider

2 The industries are labelled from A to M for convenience of this report. Each dot in the scatterplot represents the mean value of COD analysed
up to 5 times at diﬀerent seasons in the same well.
Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report25

4.4. Pollution Load Management
in Citarum River, Indonesia

such as sediment accumulation and eutrophication in
downstream reservoirs has become a problem due todomestic and industrial wastewater inﬂows from urban
areas and agricultural wastewater from rice paddies andﬁelds upstream (Yoshida et al. 2017). The government of

4.4.1. Overview

Indonesia prioritised addressing this challenge and issued
WEPA Action Program in Indonesia Application of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for Eﬄuent Discharge
Permit and Capacity Building for
Local Oﬃcials to Implement the
TMDLs

Oﬃcial name of
Action Program

Term of the
Action Program

2018 – ongoing

Location of
Action Program

Citarum River Basin, Indonesia

WEPA Focal Point
responsible for program

Budi Kurniawan
Deputy Director, Inventory and Waste
Load Allocation
Ministry of Environment and Forestry,
Indonesia

Presidential Regulation No.15 of 2018 on Accelerationof Pollution and Damage Control in the Citarum River
Basin to clean it up by 2025 (Government of Indonesia,2018). Taking action towards this target, it introduced theconcept of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in its
new regulation on water pollution control and the new
eﬄuent standard, which is applied to textile industries.
As an example, ﬁgure 4.4.1 shows the estimated BOD
pollution loads from industries in the Citarum River Basin.
Although the TMDLs regulation was initially formulated
in 2001, it was determined necessary to improve its
implementation through capacity building activities. The
WEPA Action Program in Indonesia started in 2018 with

4.4.2. Background and objectives

the aim of providing capacity building and promoting abetter understanding among relevant central and local

The Citarum River is the largest river in West Java, withgovernment oﬃcials in Indonesia on both TMDL anda length of 350 km and a catchment area of 6,600 km2.

concentration-based regulations for improving the water

The Citarum River Basin supplies 80% of the domestic

quality of the Citarum River.

water of Jakarta, and in recent decades serious pollution

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

si
wa
ng
Ka
b.
Ka
B
b.
og
Pu
or
rw
ak
ar
Ka
ta
b.
Ci
a
Ko
nj
u
ta
.C r
Ko
im
ta
. B ahi
an
Ka
du
b.
ng
Su
m
ed
Ko
an
ta
.B
g
an
Ka
du
b.
ng
Ba
nd
un
Ka
g
b.
Ci
an
ju
r

0

ra

Ka

b.

Ka

Ka

b.

Be

ka

Discharge load BOD from industry (t/year)

3,000

Figure 4.4.1. Citarum River Basin and annual BOD pollution loads from industries(Source: Government of Indonesia)

26

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report4.4.3. Description
As the WEPA Action Program in Indonesia mainly focuses
on developing capacity of central and local government
oﬃcials on the new regulation and standards, several
learning opportunities were provided as the ﬁrst step. The
following activities have been conducted to strengthen
the knowledge and understanding of Indonesian oﬃcials
on water quality management, especially on TMDL
systems.
i ) Jakarta Workshop
Date: 19 January, 2018 Place: Jakarta, Indonesia
Prof. Mitsumasa Okada, Chairman of WEPA Advisory
Board gave a lecture about the Japanese experienceof TMDL application and implementation to invitedin November 2018 and agreed to hold a workshop in
Bandung under the Action Program to strengthen
capacity of central and local government oﬃcials.
iv) Bandung Workshop
Date: 23 and 24 January 2019 Place: Bandung, Indonesia
The Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ) and
MOEF co-hosted a workshop on the WEPA Action
Program in Indonesia. This two-day workshop targetedIndonesian central and local government officials
selected by MOEF and consisted of a Learning day andTraining day. Participating oﬃcials were provided with
opportunities to develop their capacity on water quality
management, especially to deepen their understanding
for TMDL application.

Indonesian oﬃcials.

Bandung Workshop
Jakarta Workshopii ) Follow-up research

4.4.4. Outcomes

The WEPA Secretariat visited the Citarum Basin in February

To achieve measurable progress in improving water2018 and conducted a ﬁeld survey in the area. Results ofsurvey were discussed between Indonesia and the WEPA
Secretariat to develop the Action Program proposal.

quality of the Citarum River, which Indonesia strongly
desires in the short/medium term, it is necessary forcentral and local government oﬃcials to have a common
understanding on appropriate approaches and theirrespective roles in implementing the newly applied
TMDL systems. Through the activities conducted under
the WEPA Action Program in Indonesia, participatingoﬃcials have obtained key knowledge to bolster theirrespective actions for improving the water quality of the
Citarum River, such as determining the load or quality
and quantity of pollutants to allocate in each sector orindustry, Japan’s experience in appropriate systems
operations and regulations, and details of Indonesia’s
new regulation and standards.

Citarum River

4.4.5. Next steps
The outcomes and impacts of the activities conducted soiii ) Bilateral meeting

far under the Action Program will be reviewed, and the

The WEPA Secretariat and the Ministry of Environment

next steps and actions will be discussed and implemented

and Forestry, Indonesia (MOEF) held a bilateral meeting

as appropriate.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report27

5

Feedback from WEPA partner countries

was incorporated into the program of the international

5.1. Results of Surveys

workshop in 2018.
Regarding the annual meeting, 10 participants (77%)
replied that the presentations from private companies

In 2017 and 2018, an online survey was conducted towere useful, and 9 participants (69%) replied thatobtain feedback from WEPA partner countries with thepresentations on future plans and activities of WEPA

aim of ﬁne-tuning plans for the Fourth Phase of WEPA in

were useful.

line with the needs of partner countries.

Other comments received included a request for theannual meeting to be more formal and incorporate areview of activities or potential improvements in WEPA.

5.1.1. 2017 survey

As a direct response to a request for WEPA publications

An online survey was distributed to all participants after

to be made available at annual meetings, the Secretariat

the annual meeting, and 13 responses were obtained.

provided copies of the WEPA Outlook at the annual

Regarding the international workshop, 11 participants

meeting in 2018 for partner countries to freely take away.

replied that it was very useful and 2 replied it was useful,

Five further responses concerned a request for industrial

which meant that all participants found it beneﬁcial towastewater treatment and implementation of guidelines

their work (Figure 5.1.1). A request for more discussion

and standards to be discussed further at the annual

time was received. In response, a discussion session

meeting and international workshop of 2018.

12
10

Number of responses

10
8
6
4
2

2
0

0

0

0

Very unuseful

Unuseful

Average

UsefulVery useful

Figure 5.1.1. Responses to the question, “Was the international workshop useful?”

5.1.2. 2018 survey

28

outcomes of the Third Phase, and to strengthen WEPA
activities towards the Fourth Phase. The survey was

In 2018, the survey was conducted prior to the annual

conducted online, and responses were obtained from 16

meeting and international workshop in order for theparticipants in 12 countries. Of the 16, 9 were WEPA Focal

results to be available to partner countries at the

Points.

international workshop. The aim of this survey was toRegarding partner country feedback on WEPA’s

obtain inputs from WEPA partner countries to review thefunctions as (a) a platform for exchanging information,

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report(b) towards water environmental governance, (c)While satisfaction rates were high overall, two functions

capacity building, and (d) international outreach, thewith room for improvement are water environmental

rate of responses answering “very high” or “high” forgovernance and capacity building (ﬁgure 5.1.2).

satisfaction were 94%, 75%, 75%, and 81% respectively.

Middle 0%

Low
6%

Low
6%
Middle
19%

Very
high
44%

High
50%

(a) Platform

Low 0%
Low
13%

Very
high
19%

Middle12%Middle
19%

Ver\£
high
25%

Ver\£
high
12%

High
56%

High
50%

High
69%

(b) Water environmental governance(c) Capacity building(d) International outreachFigure 5.1.2. Satisfaction regarding functions of WEPA

Regarding water environmental governance, manythrough the Action Programs again in the Fourth Phase.

countries identiﬁed a need for the scope of Action

Regarding WEPA’s outputs, feedback was obtained

Programs to be extended, or for technical workshops

for: (a) WEPA database, (b) meetings and events, andto be held. Regarding capacity building, several(c) knowledge products; and the rate of responses forcountries requested cross-sectoral or cross-ministerial“very useful” were 81%, 75%, and 56% respectively. It canopportunities, as well as schemes including training of

be inferred from this that knowledge products have a

trainers, where local government representatives could

relatively low satisfaction rate compared to web-based

gain capacity. From countries which have conducted or are

information (database); therefore, it is suggested that thecurrently conducting Action Programs, positive feedback

WEPA database be focused on and printed outputs be

regarding the participants’ capacities has been received. It

reduced, which would also decrease the environmental

is suggested for further capacity building to be conductedburden.

1RW£XVHIXO

1RW£XVHIXO
Average
19%

1RW£XVHIXO
Average25%
Ver\£
useful75%

Veryuseful81%(a) WEPA database(b) Meetings and events

Average44%

Ver\£
useful56%(c) Knowledge products

Figure 5.1.3. Satisfaction regarding WEPA outputs

When asked about the role WEPA could play inachieving the targets related to water environment in the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), potential actions
were ranked in the following order:
1. Sharing/introducing new technologies, tools, and2. Establishing monitoring and reporting guidelines for
SDG targets related to water environment
3. Updating progress on relevant SDG targets in thepartner countries through the WEPA platform
4. Co-develop Action Programs targeting SDGs

solutions to accelerate the implementation of relevant
SDG targets

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report29Other requests and feedback included the following:
Requests to increase the number of WEPA partnercountries from Asia.
Requests to create opportunities for partner countries
to exchange information and knowledge throughevents such as annual meetings.
Requests to increase the update frequency of the
WEPA database, considering its heavy use in learning
about legislations and information on other countries.
Requests for WEPA to play a role in facilitating interministerial information exchange through workshops
and action programs of respective countries, due toMany countries voiced the need to identify pollution
sources, especially non-point sources.
Several countries requested support in developing
legislative frameworks for water environmental
governance, including laws, plans, guidelines, andenforcement mechanisms.
Pollution of water environment to be reduced,
especially total nitrogen and total phosphorus.
Better collection and management of data, especiallyat local government level.
Capacity building for improved water environmental
governance.

difficulties expressed by delegates regarding
information sharing between diﬀerent ministries.

5.2.2. Other suggestions

Requests for the WEPA platform to also play a role as

Other suggestions WEPA partner countries raised were:

the source of information on partner countries’ water

Improve communication between WEPA partner

environmental

countries, as well as between the Secretariat andgovernancein

regionalandinternational frameworks such as the SDGs, and toaim for improved water environment throughproviding advice towards policy gaps or bottlenecks.
Suggestions for some events to be co-sponsored byprivate companies.

partner countries.
Improve utilisation of WEPA database such as throughconducting joint analysis or research on water
environmental governance.
Request for WEPA secretariat to provide a calendar of
events at the beginning of each year of the program,

5.2. Proposals from WEPA Partner
Countries

including international events such as the World
Water Forum. Some countries voiced interest in
joining such international events with their own
budget.

During the 14th annual meeting and international
workshop held in February 2019, partner countries

Suggest WEPA Secretariat to conduct web conferences
for partner countries to discuss and share information.

discussed potential ways forward for the Fourth Phaseof WEPA. The following suggestions represent theoutcomes of the discussions.

5.2.3. Next steps
The Ministry of the Environment, Japan and the WEPA

5.2.1. Suggested topics
Focus on implementation, monitoring and evaluationof SDG6WEPA partner countries are at various stages ofdevelopment and have diverse needs regarding
wastewater management. Therefore, it is suggested
to cover all types of wastewater (domestic, industrial,
agricultural) comprehensively without ﬁxing on one
type.

30

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

Secretariat will go over these suggestions and incorporate
those that are relevant into the planning of the Fourth
Phase accordingly.

Appendix

WEPA Focal Points

Cambodia

Hiroki Hasegawa

Sokha Chrin

Deputy Director,

Deputy Director General,

Water Environment Division,

General Directorate of Administration and Finance,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of the Environment

China

Masaki Suehisa (April 2015 – March 2017)

Liping Li

Deputy Director,

Division Director,

Water Environment Division,

Policy Research Center for Environment and Economy,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Ministry of Ecology and Environment

Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)

Indonesia

Masahiro Yasuda ( – March 2015)

Budi Kurniawan

Deputy Director,

Deputy Director,

Water Environment Division,

Inventory and Waste Load Allocation,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)Japan

Lao PDR

Kazuya Kumagai

Phengkhamla Phonvisai

Director, Water Environment Division,

Deputy Director General,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Pollution Control Department,

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Yasumasa Watanabe (June 2016 – July 2018)

Malaysia

Director, Water Environment Division,

Ahmad Jamalluddin bin Shaaban ( – April 2016)

Environmental Management Bureau,

Director General,

Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)

National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Eisuke Futamura (January 2015 – June 2016)(Position during this period,

Director, Water Environment Division,

new Focal Point of Malaysia to be determined)

Environmental Management Bureau,
Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)

Hin Lee Lee (Acting Focal Point)

Takashi Ohmura (July 2014 – December 2014)

Research Centre for Water Quality and Environment,

Director, Water Environment Division,

National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources

Director,

Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)
Shin Ying Ang (Acting Focal Point)
Masanobu Miyazaki ( – June 2014)

Senior Research Oﬃcer,

Director, Water Environment Division,

Water Treatment Technology Research Unit,

Environmental Management Bureau,

Research Centre for Water Quality and Environment

Ministry of the Environment (Position during this period)

National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia,
Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources

34

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportMyanmarTaegu Kang ( – November 2016)

Kyaw Lin Oo

Director, Water Quality Assessment Research Division,

Director, Hydrology Branch,

Water Environment Research Department,

Irrigation and Water Utilization

National Institute of Environmental Research

Management Department,(Current position)

Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Irrigation

Sri Lanka
R.M.S.K. Ratnayake

Khon Ra (February 2016 – February 2019)

Director,

Director of Hydrology Branch,

Environmental Pollution Control,

Irrigation and Water Utilization

Central Environmental Authority

Management Department,
Ministry of Agriculture,ThailandLivestock and Irrigation

Chao Nokyoo(Position during this period)

Director of Inland Water Division,
Water Quality Management Bureau,

Tint Zaw (– January 2016)

Pollution Control Department,

Deputy Director General,

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Irrigation Department,
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Wijarn Simachaya ( – September 2017)(Position during this period)

Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Nepal(Current Position)

Madhav Dev Acharya
Senior Divisional Engineering Geologist,

Thiparpa Yolthantham ( – September 2017)

Water Resources Division,

Director of Planning,

Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

Pollution Control Department,
Water Quality Management Bureau,

Philippines

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Vicente, Jr. Bassig Tuddao(Position during this period)

Assistant Regional Director for Technical Services,
Regional Oﬃce No. IV-MIMAROPA,

Viet Nam

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Nguyen Minh Cuong
Deputy Director,

Erlinda Atienza Gonzales

Department of International Cooperation,

Technical Adviser (Consultant),

Science and Technology,

Manila Bay Rehabilitation Program,

Viet Nam Environment Administration,

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Republic of Korea

Thang Nam Do ( – November 2016)

Tae Jin Park

Deputy Director General,

Senior Researcher,

Department of International Cooperation,

Water Environment Research Department,

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Water Environmental Engineering Research Division,(Position during this period)

National Institute of Environmental ResearchDong The Nguyen ( – November 2016)
Kyunghyun Kim (November 2016 – January 2019)

Deputy Director General,

Director, Yeongsan River Environment Research Center,

Viet Nam Environment Administration,

National Institute of Environmental Research

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment(Current position)(Position during this period)

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report

35

WEPA Advisory Board Members
Special Advisor of WEPA Advisory Board

So KazamaMotoyuki Suzuki

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo

Tohoku University

Chairman of WEPA Advisory Board

Yoshitaka Ebie

Mitsumasa Okada

Senior Researcher, Centre for Material Cycles andVice President, The Open University of Japan

Waste Management Research,
National Institute for Environmental Studies

Advisory Members
Koichi Fujie

Ikuro Kasuga

Visiting Professor,

Associate Professor,

Strategic Research Planning Manager,

Water Environment Technology Laboratory

Institute of Advanced Sciences,

Department of Urban Engineering,

Yokohama National University

Graduate School of Engineering,(From April 2017)

The University of Tokyo(JICA Expert, Lecturer, Environment Engineering

Kensuke Fukushi

Program Viet Nam Japan University from

Professor, Institute for Advanced Study (UTIAS),

September 2018)

Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science(IR3S), The University of Tokyo

List of Activities and Publications
Annual meetings
Month, Year

City, Country

Number of Participants(Number of countries)

10th Annual Meeting

February, 2015

Colombo, Sri Lanka

37 (11)

11th Annual Meeting

January, 2016

Vientiane, Lao PDR

40 (12)

12th Annual Meeting

November, 2016

Hanoi, Viet Nam

39 (13)13th Annual Meeting

September, 2017

Jakarta, Indonesia

40 (13)14th Annual Meeting

February, 2019

Tokyo, Japan

42 (13)

International Workshops/Seminars/Training Programmes
Month, Year

City, Country

Number of Participants(Number of countries)

WEPA Workshop on Wastewater
Management

February, 2015

Colombo, Sri Lanka

46 (11)WEPA Workshop on Industrial Wastewater
Management

January, 2016

Vientiane, Lao PDR

42 (12)

Title of Workshops/Seminars/Trainings

36

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final ReportConference on Watershed Management
for Controlling Municipal Wastewater inSoutheast Asia

July, 2016

Nagoya, Japan156 (5)WEPA Group Workshop on Pig Wastewater
Management in Asia

February, 2017

Chiang Mai, Thailand

25 (9)WEPA International Workshop on Industrial
Wastewater Management

September, 2017

Jakarta (Indonesia)

70 (13)

Workshop for Introduction of Multistage
Hybrid Wetland Systems in Viet Nam

November, 2017

Hanoi, Viet Nam

40 (5)

Preparation Workshop on the Asia
Wastewater Management Partnership(AWaP)

December, 2017

Yangon, Myanmar

50 (6)

International Workshop on decentralised
wastewater management

February, 2019

Tokyo, Japan53 (13)

Other WEPA Activities at International Events
Title of Workshops/Seminars/Trainings

Month, Year

City, Country

Number of Participants(Number of countries)(13)

The 7th World Water Forum Oﬃcial session“Strengthening Frameworks for Governing andManaging Water Quality”

April, 2015

Daegu & Gyeongbuk of
the Republic of Korea

WEPA Sessions in 11th International Symposium on
Southeast Asian Water Environment (SEAWE11)

November, 2014

Bangkok, Thailand

Approximately 100

WEPA session at 12th International Symposium on
Southeast Asian Water Environment (SEAWE12)

July, 2016

Nagoya, Japan

Approximately 50 (13)The 8th World Water Forum
Sharing Water Thematic session “Understanding theWater Quality from Ridge to Reef”
Regional Process Workshop “Towards Improving
Sanitation and Wastewater Management: Challenges
and Good Practices in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region”
IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition
Workshop “Toward the Achievement of SDGs Relating
to Sanitation and Wastewater Management(SDG 6.2, 6.3)”

Approximately 100
March, 2018

Brasilia, Brazil
Approximately 50

September, 2018

Tokyo, Japan

Approximately 200

Publication
Title

Year

ReportWEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia 2015 (English)

2015

WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia 2015 (Japanese)

2015

WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia 2018 (English)

2018

WEPA Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia 2018 (Japanese)

2018

WEPA Third Phase Final Report (English)

2019

WEPA Third Phase Final Report (Japanese)

2019

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report37References

AECOM & SANDEC. 2010. A Rapid Assessment of

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural

Septage Management in Asia – Policies and Practices

Resources). 2016. Environmental Management Bureau

in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri

Annual Report for CY 2016. https://emb.gov.ph/wp-

Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. AECOM International

content/uploads/2017/12/EMB-ANNUAL-REPORT-

Development, Inc. and the Department of Water

FOR-CY-2016.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2019.

and Sanitation in Developing Countries (Sandec) atGovernment of the Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Gov’t

the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science andIssues Presidential Regulation on Funding to Tackle

Technology (Eawag). http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/

Pollution at Citarum River. https://setkab.go.id/en/

Pnads118.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2019.

govt-issues-presidential-regulation-on-funding-to-

ADB (Asia Development Bank). 2016. Asian water
development outlook 2016: Strengthening water2019.

security in Asia and Paciﬁc. Mandaluyong City,

Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the People’s

Philippines. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/ﬁles/Republic of China. 2015-2016. Mandates. http://publication/189411/awdo-2016.pdf. Accessed 26

english.mee.gov.cn/About_MEE/Mandates/. Accessed

March, 2019.

25 March, 2019.

Bao, P.N. 2018. An Overview of Septage Management in

MEE (Ministry of Ecology and Environment), the People’sAsia – Challenges and Opportunities. In: Proceedings

Republic of China. 2017. 2017 Report on the State ofof the 6th Workshop on Decetralized Domestic

the Ecology and Environment in China. http://english.

Wastewater Treatment in Asia, held in Tokyo on 19th

mee.gov.cn/Resources/Reports/soe/. Accessed 26

September 2018 by the Ministry of the Environment,

March, 2019.

Government of Japan. http://www.jeces.or.jp/Ctrl/

MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2015. WEPA

news/4A71254F4E/5BBF2BCD62/. Accessed 26 March

Outlook on Water Environmental Management in Asia

2019.

2015. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,

Bao, P.N. and Kuyama, T. 2013. Decentralized domestic

Hayama.

wastewater management in Asia – Challenges and

MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2017. “Heisei

Opportunities. Policy Brief Series No. 1. Published by

29 nendo Chikasuisitsu Sokutei Kekka (Result of

WEPA-MOEJ. Available on http://www.wepa-db.net/

Measurement of Groundwater Quality 2017)”. http://

policy_briefs.htm

www.env.go.jp/water/report/h30-03/h30-03_full.pdf.

CDP. 2016. Levelling the playing ﬁ eld – China’s
evolving regulatory landscape – CDP China water
report2016.

Accessed 20 March 2019.
MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2018. WEPA

https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-

Outlook on Environmental Management Strategies

c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.

in Asia. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental

rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/000/613/

Strategies.

o r i g i n a l / c h i n a - w a t e r- r e p o r t- 2 0 1 6 - e n g l i s h .

MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2019. WEPA

pdf?1470219862. Accessed 26 March 2019.

Nhapi, I. 2004. A framework for the decentralised

Daigger, G. 2009. Evolving Urban Water and Residuals
Management Paradigms: Water Reclamation andReuse, Decentralization, and Resource Recovery.
Water Environment Research, 81, 809-823.

38

tackle-pollution-at-citarum-river/. Accessed 14 March

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Reportmanagement of wastewater in Zimbabwe. Physics andChemistry of the Earth, 29, 1265–1273.
WHO and UNICEF. 2017. Progress on drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG

baselines. Geneva: World Health Organization

References for Table 3.1.2.

(WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund

(Results from survey to WEPA focal points unless(UNICEF), 2017. https://www.unicef.org/publications/speciﬁed)index_96611.html. Accessed 26 March 2019.

China

World Bank. 2008. Economic Impacts of Sanitation inSoutheast Asia A four-country study conducted in
Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam
under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI).
The World Bank. http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/
ﬁles/publications/Sanitation_Impact_Synthesis_1.pdf.
Accessed 26 March 2019.
World Bank. 2013. East Asia and the Paciﬁc Region - Urban
Sanitation Review: A Call for Action. World Bank.
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/EAP/region/eap-urban-sanitation-reviewfull-report.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2019.
World Bank. 2015. Improving On-site Sanitation andConnections to Sewers in Southeast Asia- Insightsfrom Indonesia and Vietnam. https://www.wsp.org/
sites/wsp/ﬁles/publications/WSP-Improving-On-siteSanitation-Connections-to-Sewers-Southeast-Asia.
pdf. Accessed 26 March 2019.
World Bank. 2016. Septage Management Pilots andCapacity Building in Indonesia: Synthesis Report.
World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/24721. Accessed 26
March 2019.
WSP (Water and Sanitation Program). 2013. Review ofCommunity Managed-Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems in Indonesia. World Bank. https://

MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2018. WEPA
Outlook on Environmental Management Strategies
in Asia. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies.
Indonesia
MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2018. WEPA
Outlook on Environmental Management Strategies
in Asia. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies.
Japan
MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2017. “Heisei
29 nendo Chikasuisitsu Sokutei Kekka (Result of
Measurement of Groundwater Quality 2017)”. http://
www.env.go.jp/water/report/h30-03/h30-03_full.pdf.
Accessed 20 March 2019.
MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). 2018. WEPA
Outlook on Environmental Management Strategies
in Asia. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies.
ThailandGroundwater: MoEJ (Ministry of the Environment ofJapan). 2018. WEPA Outlook on Environmental
Management Strategies in Asia. Hayama: Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies.
Others: based on survey of WEPA focal points.

www.wsp.org/sites/wsp/files/publications/WSPReview-DEWATS-Indonesia-Technical-Paper.pdf.
Accessed 26 March 2019.
Yamagata, H., Ogoshi, M., Suzuki, Y., Ozaki, M., Asano,T. 2002. On-site insight into reuse in Japan. Water21,
4, 26-28.

Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA)
Third Phase Final Report39Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Water Environment Division
Environmental Management Bureau
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8975, Japan
TEL: +81 3 3581 3351, FAX: +81 3 3593 1438
URL: http://www.env.go.jp/en/

WEPA Secretariat

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan
TEL: +81 46 855 3700, FAX: +81 46 855 3709
E-mail: contact@wepa-db.net, URL: http://www.iges.or.jp/

www.wepa-db.net