Policy Brief
March 2021

Toward the Establishment of
Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management- Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan -AuthorPham Ngoc Bao, Ph.D

Senior Water and Sanitation Specialist
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Series8

1 Backgroundurban residents in the region still predominantly rely

Many Asian countries continue to experience rapid

households in urban areas of Viet Nam have a septic

on septic tanks for onsite sanitation to treat domestic

wastewater before discharging into the nearby water
environment. Reports show that around 95% of

population growth, urbanization and changes intank, with respective figures for Thailand, Philippines

consumption patterns, which have led to a significant

and Indonesia of 87%, 83%, and 80% (UNICEF &increase in water demand. Consequently, the amount

WHO, 2019) (Figure 1). In this context, septic tanksof generated wastewater discharged into theplay an important role as a basic sanitation facility forenvironment is constantly growing. A considerable

millions of the region’s population. However, mostamount of wastewater in the region, particularly fromtanks are often of non-standard design, improperly

developing countries, is not properly treated before

constructed, inaccessible for desludging, and arebeing discharged. Estimates show that 85–89% of

not regularly maintained or desludged. These are

generated wastewater in Asia is discharged directly

the main reasons affecting their poor performance,

into water bodies untreated or only partially treated byas well as the low-quality of effluent discharged into

simple on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks

the environment. Therefore, it is considered that

(Bao and Kuyama, 2013), causing substantial levels

many septic tanks installed in the region are notof contamination in drinking water sources as well

fully achieving their intended purpose of providing

as inland and coastal ecosystems. Meanwhile, most

36% of urban households equipped with septic tanks
2% of urban population had access to sewer network

effective onsite sanitation.

3% of urban households

1

Less than % of households equippedwith latrines

equipped with septic tanks

79% of urban population

57% of urban households>99% of households connect to sewer

had access to sewer network

network (Nationwide)

9% of households equipped withequipped with septic tanks

19% of urban population had

new-type of Johkasou systems(which treat both black and grey water)

80

access to sewer network

More than% of population had
access to sewerage system(as of March 2020)

25% of urban households
equipped with septic tanks

95% of urban households

Republic of Korea

1

Less than % of urban
population had access tosewer network

China

equipped with septic tanks

Japan

83% of urban households

Nepal

87% of urban households

Myanmar

13% of urban population

Sri Lankaequipped with septic tanks

had access to sewer network

equipped with septic tanks

LaoPDR
Thailand60% of urban population
About
had access to sewer network

VietNam

6% of urban population had

Philippines

Cambodia
Malaysia

Indonesia

access to sewer network

49% of urban households
equipped with septic tanks

51% of urban population

had access to sewer network

4% of urban households

20% of households equipped

80% of urban households

13% of urban population

79% of population access to

10% of urban populationequipped with septic tanks

had access to sewer networkwith septic tanks (Nationwide)

sewer network (Nationwide)

equipped with septic tanks

access to sewer network

Figure 1. Septic tank and sewer network coverage in WEPA partner countries(Source: WHO and UNICEF, 2019; Data for Japan (MOEJ, 2020); Data for Vietnam on sewer network coverage (World Bank, 2019))

Note: Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) is an initiative proposed by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan in 2003, with the aimof improving the water environment in Asia by strengthening water environmental governance. As of March 2021, the network comprised 13
country members: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Viet Nam.

2

Toward the Establishment of Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management –Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan –One of the biggest concerns currently facing manysludge is sometimes illegally dumped in several WEPA

the inappropriate management of faecal sludge (alsois not safely collected, managed or treated before

Asian countries, particularly WEPA partner countries iscountries. As a result, most of the urban human wastereferred to as “septage”) generated from septic tanks,

being released into the environment, contaminating

due to the lack of viable business models. To date,

both groundwater and surface water, spreading highmost urban areas have heavily relied on informal, ‘on-levels of pathogens into the urban water environment

call’ faecal sludge emptying and collection services,and transmitting fecal-associated infections.

which are sometimes provided by unregulated privatecompanies with low desludging service quality.

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of this system isthe illegal dumping, carried out by such desludging

companies, of human waste into nearby rivers or
canals (Figure 2). This has resulted due to reasons such

limited treatment facilities and capacity, cost and/ortime savings related to long-distance transport ofsludge from households to faecal sludge treatment
plants, plant availability, and obligatory sludge

Figure 2. Illegal dumping of faecal sludge into
receiving water bodies

disposal fees at treatment plants. Thus, this faecal

Box 1. What is faecal sludge?
Faecal sludge (FS) often refers to the partially treated matter, which was stored in and pumped out of a
septic tank or other on-site/decentralized sanitation facility (e.g., cesspool, pit latrine, ventilated pit latrine,
dry or double-vault latrine). It is raw or partially digested, a slurry or semisolid, which contains threemajor components: scum, effluent and sludge. Faecal sludge management includes the process of storage,
collection, transport, treatment and safe end-use or disposal of FS. FS is highly variable in viscosity, quantity,
and concentration, depending on local contexts. (Rohilla et al., 2017)

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has further

under the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 –reliable water and wastewater services for all, toproportion of population using safely managed

underscored the need to ensure access to safe andparticularly target/indicator 6.2.1 (increase theminimize the risks of microbial infection as well as tosanitation services) and target/indicator 6.3.1 (increase

protect human health during infectious disease

the proportion of wastewater safely treated).

outbreaks. However, this ultimate goal will remain far

Therefore, there is a high need to introduce

out of reach if current faecal sludge management

appropriate business models that offer holistic

practices are not appropriately addressed, which

solutions, i.e., that consider the entire sanitation

requires appropriate business models so that it canservice chain, from proper septic tank design, to

operate sustainably. The current situation, if

capture/storage, emptying, collection and transport,

unresolved, also potentially threatens the ability oftreatment and safe treatment/reuse/disposal ofmany WEPA countries to achieve the related targets

CaptureStoragetreated faecal sludge (Figure 3).

Transport

Treatment

Reuse

Figure 3. Safely managed sanitation system providing protection from exposure to hazards across thesanitation service chain (Source: Rohilla et al., 2017)3

This Policy Brief has been developed with the aim

based on local socio-economic, climatic andchallenges on faecal sludge management in WEPA

sanitation infrastructures, institutions and planningof: (i) investigating the existing situation andenvironmental contexts that embrace existing

countries; (ii) identifying enabling factors forprocedures is considered a key part of successful

introducing and implementing appropriate businesssludge management. This framework must be

models for sustainable faecal sludge management,

supported by strong commitment and political willthrough selected case studies in WEPA countries; andfrom both national and local governments. It should(iii) initiating discussions on how lessons learned frombe considered an enabling environment to facilitate

Japan’s experiences in using Johkasou systems fordifferent government and non-governmental

human waste and faecal sludge management can beagencies and private sector organizations to work

introduced to improve the situation in WEPA partner

together and achieve sustainable sanitation, i.e.,countries.

2

sustainable faecal sludge management. However,such management is not prioritized by either national

and/or local governments as part of overall sanitation

Situational analysis
of faecal sludge
management in
WEPA countries

plans in many WEPA countries. In addition, theroles and responsibilities of relevant governmental
agencies, ministries and other stakeholders (e.g.,

utility managers, private sector companies, customers,

community-based organizations, sanitation
associations) related to faecal sludge management

Increasing access to improved sanitation is not only

across the sanitation service chain are not clearlya regional (Asian) but also a global priority. As well as

defined, and sometimes overlap or leave gaps.

the health benefits, improved sanitation has significant

This has resulted in a lack of accountability, poor

economic benefits. For example, the return on 1 USD

communication, coordination and planning, delayed

spent on water and sanitation improvements in low-

construction, as well as disagreements between

income countries is 5 to 46 USD, depending on thestakeholders in the event of issues.

intervention (Hutton et al., 2007). Many countries
in Asia have made certain progress towards theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) and have

Guidelines on standard design of septic tanks
and faecal sludge management

increased access to improved sanitation facilities overthe last two decades. However, providing adequate

Some WEPA countries lack guidelines on national

access to sanitation facilities in itself does not ensure

standards for the design and construction of septic
tanks. Meanwhile, in the other countries, where

national standards for design exist, but practicallysuch facilities will operate properly or as intended ifmany installed septic tanks in urban areas havethe issue of effective faecal sludge management is

not been designed and constructed according

ignored. Consequently, improper management of thisto appropriate standards. In addition, only a few

faecal sludge in many Asian countries has resulted

countries have established a Guideline or regulations

in significant impacts on human and environmental

for faecal sludge management and regular desludging

health in this region.

(e.g., Malaysia). Even in such cases, however, detailed

Challenges faced by WEPA countries in
effective faecal sludge management

and practical guidelines on faecal sludge management
for local governments that take into account local

Based on our observations and a number of intensive

contexts is absent. Moreover, responsibilities foron-site investigations into current faecal sludge

faecal sludge emptying and disposal is often left

management in WEPA countries, the following

to householders, property owners and the informal

common challenges have been identified.

private sector. Consequently, most households
have either never desludged their tanks or have no

Institutional framework for faecal sludge
management throughout the entire sanitation
service chain

knowledge of their latest desludging. In actuality,
households tend to only make contact with desludging

services upon the occurrence of a blocked septic tank.

Establishing an appropriate institutional framework

For example, World Bank reported that up to 75% of

4Toward the Establishment of Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management –Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan –septic tanks in Vietnam and 66% in Indonesia have

1993 to 2008, IWK built sewers, developed desludging

never been emptied (World Bank, 2015).

services, constructed faecal sludge and wastewater

treatment facilities across the country, and, together

Regulations on regular inspections,desludging and maintenance of on-site
sanitation facilities

with the regulatory agency, established clear policy

guidelines and standard operating procedures fordevelopers and wastewater operators. The provision

Currently, most WEPA countries have yet to establish,of sewerage services was regulated and licensed byor have established but only very weakly enforce

one regulatory body, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air

guidelines or regulations on regular desludging of

Negara (SPAN), which included faecal sludge

faecal sludge from septic tanks either by manual or

extraction, transportation, and treatment and disposal.

mechanical means; exceptions are Japan, Republic of

Desludging services for individual septic tanks within

Korea, Malaysia.

IWK’s concession areas were scheduled andAccording to a recent published report fromundertaken on a three-year cycle by IWK. Efforts haveWorld Bank (2016), in Indonesia for instance, since thealso been made to raise awareness among households

1990s over 150 faecal sludge treatment plants haveof the importance of this practice.

been constructed and entered into operation.

Recently, Haiphong city of Vietnam, and Manila

However, of these less than 10% are still operating, ofcity of Philippines (through Manila Water Company)

ineffective emptying services and lack of demandwith 4-5 years interval in case of Haiphong and 5-7

which operations are further degraded due to bothalso introduced regulations on regular desludging,from households. Thus, insufficient amount of faecal

years in case of Manila. In other countries, faecal

sludge is transported to plants for treatment.

sludge is often emptied and collected by private

Malaysia is another example, which had

companies (e.g., Indonesia, Lao) due to the limited

historically suffered due to weak capacity at the local

capacity both in terms of human resources andgovernment level for managing both water andequipment (e.g., vacuum trucks) of state companies.

sewerage services. In 1993, therefore, the government

nationalized the sewerage service and transferred thewastewater assets to the federal government. Services

Lack of understanding on effective faecal
sludge treatment technologies

were thereafter provided through a single, private
concessionaire, Indah Water Konsortium (IWK). From

Given that wastewater and faecal sludge characteristics

vary widely from city to city and country to country

Overflow from Septic Tank

Customers with
Septic Tanks

Customers
without
Septic Tanks

SewageSewerage System
Sewer lines
Lift stations

Customers
without
Septic Tanks

SewageCity Drainage / Creeks

A Sewered
Areas

Solid Wastes
to Landfill D

Overflow from Septic Tank

Septage

B Unsewered
Areas

Veterans Water
Reclamation Facility

Septage

Septage
Management
Vacuum trucks

Septage

Preliminary
Treatment

C

Customers with
Septic Tanks

Primary Treatment

Dried Biosolids

Composting
Vermicomposting

ExcessSludgeSecondary Treatment

and
D Wastes
End Products

City Drainage / Creeks

Effluent

Solid wastes

Landfill

Figure 4. Selection of appropriate technology at Veterans Water Reclamation Facility (The Philippines)
for combined sewage and faecal sludge treatment. (With daily treatment capacity: 2,400 m3 ofsewage, 240 m3 of faecal sludge)

5

(e.g., due to food habits, onsite sanitation facilities

sanitation service chain. Figure 5 shows an example

technological options must take into account local

management in Denpasar city, Indonesia, in whichand cleaning practices), the selection of appropriateof an existing business model for faecal sludge

contexts, including land availability, power and costhousehold sludge is emptied and collected mainly

requirements, availability of skills, knowledge andby private companies. A small part of this collectedmaterials, and potential impacts on surrounding

sludge is transported to Suwung Faecal Sludge(Septage) Treatment Plant (designed capacity: 400 m3/

local environments. It is therefore important today; actual operating capacity: about 200-300 m3/day),establish (via the government) detailed guidelines toenable informed choices for faecal sludge treatment

located within the Suwung Wastewater Treatment

available to local governments to help them identify

required to pay treatment fees to UPT PAL (local

Plant. Similarly to Bandung, private companies aretechnologies. Such guidelines should be madegovernment company in charge of wastewater

appropriate solutions for their city or province.

and faecal sludge management) for disposal of the

However, most of the countries lack such guidelines

collected sludge at the treatment plant. Unfortunately,

until now, except for a few countries or cities (e.g.,

governmental control has not been sufficiently

Indonesia, Manila city), which have recently madeeffective as these are cases of private or individual

great efforts to introduce them.

faecal sludge emptying providers illegally dumping

Lack of effective business models for faecal
sludge emptying, collection and transport,
treatment and final disposal

collected sludge from households into the open
environment (e.g., rivers and lakes) or manholes toavoid paying treatment fee. One of the challenges

Depending on local circumstances, each city isfacing UPT PAL to raise capacity and performance of

expected to develop its own business model forthe plant is the lack of investment budget. While afaecal sludge management, by considering the overall

Access to Toilet

wastewater fee is separately collected by UPT PAL, andEmptying/ Transportation

Treatment

Final Disposal

Government ofBali Province
Budget support
for O&M

Illegal dumping

Household,offices,schools,
hotels,restaurants

Faecal Sludge

Collection fees

Water
bodiesPrivateDesludging
Service

Wastewater fee is being
collected by UPT;
meanwhile, water fee iscollected separately by PDAM

Faecal Sludge

UPT PAL(Suwung STP)

Dumping fees

Wastewater
effluent

SludgeEnvironmental
monitoring

DLHK
Bali Province

Operationaland financial
reportOpen fieldwithin the
Suwung STP

Public Work
Agency ofBali Province

Figure 5. Existing business model for faecal sludge management in Denpasar, Indonesia (Bao, 2019b)

6

Toward the Establishment of Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management –Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan –a water fee is collected by PDAM; consequently, less(e.g., 2-3 years or 3-5 years), depending on thethan half of the relevant households have historicallycharacteristics of each locality, and of the septic tanks.

paid the wastewater fee/bill. The main payers appear

to be hotels, restaurants, offices, and the like, based3on the authors’ interview with UPT PAL in 2019 (Bao,2019a).

Financing and incentive mechanisms forcost recovery
The lack of financing and incentive mechanisms for

Business models
for sustainablefaecal sludge
management

collection and transport, treatment and final disposal/a. Concept of business models for sanitation service
chain, including from sludge emptying, collection
and transport to treatment and final disposal/
reuseproven to work in all situations, and in reality, service

The concept, “business model” is often used tomodified based on changes in legal, environmental andfinanced, institutionally arranged and managed tocost recovery is one of the major reasons why many
countries have failed to establish effective models for

faecal sludge management that include emptying,reuse. There is no “one size fits all” financial model

describe how a business or service model is structured,delivery models need to be periodically revisited andenable quality services to be delivered to customers.

economic conditions, as well as responsibilities. Various

According to Otoo and Drechsel (2018), businessfinancial models have been proposed. An extensive list

models can consist of four core elements that describeof possible configurations, stakeholders, stakeholder

a firm: (i) Value proposition, which distinguishes it

responsibility and types of financial transfers canfrom other competitors through the products andbe found in the study by Tilley & Dodane (2014).

services it offers to meet customer needs; (ii) Customer

Regardless of the sludge management program/segment(s) the firm is targeting, the channels it uses

system chosen, however, it needs to be premised on

to deliver its value proposition and the customer

being funded by user fees to make it sustainable. Such

relationship strategy; (iii) Infrastructure comprising

fee can be added to monthly water bills or charged as

the key activities, resources and partnership network

special municipal environment fees or pay-as-you-use.

that are necessary to create value for the customer;

Fees should also cover at least the basic operationaland (iv) Financial aspects (costs and revenues), whichcosts of the service, including human costs, costs for

ultimately determine a firm’s ability to capture value

vehicles and fuel, and costs for treatment, operationfrom its activities and break even or earn profit.

and maintenance of faecal sludge treatment facilities.

Business models can be introduced at different stages

The related faecal sludge management programof the sanitation service chain, including one for faecal

can be fully or partially sustained by the tariffs andsludge emptying, collection and transport, one forpotential revenue from selling treatment residuals as

operating the faecal sludge treatment plants, and one

fertilizers, provided they are correctly produced andfor reuse or final safe disposal of the treated sludge.

satisfy national quality standard for reuse.

Social and commercial marketing, and publicawareness raising campaigns for customers
and relevant stakeholders

b. Enabling factors for introducing and implementing
sustainable business models for faecal sludge
management

Effective social and commercial marketing, as wellas public awareness raising activities (e.g., throughIn order to ensure successful introduction andmeetings) on the need and importance of periodicallyfaecal sludge management, a number of enabling

implementation of business models for sustainablepamphlets, education programs, regular community

factors need to be considered, as discussed via casedesludging septic tanks should be carried out whenstudies from selected WEPA countries in the following

regular desludging services are first introduced, as

section.

well as periodically thereafter over the whole cycle

7

Business model for faecal sludge
management in the Philippines

systems, the Dumaguete system of a step-based fee

program can be partially or fully sustained by successful

water pay less for sanitation services. This system also

according to water consumption appears to be the

The economics of any fecal sludge management

most equitable, as poorer people who consume lesscollection of tariffs from customers and potential

encourages water conservation, since reducing water

returned value from the sale of treatment residuals as

consumption directly impacts on the fees charged

fertilizers for farmers. Dumaguete City of Philippines is(Robbins et al., 2012).

a good example. Here the tariff is 2 pesos (0.05 USD)
an average of 15 cubic meters a month, resulting in a

Business model for faecal sludge managementin Nonthaburi municipality of Thailand

as affordable. Maynilad Water and Manila Water havefacilities across the country, which generally make use

per cubic meter of water consumed. Households use

Thailand has about 162 faecal sludge treatment

monthly fee of 30 pesos (0.60 USD), which is perceivedof the anaerobic process. For example, Nonthaburi

a 20% tariff added to the monthly water bill to covercity’s plant uses anaerobic digesters as the main

both faecal sludge and sewerage management. In

treatment technology, and the treated sludge is used

San Fernando City of Philippines, however, where theas a soil supplement. The existing business model

district water service only serves 25% of the residents,

for faecal sludge management in Nonthaburi city isa fee is collected along with the property tax, with each

described in Figure 6.

building owner paying equivalent fees. Of the various

Faecal Sludge
FlowFinancial Flow

Household

Emptying

Transport

Household

Treatment

Reuse

Enduseindustry

Municipality

Emptying Fee

Purchase Price

Figure 6. Existing business model for faecal sludge management in Nonthaburi city, Thailand(Source: Bao et al., 2020)

The service area of Nonthaburi City Municipality

to the next operation unit, which entails little

transportation services within its boundaries. Thisbasket to remove garbage at appropriate stages (Baois 38.90 km 2 , which provides collection andequipment required except a harrow and screen grid/municipality is a key player in faecal sludge collection,

et al., 2020).

transportation and treatment services. The service

Dried sludge from the faecal sludge treatment

consists of four trucks (3 m3 trucks: 2; 6 m3 trucks: 2). It

plant is sold directly, given away to customers, mixed

Nonthaburi City Municipality, service distances areplantations, or applied in the reuse market. The

has been found that in dense urban areas such aswith organic waste to produce fertilizer, applied tolower than in remote areas, which is also affected by

Nonthaburi City Municipality sells approximately 72

the location of the faecal sludge treatment plant. The

tons of dried sludge to gardeners annually, and theservice, due to its reliability, appropriate service fee

liquid component is normally used for plant watering.

and efficient contact channels, has resulted in a high

The municipality stores liquid effluent in a pond forlevel of customer satisfaction. The sludge treatment

plant watering within the organization. In terms of theplant uses anaerobic digestion with sand drying bed,

reuse activity, the major reuse market is agriculture.

with a maximum capacity of 40 m /day and current

Dried sludge is sold to vegetable gardeners at around3

capacity of 30 m3/day. Both anaerobic digestion and

3,000 Baht/ton (100 USD/ton), according to the results

sand drying bed together with covered lagoon useof an interview at the plant, carried out by the author

the gravity flow configuration to release faecal sludge

in 2019 (Bao et al., 2020).

8

Toward the Establishment of Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management –Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan –Sand beds(4x5x1.2)

Anaerobic digestion
tanks–31 units(4x5x2.5m)

Effluent storage ponds(8x16x1.5)

Final products(fertilizer to be sold to farmers andgardeners–5 tons/month in average)

Figure 7. Nonthaburi city faecal sludge treatment plan and fertilizer produced as final productBusiness model for faecal sludge
management in Denpasar, Indonesia

Its aim was to conduct insightful investigations intobusiness model for faecal sludge management insolutions as well as propose an appropriate businessthe problems and hold discussions with various

As mentioned earlier, Figure 5 shows an example

stakeholders in Denpasar to identify appropriate

Denpasar, which failed to address the issues of illegal

model for faecal sludge emptying, collection anddumping of collected sludge and involved low rates

transport, treatment and reuse (Figure 8). As a result,of collected wastewater and low sludge managementa scheduled desludging program was proposed tofees. In order to address these challenges, acreate demand from customers, an incentivisedcollaboration was formed between a research groupdischarge model was suggested to address the issue

from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

of illegal dumping, and a sanitation fee mechanism(IGES) and the Institute of Technology of Bandung.

was proposed to cover the operation and maintenance
DLHK Bali Province (Env. Monitoring)

Faecal Sludge
FlowHouseholdon-sitesanitation
facilities

Emptying

Transport

Treatment

Use/application

UPT PAL

Farmers

Responsible stakeholder

Financial
Flow

Private de-sludging
service providers

Households

Discharge
incentive

Scheduleddesludging forfree of charge
Dumping
licensePurchase
price
BudgetsupportBali Provincial government

Sanitation fee(integrated in water supply bill)

Figure 8. Example of incentivized discharge model proposed for faecal sludge emptying, collection andtransport, treatment and reuse in Denpasar city of Indonesia (Bao, 2019b)

9

costs of the faecal sludge treatment plant. It was also

As of March 2020, approximately 92% of Japan's

recommended to incorporate the sanitation fee into

total population has access to adequate sewage

collection of wastewater and sludge fees (Bao, 2019b).

using new-type of effective Johkasou system (MOEJ,

the water supply bill in order to improve the rate oftreatment services, which includes 9% of population

A similar idea has been successfully introduced2020).

and implemented recently by Haiphong Sewerageb. Lessons learned from Japan for other WEPA
countries to improve faecal sludge management

and Drainage Company (SADCO) in Haiphong city ofVietnam, where a 20% of tariff has been added tomonthly water bills to cover both faecal sludge andQualification and performance testing
systems for on-site sanitation facilities

sewage treatment costs.

4

Lessons learned fromJapanese experiencein managing faecal
sludge fromJohkasou systems

Differing from other countries, in Japan, allonsite sanitation facilities introduced have to beappropriately certified (Johkasou), especially for newly
built houses or buildings that have no access to city-or prefecture-based sewerage systems. As part of thebuilding permit process, a municipal construction

surveyor is required to check the installed facilities(Johkasou), which must be standardized through useof a performance testing system to ensure sufficienta. A brief history of night-soil (or faecal sludge)
treatment and management in Japan

performance during operations (Hashimoto, 2019).

Unfortunately, this standardization process for on-site
sanitation facilities, particularly for household users,

Japan has a long history and rich experience in

had not yet been introduced in most other WEPA

managing night soil, or faecal sludge, since the Edo Era

countries as of the time of this report.

(1603 to 1868), in which farmers and residents in towns
doing acting as suppliers of fertilizer for agricultural

Introduction of effective scheduled
desludging programs

growth starting in the late 1950s, due to the rapid

as septic tanks perform and function appropriately,

often constructed large night soil storage tanks, in so

In order to ensure onsite sanitation systems suchproducts. During the period of rapid economic

they need to be desludged at certain time intervals

urbanization and increasing use of chemical fertilizer,(e.g., 3 to 5 years depending on country). In practice,

the traditional night soil recycling systems went into

however, households only use emptying services upondisuse and night soil turned from being regarded as

the occurrence of issues with their septic tank (e.g.,‘fertilizer’ to ‘waste’, resulting in serious environmental,

blockage, bad odor), thus septic tanks are usually usedsocial and health problems. To cope with these issues,

despite being full of accumulated sludge and scum,

the Government of Japan launched a subsidy program

which reduces their functionality and performance.

in the 1960s to promote the construction of night soil

This practice, if continued, can result in insufficient

treatment facilities for households, namely “Tandoku-

input amounts of faecal sludge for treatment at plants,

shori Johkasou”, which only used to treat black water

forcing plant closure, as has occurred in Indonesia.

from toilets. In the 1980s, a new type of small-scaleThus, in order to address this issue, Japan introduced aJohkasou known as ‘Gappei-shori Johkasou’ (referredscheduled desludging program for Johkasou systems

to as Johkasou thereafter) was developed, which can

as a legal obligation for users, which obligates suchbe used for treating both black and gray water, while

be carried out at least once a year, managed by a

new installations of the blackwater-handling Tandoku-

municipality-certified desludging company.

shori Johkasou were prohibited from 2001. The newsmall-scale Johkasou spread rapidly in suburban

sewerage systems, which has resulted in a marked

Sound financing mechanism for operationand maintenance costs

recycling in Japan (MOEJ, 2018).

financing mechanism has been established to supportand rural areas that were not suited to constructing

In Japan, as part of its sanitation policy, a soundimprovement in the water environment and water10

Toward the Establishment of Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management –Lessons Learned from WEPA Partner Countries and Japan –investment, operation and maintenance costs. In 1987,

night soil and/or sludge treatment facilities throughSubsidy Program to help accelerate installation of thewhich also included resource recycling facilities. While

the Government of Japan introduced the National

the introduction of a subsidy to eligible facilities,

new type of Johkasou, which treats both black andsludge treatment technologies might be costly andgray water, and conversion of the old-type Johkasou.

may not be suitable in several WEPA countries, Japan’s

A number of specific measures and subsidy schemes

wealth of experience in technological processes suchfrom the government and municipalities have been

as solid-liquid separation, treatment of supernatant

implemented, such as the Johkasou Installation Project(wastewater) and safe disposal of dewatered sludge(for private installations) and Johkasou Municipal

could be shared with other WEPA countries for their

Installation Project (for municipal installations) (MOEJ,

future consideration.

2021).

Policyrecommendations

Establishment of training, examination andqualification systems for sludge service
providers5currently provided by either public companies and/

While great progress has been made in the Asian

sometimes not government certified. As a result, theirimproved sanitation facilities such as septic tanks,

Desludging services in most WEPA countries are

region to increase the ratio of household access toor private companies (formal or informal), which aresanitation does not just concern the toilets themselves.

performance is relatively poor, operations do not

It also involves the broader sanitation service chain,adhere to any standards, and the sludge collected isincluding the management and treatment of effluent

often illegally dumped or discharged into lakes, rivers,

as well as faecal sludge from sanitation facilities,

and sewage systems in order to save on fuel andparticularly from septic tanks, and the need to ensure

discharge costs at designated dumping sites.

it satisfies national standards before being discharged

In order to address such issues, an official training,or disposed of into nearby water bodies or receiving

examination and qualification system was establishedsites. In order to address the current challenges ofin Japan for desludging business/workers andfaecal sludge management faced by WEPA countries,

operators, desludging technicians and vendors

the following points should be taken into account:engaged in the desludging business, to ensure service• Need for strong political will and commitment,

quality can be maintained and controlled by thegovernment. Associated costs related to training andfrom both national and local governments, toexamination are covered by trainees themselves orachieve impact and create positive changes andthe companies hiring them.

improvements in faecal sludge management.

Consequently, appropriate local budgets should

Selection of appropriate technologicalsolutions for faecal sludge treatment
considering local contexts

be allocated for faecal sludge management
activities.

• Clarification of roles and responsibilities of each

Japan has over 60 years of experience in developing

stakeholder group regarding faecal sludge

and operating night soil and sludge treatment

management across the sanitation service chain,facilities, and over 1,000 sludge treatment facilities

to improve coordination, planning and smooth

have been constructed and operate across the country

implementation.

(Hashimoto, 2019). Like other Asian countries, Japanis also challenged with securing the necessary land

• Development of standard designs for septic tanks

sludge from Johkasou systems and other centralized

management based on country contexts, in ordersystems for composting as a valuable fertilizer for

implementing faecal sludge treatment anddeveloped and constructed across the country. In 1997,• Improved capacity of local governments, toas well as detailed guidelines for faecal sludge

for constructing sanitary landfills and for dumping
wastewater treatment plants. Consequently, compact

to guide and facilitate local governments inagriculture or incinerating the sludge have been widely

management.

enable monitoring and enforcement of faecal

the Government of Japan revised its subsidy policy for11sludge disposal, as well as establishment of

Building of Multi-stakeholders on Integrated Decentralised
Domestic Wastewater Management in ASEAN Countries” –November 2020.
Bao (2019a). Direct interview with UPT PAL in 2019.
Bao (2019b). Situational Analysis and Business Model Assessment
for Septage Management in the Urban Areas of Indonesia– Final Synthesis Report (Commission Report). Preparedby Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES),
in collaboration with Ganeca Environmental Services(Indonesia).
Bao, P.N., and Kuyama, T. (2013). Decentralized domestic
wastewater management in Asia – Challenges andOpportunities. Policy Brief Series No. 1. Published by WEPAMOEJ. Accessed on 24th March. 2021.Available on http://
www.wepa-db.net/pdf/1403policy_brief/WEPA_PB1_2013.
pdf
Hashimoto, K. (2019). Institutional Mechanisms for Sustainable
Sanitation: Lessons from Japan for Other AsianCountries. ADBI Working Paper Series. Published by AsianDevelopment Bank Institute.
Hutton, G., Haller, L., Bartram, J. (2007). Global Cost-benefit
Analysis of Water Supply and Sanitation Interventions.
Journal of Water and Health 5(4), p.481-502.
MOEJ (2018). Night Soil Treatment and Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems in Japan. Ministry of the Environment,
Japan. Accessed on 24th March. Available on: https://www.
env.go.jp/recycle/jokaso/basic/pamph/pdf/wts_full.pdf
MOEJ (2020). Status of population access to the sewage
treatment by the end of FY2029 – Ministry of theEnvironment, Japan (in Japanese). Accessed on 22nd March
2021. Available on: https://www.env.go.jp/press/108379.
html
Otoo, M., Drechsel, P. (2018). Resource Recovery from Waste:
Business Models for Energy, Nutrient and Water Reuse in
Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Edited by Miriam Otoo
and Pay Drechsel. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
Robbins, D., Strande, L. and Doczi, J. (2012). Opportunities
in Fecal Sludge Management for Cities in Developing
Countries: Experiences from the Philippines. North Carolina:
RTI International. Accessed on 24th March 2021. Available
on: https://www.ircwash.org/resources/opportunitiesfecal-sludge-management-cities-developing-countriesexperiences-philippines
Rohilla, S.K., Luthra, B., Bhatnagar, A., Matto, M., and Bhonde,
U. (2017). Septage Management: A Practitioner’s Guide,
Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.
Tilley, E., and Dodane, P.H. (2014). Financial Transfers andResponsibility in Faecal Sludge Management Chains.
In Chapter 13 of “Faecal Sludge Management Systems
Approach for Implementation and Operation” Edited by
Linda Linda Strande Mariska Ronteltap, Damir Brdjanovic.
Published by IWA Publishing 2014.
UNICEF & WHO (2019). Progress on household drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017. Special Focus on
Inequalities. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) and World Health Organization, 2019. Accessedon 24th March 2021. Available on: https://www.who.int/
water_sanitation_health/publications/jmp-2019-full-report.
pdf
World Bank (2015). Improving On-site Sanitation and Connections
to Sewers in Southeast Asia- Insights from Indonesia andVietnam. Published by Water and Sanitation Program –World Bank. Accessed on 24th March 2021. Available on:https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp/files/publications/WSPImproving-On-site-Sanitation-Connections-to-SewersSoutheast-Asia.pdf
World Bank (2016). Septage Management Pilots and Capacity
Building in Indonesia: Synthesis Report. World Bank,
Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/24721 License: CC BY 3.0
IGO.
World Bank (2019). “Vietnam: Toward a Safe, Clean, and Resilient
Water System.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

regular desludging programs, by cities, supported
by a GIS-based database system on household

sanitation (e.g., toilet availability, size and shapeof septic tanks, number of chambers, last

emptying, accessibility of septic tank), and which
requires periodic emptying of all household-level
septic tanks, in order to improve public demand
for related services.

• Establishment of appropriate business models
with sound financing mechanisms for effective

faecal sludge management that account for local

contexts, for each city/province, which also clarifyroles and responsibilities for all relevant
stakeholders, and cover registration of allhouseholds, registered private contractors,
introduction of regular desludging service
systems, and monitoring plans for safe faecal
sludge disposal and reuse, if available.

• Provision of advocacy, capacity building andawareness raising campaigns by local
governments that target relevant local residents

and stakeholders regarding the need for periodic
desludging of septic tanks and proper
management of collected faecal sludge.

• Introduction of official standard procedures fortraining, examination and qualification, toimprove capacity as well as practical skills fordesludging workers, technicians and service
providers engaged in the faecal sludge
management business. This will help raise service

quality as well as enable effective control overwater pollution.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his sincere gratitude
to Dr. Yoshitaka Ebie of the National Institute forEnvironmental Studies for kindly providing valuablecomments and suggestions to improve the quality ofthis Policy Brief.

References
ADB (2016). Sanitation and Sustainable Development in Japan.
Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank,
2016.
Bao et al. (2020). Final Report: A Case Study in Thailand. A
Commission Report prepared by Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES), in collaboration with
Naturally Acceptable and Technological Sustainable (NATS)- Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand.
Under a project entitled: “Policy Dialogue and Network

12