1 Philippines Stage Study

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures List of Abbreviations Definition of Terms Page i ii iii iv v
1
1.1 1.2
BACKGROUND
The Sewerage and Sanitation Sub-sector Study Objectives and Terms of Reference 1 1 1 1
2
2.1 2.2
STATE OF THE SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SUBSECTOR

Overview Evolution of Environmental and Liquid Waste-related Management Programs 2 1 2 3
3
3.1 3.2 3.3
SUB-SECTOR REVIEW
Introduction Legislation and Policies Institutional Structure 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 Introduction Policy Making and Policy Formulation Enforcement Service Provision and Delivery 3 1 3 4 3 10 3 10 3 11 3 11 3 12 3 13 3 13 3 17 3 25
3.4
Technical 3.4.1 On-Site Sanitation 3.4.2 Sewerage 3.4.3 Special Waste
Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons
3.5
Financial 3.5.1 Investments in Sanitation and Sewerage Investments since 1970 3.5.2 NUSS Implementation Plan 3.5.2 The National Strategy and Action Plan (NSAP) for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 3.5.3 Review of Investment Costs of Various Sanitation and Sewerage Technologies
3 26
3 - 26 3 - 27 3 29 3 30
4
4.1 4.2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lessons Learned and Conclusions Recommendations 4 1 4 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8
Study Subject Areas Distribution of Households with Sanitation Facility Summary of Sewerage and Sanitation-Related Policies Summary of Existing Institutional Structure for Sanitation and Sewerage Initiatives by Stakeholders Available Sanitation Technologies Inventory of Sewerage Facilities Available Sewerage Technologies
3 1 3 2 3 5 3 10 3 12 3 15 3 18 3 23
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5
Title
National Sewerage and Sanitation Situation Survey on Type of Toilet Used Investment in Water Supply versus Sanitation and Sewerage WDDP 10-Year Implementation Plan Projected NSAP Investment Plan
Page
3- 3 3 - 14 3 - 27 3 - 28 3 30
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB AusAID BESP BLISS BOD BWSA CBD COD CPSO DANIDA DBM DENR DILG DPWH DOF DOH EIA ECC IACEP IBRD IRCWD INFRACOM JICA LBP LGU LWUA MTPDP MWSS NAWAPCO NEDA NEPC NGO NBC NPCC NSAP NUSS NWRB ODA OECF PD RA UNEP UNDP USAID WD WDDP WHO WPEP WSS Asian Development Bank Australian Agency for International Development Barangay Environmental Sanitation Plan Bagong Lipunan (New Society) Improvements of Site Services Biochemical Oxygen Demand Barangay Water Supply and Sanitation Association Central Business District Chemical Oxygen Demand Central Sanitation/Sewerage Program Support Office Danish International Development Agency Department of Budget and Management Department of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Interior and Local Government Department of Public Works and Highways Department of Finance Department of Health Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Compliance Certificate Inter-Agency Committee on Environment Protection International Bank for Reconstruction and Development International Reference Center for Waste Disposal Infrastructure Committee Japan International Cooperation Agency Land Bank of the Philippines Local Government Unit Local Water Utilities Administration Medium Term Philippine Development Plan Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission National Economic and Development Authority National Environment Protection Council Non-Government Organization National Building Code National Pollution Control Commission National Strategy and Action Plan National Urban Sanitation and Sewerage Strategy National Water Resources Board Official Development Assistance Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan Presidential Decree Republic Act United Nations Environmental Program United Nations Development Program United States Agency for International Development Water District Water District Development Project World Health Organization Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project Water Supply and Sanitation
WSSSMP
Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Master Plan 4
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Drainage Runoff resulting from rain, also referred to as wet weather flow. Toilet facility that does not use water for flushing. Solid (feces) and liquid (urine) waste from humans A facility that handles and disposes human excreta (and, in many cases, sullage) at the point of origin (onsite) or at a remote location (off-site). Can be dry or wet. Liquid and solid material in septic tanks or other holding tanks for domestic sewage. Waterborne system for collection, transportation and treatment and disposal of sewerage or wastewater. Considered off-site. Liquid wastes resulting for washing, bathing and laundry.
Dry System Human Excreta Sanitation Facility
Septage
Sewerage System
Sullage
Wastewater or Sewerage
Human excreta and sullage, collectively.
Wet System
Toilet facility that utilizes water for flushing. Also known as waterborne facility.
1
1.1
BACKGROUND
The Sewerage and Sanitation Sub-sector The Philippine sewerage and sanitation sub-sector continues to be plagued by problems, which, unless addressed promptly, can be expected to worsen, hindering social and economic progress. Sewerage and sanitation services are, by and large, still inadequate. Development of the sub-sector has been hindered by poor planning, institutional constraints, lack of political will, and insufficient financial resources.
Existing conditions in the sanitation sub-sector are unsatisfactory. Poor sanitation is a major concern for policy makers and citizens alike, due to its adverse impacts on public health and on public resources required for future development. Substandard sanitation has caused environmental degradation and the spread of disease.
?
There is a threat of contamination to water sources, especially in urban centers, where rapidly growing populations and unregulated water consumption increase the chances of groundwa ter contamination from septic tanks, latrines, and poorly maintained facilities. The situation is compounded by failure to implement and enforce existing laws and regulations, uncoordinated planning among government agencies, a general lack of funding, and a citizenry largely unable to afford the capital cost of basic infrastructure, or even operating costs for existing facilities. There is a glaring lack of septage removal and treatment capacity nationwide. Only 10 percent of household wastewater is treated and disposed properly, while 90 percent remains a potential source of pollution and a threat to public health. The need to strengthen national policy, strategy and operational frameworks for the sub -sector has been acknowledged but insufficiently addressed. Other major constraints are inadequate institutional capabilities of Water Districts (WDs) and local government units (LGUs), and limited availability of funds, partly due to poor cost recovery mechanisms and inadequate operations and maintenance practices.
1.2
Study Objectives and Terms of Reference The Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) is divided into two phases:
Phase I Situation analysis, focusing on the collection and presentation of : facts about Urban Sanitation and Sewerage Policies and Experiences in the Philippines. Phase II: Analytical framework and targeted research program on effective urban sewerage and sanitation models and practices. This research study is Phase I of the WPEP, which aims to produce a comprehensive situation analysis of all significant urban sewerage and sanitation policies and experiences in the Philippines since 1970, identifying high impact opportunities for case studies, field trials, and policy refinement. Briefly, the situation analysis includes:
?
an introductory overview of the state of the urban sewerage and sanitation sub -sector, including a review of the Philippines Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: National Strategy and Action Plan (1994), and progress in reaching targets, including investment levels and trends, service coverage gap trends, and investment implications; a historical review of all official national and local government urban sewerage and sanitation policies and programs, since 1970, including relevant provisions of the Local Government Code (1991), policies of official development assistance (ODA) agencies, and others; a historical review of unofficial sewerage and sanitation policies and programs since 1970, including commonplace unofficial LGU assistance programs, non-government organization (NGO) activities, and those of other providers; complementary analysis of the development logic behind the policies and programs identified, and how these activities were expected to improve service outcomes; a compilation of key urban sewerage and sanitation conditions based on field experiences and practices the real story of what actually got built, what worked and what did not, and its present state in the Philippines since 1970; commentaries on the development impact of major sewerage and sanitation programs and initiatives since 1970, appreciating the difference between development impact and effective implementation, including a commentary on the lag between water supply expansion and sewerage and sanitation improvements;
information on the experiences of sewerage and sanitation projects funded solely or substantially by urban LGUs, with a commentary on LGU capacity to exercise devolved responsibilities for urban sewerage and sanitation;
a preliminary assessment outlining potential improvements to urban sewerage and sanitation guidelines and practices, including cost sharing.
2
2.1
STATE OF THE SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SUB-SECTOR

Overview The population of the Philippines, presently estimated at 75.3 million, has been growing at an annual average rate of 2.03 percent. About 36.7 million, nearly 50 percent, live in urban areas. The trend is very rapid population growth in urban areas. Moreover, economic development in most urban areas throughout the country has been expanding steadily in recent years. This concentration of population in urban areas has resulted in greater demand for basic services, including piped water supply and sanitation.
Provision of water supply and sanitation services in the urban areas, both within and outside Metro Manila, has ranked high among Philippine national government priorities. However, local governments, especially in small urban areas, give top priority to water supply and lesser importance to sanitation projects, particularly sewerage, drainage and solid waste disposal. This divergence reflects the reality that setting up sanitation and sewerage facilities requires substantial initial investment as well as commitment by the members of recipient communities to contribute to the operation and maintenance of these facilities once they are in place. In addition, sanitation facilities require careful planning in order to assess the viability of the investment, and such activities are usually accorded a lower priority by local political leaders than projects with more obvious and immediate benefits. In small urban areas, attention to sanitation has been limited mostly to health education programs emphasizing the close relationship between safe water, proper sanitation, hygiene and wellness.
A study conducted on water supply and sanitation systems in selected small municipalities by a multilateral development agency in 1998 found no public sewerage systems in any of those towns. Based on the studys findings, about 60-65 percent of urban households discharged their wastewater into the street drainage system and 25-30 percent into septic tanks from which wastewater seeped into the ground. Drainage systems
that existed in these areas covered only the town centers. Such systems mainly consisted of open earth canals, with few concrete-lined canals. All drainage canals emptied into rivers and creeks that traverse the towns. The study noted that the main problem in all the municipalities was the lack of a sewerage system and the inadequacy of the drainage system. But the urban areas in the study were too small in size to justify installation of comprehensive conventional sewerage/drainage systems. Local governments in each area surveyed responded similarly to the need for adequate drainage/sewerage and effective garbage collection systems. These LGUs contended projects for appropriate disposal of wastewater and solid waste were unaffordable without subsidies from the central government. In addition, charging service fees to urban residents would take time to implement and likely prove difficult, considering residents limited ability to pay and their priority for purchasing water supply.
The task of providing water supply and sewerage services in Metro Manila and its contiguous areas is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS). In 1995, its service area covered eight cities and 29 municipalities, with a total population of 10.5 million. However, only about 64 percent of the service area population was actually served because of limited water supply and inadequate distribution facilities. The main problem was non-revenue water (58 percent in 1994, way above the standard acceptable level of 25 percent) and accounts receivable (i.e., low collection efficiency). This situation was reportedly due to an aging distribution system (old and leaking pipes) and the number of illegal water users, growing in tandem with the number of illegal squatters. The cost of mitigating these problems and of improving and expanding water supply services sidetracked development of sanitation projects for almost 30 years.
The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) is responsible for the promotion and provision of water supply and sewerage services in urban centers outside Metro Manila through Water Districts. Areas under its responsibility include some 1,500 cities and municipalities. Other urban areas not covered by LWUA are served by systems owned and operated by local government units or private companies, including subdivision owners and developers. Most water supply operators have concentrated on expanding their service coverage and meeting its deficiencies, rather than providing sanitation facilities.
The development of water supply and sewerage facilities in urban centers outside Metro Manila has been constrained by limited financial resources and inadequate institutional capabilities, particularly in financial management, operations and planning. Although urban water supply organizations, including Water Districts, are required by the government to
be financially independent, most are plagued with inadequate financial capability due to the rapid increase in operating costs compared with revenue, poor collection efficiency, and a high percentage of non-revenue water. Wate r Districts cannot meet their rising costs for operation and maintenance of water supply systems, let alone for expansion and improvement of services, including the provision of off-site sanitation facilities. Their situation is typical of most urban water supply organizations in developing countries. To support the development of the sub-sector, the central government continues to subsidize capital investment requirements, mostly in the form of equity infusions or grants. Facing myriad demands, national government resources have not been sufficient to meet funding requirements, further hampering development of the sewerage and sanitation sub-sector. 2.2 Evolution of Environmental and Liquid Waste-related Management Programs Historical: Prior to the 1970s Statutory provisions on environmental issues in the Philippine legal system date back more than 130 years. The Spanish law on waters of 1866 was extended to the Philippines in 1871 with the following provision: "when an industrial establishment was found after the investigation, to have contaminated the waters with substances or properties noxious to the public health, the Governor General could suspend its operations until the owner adopted remedy." In 1935, the Philippine Constitution declared that "the state in the exercise of its inherent powers may adopt measures to protect the health, the welfare, safety, etc. of the community. The Constitutional guarantees on the right to life, liberty and property are not absolute. Weighed against a greater public interest, these rights have to yield to reasonable regulations." In 1964, through Republic Act No. 3931, the National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission (NAWAPCO) was formed to maintain reasonable standards of quality for air and water. Within the Study Period: 1970-2000 In December 1975, Presidential Decree No. 856 established the Code on Sanitation, which dealt in detail with water supply, excreta disposal, sewerage and drainage. Chapter XVII of the Code contained provisions for sewerage collection and disposal, as well as drainage, with implementing rules and regulations.
10
In 1976, Republic Act No. 3931 was revised by Presidential Decree No 984, and NAWAPCO was replaced by the National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC). In the same year, an Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Protection (IACEP) under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was created to assess the environmental situation, as well as government policies and programs on environmental protection. In 1977, IACEP recommended creation of the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), established under Presidential Decree No. 1121. The Council became responsible for rationalizing the functions of government agencies for an effective, coordinated and integrated system of environmental protection, research and implementation/enforcement of environmental laws. In the late 1970s, Presidential Decree No. 1151, known as the Philippine Environmental Policy, was promulgated. The law required all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-ownedand-controlled corporations, as well as private firms and entities, to prepare an environmental statement on their every action, project or undertaking that significantly affects the qua lity of the environment. Presidential Decree No. 1152, known as the Philippine Environmental Code, established standards for air and water quality, and guidelines for land use, natural resources, groundwater and waste management. In June 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1586 augmented the environmental statement system by providing sanctions for non-compliance with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirement. The scope of the system was also restricted to "environmentally critical projects to be located in environmental critical areas." This Presidential Decree, however, was not implemented until 1982. In 1993, the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) covering the period 1993-1998 was developed. It spelled out the development goals and objectives, strategy, policy framework, priority development programs and targets of various sectors. This initiative included a medium term plan for the water supply and sanitation sector.
Post NUSS Period: 1994-2000 Up to 1994, efforts to develop the water supply and sanitation sector focused mainly on the construction of physical facilities, primarily for water supply. In the sanitation sub-sector, more attention was given to strengthening sector policy, strategy, operational frameworks, and
11
institutional capabilities. It was then deemed necessary that specificmeasures be identified through an in-depth assessment of implementation experiences, including private sector participation in water supply provision, and an analysis of emerging issues and concerns. Hence, the decision to update the medium term plan, and to formulate a sector investment plan, now referred to as the 1994 National Urban Sewerage and Sanitation Strategy Plan (NUSS). The purpose of the sanitation program was to create a more effective institutional framework to guide policy and institutional reforms; and to propose an appropriate development strategy and investment plan to improve sewerage and sanitation coverage nationally. In March 1994, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) adopted Resolution No. 5 based on the NUSS plan, giving high priority to improved sanitation and sewerage in urban areas. The resolution also included the following propositions:
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ensure that on-site sanitation facilities are readily adaptable to future sewerage systems; all new housing developments, central business districts (CBDs) and high income areas shall have low cost (simplified) sewerage systems; industrial wastes and collected municipal wastes shall be treated in accordance with DENR standards; services shall be based on demand and on willingness-to-pay criteria; utilization of external sources of assistance; LGUs will be responsible for implementing sanitation and sewerage projects and programs; the national government shall assist LGUs, through LWUA-Central Program Support Office (CPSO), in institutional development, training, financial management, planning, and program management. To assist LGUs in carrying out sanitation and sewerage projects, the Department of Finance (DOF) made loans available through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). Due to budgetary constraints, LWUA's role was reprogrammed to that of an advisor to LBP for this new Water District Development Project (WDDP).
There were originally six pilot project sites for WDDP: the cities of Cagayan de Oro, Cotabato, Dagupan, Davao, and General Santos, plus the municipality of Calamba. However, General Santos City backed out from the project, leaving only five sites to proceed with the project in 1996. Due to delays in meeting loan requirements, negotiations dragged on until 1998, a local election year. After those elections, no firm commitments or interest came forth for the project, and local officials had other priorities. Moreover, the impact of the regional financial crisis that began in mid-1997 contributed to LGU decisions to drop the project.
12
WDDP was later restructured into a broad-based environmental fund for sanitation, sewerage, drainage and the Barangay Environmental Sanitation Plan (BESP) to assist LGUs to pursue demand-driven sub-projects. The restructuring required the creation of the Project Management Office at LBP. In July 1999, the revived WDDP commenced with two LGUs signing subsidiary loan agreements. To date, four LGUs are participating in the program, constructing off-site sanitation through formal drainage systems with dry weather flow interceptors and sewerage facilities.
13
3
3.1
SUB-SECTOR REVIEW
Introduction The following review of the sanitation and sewerage sub-sector in the Philippines is based on examination of the current situations institutional, legal, technical, financial and ecological aspects. The purpose of this section is to summarize existing practices and experiences, and to identify barriers and constraints to improved sanitation management. The analysis examines the sanitation and sewerage sub -sector nationwide, in the context of the classification system for urban communities used in the Philippines. The study identified 68 Highly Urbanized Cities (HUCs), Independent Component Cities (ICCs) and Component Cities (CCs), and this study concentrates on these large urban centers, which have been found to have correspondingly large sanitation and wastewater management problems. Table 3.1 summarizes the subject areas studied.
Table 3.1 Study Subject Areas Type Highly Urbanized City (HUC) Component City (CC)1 Independent Component City (ICC)1 Number (Percent) 23 (35%) Population 200,000+ Income (P000/yr) 120,000 or more
38 (59%) 4 (6%)
25,000 - 200,000 25,000 - 200,000
<4,000 - 120,000 or more <4,000 - 120,000 or more
Source: DILG 1991 and DOF (1995) Notes: 1 ICC Independent Component City
CC- Component City
In 1998, 2.3 million households, or 19 percent of all Philippine households, did not have access to sanitary toilet facilities, defined as a flush toilet or closed pit latrine. As indicated in the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), 92.3 percent of the urban population had access to sanitary toilets, compared to 69.8 percent in the rural communities. It is also estimated that only about 7 percent of the overall population is connected to a sewer system (see Figure 3.1). Access to sanitary toilet facilities remains problematic, particularly outside urban areas, where one of six households has no toilet facility. Table 3.2 shows the distribution of household facilities.
14
Table 3.2
Distribution of Households with Sanitation Facility
Sanitation Facility Flush Toilet 2 Closed Pit Latrine 3 Open Pit Latrine Drop Type/ 4 Overhang 5 No Facilities/ Field Other/ Missing Source: NDHS, 1998 NSO
1
Residence Urban (%) 87.4 4.9 2.4 1.4 3.6 0.3 Rural (%) 60.2 9.6 9.7 2.9 17.0 0.6 Total (%) 73.7 7.3 6.1 2.1 10.3 0.5
__________________________ 1 Flush toiler (water-sealed) - type of toilet where after water is flushed or poured into the bowl, a small amount of water is left in the bowl and seals the bottom of the bowl from the pipe leading to the depository.
2
Sanitary pit or privy (closed pit)- non-water carriage type where pit is dug to a depth of 1.5 3.0 m, large enough to hold wastes for several years. Open pit- a scant type of toilet over a pit with no provision for fly prevention. Drop type- a type with enclosure or with roofing but no pit; Overhang type- a toilet constructed over a body of water (either sea or river). No toilet facility/field- In households without toilet facilities, members may defecate along the railway, in nearby bodies of water, in a field, etc.
On the basis of the 1998 NDHS data and estimates to present a baseline situation for off-site sanitation facilities, Figure 3.1 was developed. From the charts presented, it should be noted that provision of on-site sanitation remains a problem for 19 percent of households.
15
Figure 3.1 NATIONAL SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SITUATION
ON-SITE SANITARY TOILET FACILITIES 100% 80% % Population 60% 40% 20% 0% National Urban Rural 81% 92.3% 69.8%
OFF-SITE SANITATION FACILITES
100% 80% % Population
Septic Tank
87.4% 60% 60.2% 40% 20% 0% 7% Urban 0% Rural Urban Rural Overall National Coverage 77.3%
16
OFF-SITE SANITATION EFFECTIVENESS

Proper Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Wastewater 3% Sewer
Sewered 7%
No Collection or Treatment: Possible Source of Pollutants 90%
----------------------------------On-Site the human waste is deposited and treated where the toilet facility is located. Off-Site the human waste is transported for treatment.
An emerging problem is increased wastewater generated due to increasing water supply demand and provision and inadequate treatment of it. Overall, 77.3 percent of households have some provision for treatment of household wastewater. However, sewer systems reach only a miniscule portion of households, 7 percent in urban areas and none in rural areas. Other households that have sewerage treatmentand 23.7 percent have nonerely on septic tanks. These systems can be effective but many are improperly constructed, poorly maintained and inadequately serviced. They are rarely desludged or provided with adequate absorption fields. Septage tends to leach into surrounding areas, threatening groundwater contamination. The lack of tank trucks for emptying septic systems and treatment facilities to dispose of septage leads to illegal dumping in drainage systems, the ground or bodies of water, exacerbating problems from other indiscriminately discharged sewerage such as industrial wastes. Overall, only 3 percent of septage receives adequate treatment and disposal, and 90 percent of household wastewater remains a source of pollution and a threat to public health. The next sections will examine the legal and institutional backdrop that contributed to the lack of dynamism in the sewerage sub-sector.
17
3.2
Legislation and Policies The national legislative framework governing sanitation and sewerage in the Philippines is based on separate provisions contained in several pieces of legislation and policy pronouncements. Environmental and sanitation legislation, regulations and codes were compiled for the NUSS in 1994. That compilation plus legislation and policies enacted after the NUSS, including recommendations not acted upon to date, is summarized in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Summary of Sewerage and Sanitation-Related Policies
Responsible Sub-sector Related Statement Enforcing (E) and Implementing (I) Agency
National Plumbing Code through PD1096 January 1959 Guidelines, criteria and standards for the design and construction of sanitation and sewerage facilities DPWH (E/I) Wastewater disposal rules not fully enforced; absorption fields not required for Imhoff and septic tank effluent disposal
Problems With Implementation
Legislation
An Act Creating the National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission, RA2931 June 1964
Prohibits depositing into the waters or air any substances that shall cause pollution
Clear IRR, but not implemented/ enforced NAWAPCO (E/I)
Department of Health Circular, PD 522, IRR No 220 Series of 1974
Sewage from house plumbing systems shall be connected to a public sewerage system, if available, or to a septic tank
Not fully enforced
DOH (E) DPW (I)
The Code on Sanitation of the
Guidelines on sewerage collection and disposal, excreta disposal and drainage, with IRR
Not diligently enforced or monitored homes
18
Philippines, PD 856 December 1975 DOH (E) DPW (I)
unconnected despite available sewer systems; septic tanks built illegally, etc.
Requires subdivisions, hospitals, public buildings to provide sewerage and treatment facilities Revising Republic Act 3931 known as the Pollution Control Law, PD 984 August 1976 Establishes emphasis on environmental protection and awareness by amending and enforcing laws; requires environmental impact assessments, and monitoring for environmental protection NPCC (E/I)
Not enforced
Creating the National Environmental Protection Council, PD 1121 April 1977
Not strictly enforced; compliance on provision of appropriate sanitation and sewerage facilities is not met NEPC (E/I)
Requires Environmental Assessment for any project or undertaking
Polluter responsible to contain, remove and clean up certain pollution incidents
EA system does not strictly enforce sanitation and sewerage provisions
Formulation of a Philippine Environmental Policy, PD1151 June 1977
Requires connection to sewerage system where available and provision of individual septic tanks when sewerage is not available
Only enforced on big polluters (i.e. industries)
DENR (E/I)
Philippine Environmental Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons
Connection to available sewerage system not enforced
19
Code, PD 1152 June 1977
Projects should obtain Environmental Compliance Certificate
DENR (E/I)
Rules implementing the subdivision and condominium buyer's protective decree September 1981
Requires certificate prior to implementation; sets water quality standards for industrial and municipal wastewater
MHS (E/I)
Project review is not strict on sanitation and sewerage provisions
Not monitored
Revising the Provisions of PD 1151 in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement June 1982
Devolves provision of basic services and facilities to LGUs, including sanitation, sewerage and flood control
Revised Effluent Regulations March 1990
National policy, strategy and action plan for urban sewerage and sanitation
DENR (E/I) Low priority for sanitation projects
Increases role of LGUs in the provision of sanitation facilities
DENR (E/I)
Local Government Code IRR Rule V 1991
LGUs not keen on sanitation and sewerage projects
DILG (E) LGUs (I) National Policy on Urban Sewerage and Sanitation, NEDA Board Resolution No 5 Series of 1994
Deals mainly with water
20
NEDA Board Resolution No 4 Series of 1994, and Board Resolution No 6 Series of 1996
NEDA (E) LGUs (I)
NEDA (E) LGUs (I)
The profile of the water supply and sanitation sector has improved in recent years, partly due to government and external support agencies efforts. Another key factor is that beneficiary communities have recognized the need for improvements, accepted their responsibilities, and offered the cooperation vital for successful, effective implementation of projects. Major sanitation and sewerage initiatives are:
?
1988-2000 Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Master Plan (WSSSMP): This plan emphasized the commitment of the national government to provide for the basic needs of the population, especially in depressed areas. WSSSMP was the result of an extensive interagency undertaking that involved DPWH, DILG, NEDA, MWSS, LWUA and NWRB. WSSSMP set the framework and agenda for organized, unified action by policy makers and program implementers, at all levels of the government, to execute and manage water supply, sewerage and sanitation programs and projects throughout the country. WSSSMP was also intended to serve as an example and reference for the private sector and non-government organizations actually or potentially involved in the development of the sub-sector. Objectives of WSSSMP were to: (a) provide safe water supply to the majority of the population in a cost-effective manner; and (b) institutionalize the delivery of water supply services. In 1994, WSSSMP was updated as a result of the enactment of the 1991 Local Government Code, the conclusion of the 1988-1992 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan, and findings and recommendations of several other sector studies. Republic Act No. 6957 of 1990 entitled An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector and for Other Purposes, manifested the governments policy of greater private sector participation (PSP) in the water sector.
21
However, according to NSAP and WSSSPS, reasons for the lack of successful PSP include:
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
absence of a framework to allow LGUs to decide on the most appropriate form of PSP; lack of effective and credible regulation of the water and sanitation sector, including tariff setting, economic and service standards for operators, extraction of groundwater, and discharges into the environment; low levels of awareness or institutional capacity to initiate, develop and finance projects; undeveloped risk identification, risk management, and risk sharing processes between government and private sector entities; unclear guidelines regarding project guarantees to private sector participants; no established process for evaluation and review of different PSP methods to achieve planned outcomes; insufficient incentives to attract PSP and institute efficiency initiatives; slow processing of unsolicited private sector proposals, such as build-operate-transfer (BOT) initiatives, in part due to bidders requests for financial guarantees, contrary to national government policy.
Local Government Code of 1991: The Code set the tone for increased local government responsibility for provision of basic services and facilities. Under the Code, responsibility for providing basic services was transferred from the central government to the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. Each local government unit was required to provide a minimum set of services and facilities in accordance with national policies, guidelines and standards. 1993-1998 Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP): The Water Resources section of the plan indicated that in 1992 about 66 percent of the population (or roughly 42.6 million people) had access to potable water supply, compared with 61 percent or 34.4 million in 1986. In Metro Manila, about 61 percent of total households had direct service connections, while the rest were either indirectly served or supplied by providers outside the MWSS network. In other urban areas, only about 47 percent of households had comparable access to water. Key measurable targets in the MTPDP included increasing to 79 percent (57.1 million people) the portion of the population served with adequate potable water; construction of sewerage facilities in Metro Manila and 22
other highly urbanized areas; and building 1.8 million toilet facilities nationwide.
?
National Urban Sewerage and Sanitation Strategy Plan of the Philippines of 1994 (NUSS): The plan recommended the adoption of a national strategy and program for the provision of adequate sanitation and sewerage facilities in urban areas. Under the strategy, multiple functions were performed at the national level, even though actual service provision took place at the local level, and cut across the interests and areas of responsibility of several agencies. The plan proposed the Central Sanitation/Sewerage Program Support Office (CPSO) to aid LGUs, assisted by an inter-agency advisory committee (IAC) including representatives of DBM, DENR, DILG, DOF, DOH, DPWH, LWUA, MWSS and NEDA. NEDA Board Resolution No 5 Series of 1994: This act approved the recommendation of the NEDA Infrastructure Committee (INFRACOM) on national policy, strategy and action plans for urban sewerage and sanitation. The resolution provided for the creation of CPSO, housed within LWUA, under the jurisdiction of LWUA Board. LGUs were designated as primary implementers of sanitation/sewerage programs, with the national government providing assistance to develop LGU capabilities in certain areas. Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Sector Databank: A national water resources databank was established at NWRB, with the following initial activities: (a) creating the Philippine Groundwater Databank (LWUA/NWRB) in 1993, fi nanced by UNDP; (b) formulating the Water and Sanitation Monitoring System (WASAM) in 1994, with assistance from UNICEF, to gather specific indicators in the WSS sector for use in planning purposes; and (c) developing the Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Sector Database (commenced in January 1995) through a technical assistance grant from the Danish Consultant Trust Fund (administered by the World Bank). The database was later transferred to NWRB. External Assistance: Several multilateral and bilateral agencies have provided assistance for water, sanitation and sewerage development. These include Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF, Australias AusAID, Japans OECF, USAID, Denmarks DANIDA, the government of France, and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation. ADB, for example, has provided several loans and technical assistance grants for water supply, sanitation and urban development projects, mostly combination water supply/sanitation projects. One example is the 1999 ADB Sector Strategy for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation, which aimed to increase water supply coverage, especially for the urban poor; reduce system wastage and leakage; strengthen cost recovery and financial management; and 23
improve financial self-sufficiency through improved billing, collection and rate setting. The strategy emphasized improving the capabilities of municipalities in administration, community management, financial management, and operation and maintenance; integrating water supply development with drainage, wastewater management, and solid waste management; and facilitating community participation and management to achieve long-term service sustainability.
Box 3.1
Summary of Legal Barriers and Constraints to Improved Sanitation and Sewerage
The Philippines has sufficient sewerage and sanitation legislation and policies but they are not properly enforced and implemented. In the country's development plans, more emphasis was given to water supply provision than sanitation. At present, the sub-sector needs strengthening in the following areas: ? ? ? ?
Fill gaps in legislation applicable to LGUs Facilitate interagency coordination at the national and local levels Design a national framework for implementing polluter pays policies Develop a monitoring system to ensure strict implementation and enforcement of policies at both the national and local levels
3.3
3.3.1
Institutional Structure
Introduction
This review of the institutional framework for management of sanitation was drawn from institutional, legal, technical, and financial assessments available on demand from the Water Supply and Sanitation Program Management Office of DILG, 5th Floor, Francisco Gold Condominium, EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines. The main agencies involved in the management of the sub-sector and their functions are summarized in Table 3.4 below.
Table 3.4 Summary of Existing Institutional Structure For Sanitation and Sewerage
Function Policy Making Policy Formulation, Technical Standard and Guidelines
Responsible Institution/Agency DENR, DOH, NEDA LWUA/ DPWH
24
Public Awareness Technical Assistance Enforcement Environmental Code Sanitation Code Plumbing Code Local Government Code Service Delivery
DENR, MWSS LWUA, MWSS, DENR
DENR via EMB, Regional Offices, PENROS, CENROS DOH via Municipal/City Health Offices DPWH DILG LGUs Private Sector, NGOs, WDs, Other Government Agencies (i.e. PTA, LLDA, DOTC, PEZA, etc.) LGA, DAP, DENR, LWUA, MWSS, NGOs
Training
3.3.2 Policy Making and Policy Formulation The main policy making bodies for wastewater management are the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). DENR regulates discharges from commercial and municipal sewage treatment plants. It also has primary authority to protect water resources. DOH regulates premises with new or existing sanitation installations. DENR and DOH are the primary regulators of the sanitation sector, and carry out reforms in sanitation and pollution regulations and law enforcement. NEDA is responsible for coordinating long -term planning and programming.
25
3.3.3 Enforcement
The four main laws affecting sanitation and sewerage are the Environmental Code, the Sanitation Code, the Plumbing Code and the Local Government Code. Responsibility for enforcement of these codes lies, respectively, with DENR, DOH, DPWH and DILG. These codes all place responsibility for sanitation and sewerage acti vities with LGUs. Nevertheless, enforcement of these codes remains inadequate in the area of wastewater management. There are two main problems that need to be addressed. First, implementing rules and regulations for some parts of the codes are weak, so enforcing agencies and implementing institutions do not have sufficient guidance on what is expected by the law. Second, insufficient priority and resources have been given to enforcement of sanitation and sewerage laws. For example, the responsibility of the Environmental Quality Division of the DENR regional offices along with the PENROs and CENROs is the enforcement of the Environmental Code, covering the full range of environmental issues. These departments have very limited personnel, and few staff members are specially trained in sanitation and sewerage management issues.
At the local level, most LGUs have passed ordinances for more effective sanitation and sewerage management. Most also have local littering, disposal, health, and sanitation laws. Nevertheless, enforcement of these
26
ordinances, especially in sanitation and sewage management, remains weak.
3.3.4 Service Provision and Delivery
Under present institutional arrangements, various government and quasigovernment agencies are responsible for the provision and delivery of urban sanitation and sewerage services. Agencies involved in the delivery of sewerage and sanitation infrastructure include DOH for on-site sanitation facilities, DPWH for off-site sanitation facilities, LGUs for locally initiated projects, the BOT Center for privatized facilities, NGOs such as UWEP and ITN for promotion of low-cost sanitation facilities, etc.
The Local Government Code states that sanitation service management is the responsibility of LGUs in line with existing legislation. However, in the absence of clear implementing rules and regulations and sufficient guidance, LGUs, especially in smaller cities and municipalities, fulfill this function on a largely ad hoc basis, without strategic planning or adequate efforts to implement laws and determine overall expenditures for sanitation and sewerage-related management.
27
Groups outside official institutions have taken initiatives in the sub -sector to address urgent issues affecting their activities and areas of concern. These players were moved to action due to the absence of any agency or organization that would commit to provide sanitation and sewerage services. Without grant funds or cost sharing from the national government, LGUs cannot implement such expensive projects, e ven though they have official responsibility for them.
Here are some examples of stakeholder actions to address urgent issues in the sector: Table 3.5 Initiatives by Stakeholders
Implementing Trigger Organization/ Agency
Action Plan and Expectations
1.
Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)
? Declining tourist arrivals due to beach pollution in Boracay
? Sewerage project to intercept wastewater for treatment and disposal. Tourist arrivals and revenues increased; surface and groundwater quality improved.
28
2.
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)
? Pollution reduced fishing industry revenues; lake fish killed
? Wastewater interceptor conveyance systems and treatment facilities to improve lake water quality.
3.
Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC)
? Pollution of Pasig River
? Wastewater interceptor conveyance pipeline and treatment facilities for residents along river in cooperation with government cleanup.
4.
Urban Waste Expertise Program (UWEP)
? Rapidly deteriorating coastal and surface water quality in Tingloy, Batangas
? Assist LGUs to provide low-cost liquid waste management options.
5.
International Training Network (ITN)
? High cost of effective on-site sanitation technologies
? Promotion of innovative low-cost sanitation facilities.
Box 3.2
? ?
Summary of Institutional Barriers and Constraints to Improved Sanitation and Sewerage

Absence of a national body responsible for sanitation and wastewater management Inadequate enforcement of existing legislation at national and local levels
29
? ? ? ?
Fragmented sa nitation and wastewater management by LGUs, leading to poor accountability Limited capacity of LGUs to manage private sector operations No incentives to improve sanitation services Inadequate training, public information campaigns, and advocacy
3.4
Technical
This technical review of existing sanitation and sewerage facilities in the Philippines examined the sub -sectors situation and practices in different classes of urban areas. The greatest levels of wastewater generation occur in highly urbanized cities. The challenge in providing adequate sanitation services is much greater in HUCs and larger city components than in smaller areas, and hence, was the focus of this analysis.
3.4.1 On-Site Sanitation Technologies
The 1998 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO) reported that in high and low income groups, water sealed is the predominant type of toilet facility (see Figure 3.2). The proportion of families with water sealed toilets is higher among the highest 60 percent income group at 82.7 percent, compared with lower percent income group at 49.5 percent. More than a quarter of families in the lowest 40 percent income group still use closed pit (16.3 percent) or open pit (10.5 percent) toilet facilities. Among the regions, the National Capital Region
30
has the highest proportion of families with water sealed toilet facilities. Nine out of ten families in this region use water sealed toilet facilities. The lowest percentage with water sealed toilet facility is in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), where only one in ten families has this kind of toilet facility.
Although new sanitation technologies, such as compost toilets, are being promoted by some NGOs (i.e. ITN and WASTE), people are still reluctant to change to these low-cost and environment-friendly technologies. People would rather "wait and see" the success of these demonstration projects. Recognizing this attitude, demonstration projects should be undertaken to support promotional campaigns.
The choice of appropriate sanitation technology also must consider a socially and environmentally acceptable level of service along with significant health and economic benefits. On-site sanitation technologies that have been used and are applicable in rural and urban areas are tabulated and evaluated in Table 3.6.
31
Figure 3.2 Survey on Type of Toilet Used
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES BY TYPES OF TOILET FACILITIES: OCTOBER 1998
80
69.4
60
40
20
11
10.9 6.2 2.5
0 Water Sealed Closed Pit Open Pit Other Types None
32
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES BY TYPES OF TOILET FACILITIES BY INCOME STRATA: OCTOBER 1998 100 82.7 80 60 40 20.9 20 0 Water Closed Sealed Pit Open Pit Other Types None 16.3 7.6 10.5 3.2 2.3 2.8 4.2 49.5 Highest 60% Lowest 40%
Source: Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), 1998 National Statistics Office (NSO)
Table 3.6 Available Sanitation Technologies
Technology Aquaprivy
Description Squatting plate situated immediately above a small septic tank that discharges its effluent to an adjacent soakway. System includes pit, vent pipe, latrine pedestal or squatting plate, and enclosing shed.
Advantages Easy to construct with maximum use of indigenous materials.
Disadvantages Can cause intense odor release, fly and mosquito nuisance. Watertight feature makes it expensive.
Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine
Low construction and operation costs, simple and easy to construct with maximum use of indigenous materials. Minimal nuisance, low water requirement, and good potential for upgrading. Minimal water requirement, can be
Unsuitable for high density urban areas (in excess of 200/ha). May pollute groundwater.
Composting Toilet
Waterless pit system similar to sanitation
Suitable only for low density areas; must
33
pit. Ash and biodegradable organic matters added to pit to absorb odor and moisture.
used in areas where water supply is limited; humus produced is safe, stable and can be recycled as fertilizer.
have sufficient ash and biodegradable materials; high degree of user care and motivation is required for satisfactory operation. Can cause intense odor release, fly and mosquito nuisance.
Sanitation Privy
Earthen pit of at least 2 1 m , concrete/ impervious floor, water sealed bowl, and suitable enclosure. Similar to pit or septic tank toilet systems but equipped with a P-trap or water seal to reduce odor escaping from the pit. Also prevents insect and rodent infestation. Portable container such as a pail is used to store waste, and periodically disposed properly.
Low construction and operation costs, simple and easy to construct with maximum use of indigenous materials.
Water Sealed Toilet Bowl
Low water requirement, minimal nuisance and risk to public health.
Difficult to construct, can be expensive in rural areas.
Pail System/ Vault Toilet
Low construction cost, can use any available, suitable container.
High operating cost due to collection and disposal of night soil; can cause public health danger if the night soil is not collected regularly and disposed properly. Practice of discharging effluent into open drains significantly contributes to environmental pollution and degradation. Needs a lot of space for soil absorption field, resulting in high construction cost.
Septic Tanks
Most common off-site sanitation facility in the Philippines. Uses water to transport the waste to a tank where solids settle and digest, and the liquid passes to a soakway.
Can achieve 40 percent BOD reduction and 65 percent suspended solids removal if properly designed.
Septic tanks are the predominant system for disposal of household wastewater in conjunction with cistern type or flush toilets where there is
34
adequate water supply. Sullage (from the kitchen, laundry or bath) may also be discharged into septic tanks; sometimes, household wastewater is discharged directly into the house yard or storm drains.
Septic tanks are small, rectangular chambers in which sewage is retained for settling and sludge digestion. Septic tank effluents contain pathogenic organisms and can cause diseases. The National Building Code and the National Plumbing Code require on-site leaching or absorption to dispose of septage.
For various reasons, such as unsuitable soils, but more often due to lack of space for soil absorption fields due to high land costs, most septic tank systems in the Philippines have been constructed without soil absorption fields. Instead, septic tank effluent is often directly emptied into street and storm drains, significantly contributing to environmental pollution and degradation.
The proliferation of squatter and slum areas with minimal sanitation facilities has exacerbated the problem of untreated wastewater discharged into the urban environment. Clearly, there should also be action plans for sanitation requirements in these areas.
35
Communal toilet facilities have been proposed for slum and squatter areas. However, suitable land is difficult to locate, especially in densely populated areas. Beneficiaries also need to be organized to sustain operation and maintenance of the facility, with additional support through training and information dissemination programs. The users pay concept pioneered in Dagupan City has been successfully replicated in many LGUs. Communal toilets operated on this basis are generally well kept, since funds are generated for their operation and maintenance.
Communal septic tanks are also used in some subdivisions or housing projects (i.e. BLISS). Most of these housing projects are for middle- or highincome groups but are not strictly regulated in terms of sanitation and building requirements.
3.4.2 Sewerage
Metro Manila
One of the mandates of MWSS is to provide sewerage services to the 13 cities and 24 municipalities in Metro Manila, Rizal and part of Cavite. Its service area comprises 203,400 hectares with a population of 11.7 million. Prior to privatization in 1997, MWSS was supplying inadequate potable water service, while sewage collection and treatment was even less
36
satisfactory, covering a mere 7 percent of the population. MWSS placed great reliance on the use of individual septic tanks.
Numerous reports examining Metro Manila i.e. JICA Report, Sogreah Report, the MSSP project, and the MWSS Master Plan Study included similar recommendations for sewerage programs. The reports proposed installation of dry weather flow interceptors in the short term to divert septic tank effluent and sullage then being discharged in esteros or creeks to a sewage treatment plant.
Proposed sanitation programs were complementary to eventual construction of a conventional sewerage system. Proper septic tank management was recommended to reduce pollution, including expansion of desludging activities through acquisition of more vacuum tankers and better septage management strategies. Marine and land disposal of effluent was proposed until the sewage treatment plants were constructed. Privatization of MWSS requires the concessionaires to offer sanitation service to customers not connected to the sewerage system, along with the associated responsibilities of construction, maintenance and operation in the immediate term.
Maynilad (West Zone Concessionaire) will rehabilitate and upgrade existing sewerage systems, expand the sewerage network and improve the management of sanitation services. Two treatment plants will be 37
constructed in phases over five years, along with expansion of central sewerage system service, rehabilitation of the Central Malate sewerage and lift station, and a septage treatment plant in Dagat-dagatan. Maynilad will ensure that sewerage treatment plants comply with national regulations and will evaluate alternative methods of sludge disposal, such as agricultural reuse, composting, drying with reuse of digesting gas, and sanitary landfill.
Manila Water (East Zone Concessionaire) will implement sanitation programs in densely populated areas. Components of the Manila Sewerage Project include septage collection, a barge loading station, and rehabilitation of the Ayala sewage treatment pit.
Other agencies are also concerned with the environmental and sanitation situation in Metro Manila. Recently, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Sector Development Program proposed procurement of vacuum trucks for septic tank maintenance and construction of a septage treatment plant. This sanitation service will serve about 185,000 households that have no coverage from MWSS.
Other Urban Areas
Off-site sanitation and sewerage systems of varied types and capacities exist in five cities and municipalities outside Metro Manila: Baguio City, Cebu City, Zamboanga City, Davao City and Cauayan, Isabela. These facilities are described briefly in Table 3.7 .
38
TABLE 3.7
Inventory of Sewerage Facilities
LOCATION (OPERATOR) ZAMBOANGA CITY (WD) DATE CONSTRUCTED Not available TYPE AND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES - Conventional sewage collection pipelines - Marine outfall - No treatment, except for some screening (Operational) - Sewer lines with 1,161 service connections - Sewerage treatment plant (Operational) - 8,600 m /day capacity Sewerage Treatment Plant (oxidation ditch) - 18.52 km conventional collection pipelines with 526 inspection manholes, 72 interconnection points from old sewer lines - River outfall (Operational) - 1 km conventional sewer pipelines with 2 service connections 3 - 5,000 m /day capacity sewerage treatment plant (aerated lagoon) (Operational)
3
ISSUES/ OBSERVATIONS Services a small part of the city. No expansion to date due to high investment cost.
DAVAO CITY (PSP)
1974
Serves only two residential subdivisions in the city.
BAGUIO CITY (LGU)
1928 US 1994 JICA grant
Serves 63 out of 129 barangays in the city; only 42 percent of the service area is connected to the sewerage system.
CEBU CITY (LGU)
1988
Built to serve the whole reclamation area but serves only a bottling plant and a major mall/ supermarket. Funding is inadequate for operation and maintenance. Limited sewer line length cannot accommodate many users. Covers a fraction of the area. No expansion to date due to high cost of investment.
CAUAYAN, ISABELA (LGU)
1989 WB FRWSSP
- 6.5 km of small bore sewer pipelines with 43 flushing points, 70 manholes, about 800 connections 3 - 210 m /day capacity waste stabilization pond treatment
39
facility (Operational) METRO MANILA (MWSS) 1980 - Conventional sewer pipelines with 90,000 sewage boosters, pumps, lift stations, and connections (1996) - Sewerage treatment plant (Operational) Services only 13 percent of the MWSS concession areas. Poor maintenance; most sewer lines leak.
The facilities mentioned in Table 3.7 and new sewerage facilities constructed by middle- and high-end subdivision developers have increased sewerage coverage, but the actual impact of these facilities is negligible. Service coverage expansion during the past 30 years has been overtaken by rapid urbanization and population growth, with increased deterioration and degradation of receiving waters.
Case 1:
Baguio City Conventional Sewerage System with Communal Septic Tanks one LGU, two systems
Baguio Citys sewerage system serves the central business district and adjoining areas, covering 63 out of the citys 129 barangays. The city government is continuing to bring the system closer to the prospective users by expanding the service area coverage.
40
The sewerage system is connected to an 8,600-m3 /day activated sludge sewerage treatment plant. During the first semester of 1996, the average inflow volume was 5,156 m3 /day. Within the service area, 41.75 percent of the potential users were already connected to the system, while 55.27 percent still utilized septic tanks. The remaining 2.98 percent without onsite sanitary facilities were referred to the Sanitation Division of the local health department for its appropriate action.
City Ordinance No. 098-95 was passed by the City Council to maximize connections to the sewerage system. One provision of the ordinance compels households and businesses within the service area to connect to the system. This provision supports Section 234, RA 1378, known as the National Plumbing Code.
The revenue code of the city (CO No. 01-95) provides the schedule of the sewerage fees. User fees are fixed and computed at about 19 percent of the Baguio Water Districts prevailing water rate. Revenue generated will be sufficient to sustain the operational cost of the system with 85 percent of the rated capacity paying sewerage fees. In addition, users pay a sewer collection permit fee upon connection to the system.
The sewerage system was expanded to the remaining 66 barangays areas beyond the reach of sewer lines or low-lying areas where pumping
41
becomes very expensive through the provision of communal septic tanks. The communal septic tanks are regularly desludged, and septage is brought to the wastewater treatment facility.
Case 2:
Cabanatuan City and Puerto Galera Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Treatment and Disposal innovative steps in the provision of off-site sanitation
It is clear that LGUs cannot afford sewerage projects by themselves due to the high capital investment required. Although there may be will on the part of LGUs to mitigate pollution, project implementation assistance and financing help are essential. Thus, a step-by-step, scaled-up approach to sewerage projects is essential.
Cabanatuan City's Experience
In 1999, the city government of Cabanatuan prepared a Feasibility Study for the Comprehensive Drainage System of Cabanatuan City (the subproject) to be financed by a P300 million loan under the Water District Development Project-Urban Sewerage, Sanitation and Drainage (WDDPUSSD) component of the World Bank through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). The sub-projects main objective is to eliminate flooding
42
in the Central Business District (CBD) and adjoining barangays which occurs practically every year and is often heavy and prolonged by replacing the existing undersized, dilapidated and mostly silted drainage system. The existing system also receives wastewater from septic tank overflow including sullages. Thus, the storm drainage system functions as a combined system. Provision of a new storm water drainage system is an initial clean-up step to eliminate stagnating wastewater within the immediate vicinity of households.
In order to properly mitigate the impact of the project on the environment and to avoid further degradation of receiving water bodies, a supplemental study was undertaken to evaluate the present condition of the receiving water bodies, specifically their capacity to accommodate storm water discharges during the rainy season and the negative impact on water quality, particularly during the dry season. The study was required prior to the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and the World Banks Environmental Clearance for construction of the drainage project.
The study found that, even without the new project, receiving water bodies were already contaminated. Water quality analysis showed BOD coliform count and other parameters exceeding DENR standards. Triggered by the environmental degradation of city water resources, the Mayor opted to
43
include a dry weather flow interceptor and treatment prior to disposal as part of the new system. This DWF infrastructure would, as a first stage intervention, improve water quality in the receiving rivers and creeks.
Puerto Galera's Experience
Due to the good drainage topography of Puerto Galera, street drainage systems in the urban centers function well. However, the municipal drainage system also collects septic tank effluents and sullages from households, which are discharged directly into the Verde Island Passage. Alarmed by deteriorating water quality and its impact on marine life, the Puerto Galera municipal government decided to provide treatment facilities at system outfalls adjacent to the urban center. The treatment facilities include sedimentation tanks and filtration tanks.
Since treatment began, marine water quality has improved and fish habitation is again observable. The LGU supports the project with an ordinance to protect the bay from indiscriminate waste disposal. In fact, the LGU is also planning to construct a similar facility for other outfalls concurrent with its planned expansion of the water supply system.
44
Case 3: woes
Zamboanga City's Pilot Sewerage Facility Water District
Zamboanga Water District attempted to construct a sewerage treatment facility and integrate its management with its water supply facility. The pilot project serves a small part of the city. Wastewater is collected via sewerage pipelines and pumped for disposal through a marine outfall. Except from screening, there is no treatment prior to disposal.
This demonstration project experienced problems with tariff acceptability, adequate financing, operation and maintenance requirements, and leadership priorities, as experienced in Metro Manila and elsewhere. The demonstration project was never expanded. Most Water Districts are not in favor of financing the capital expenditure for sewerage facilities.
Case 4:
Private Sector Participation with LGUs
Boracays Experience Boracay is an island in Malay municipality renowned for its beaches that derives its main income from tourism. Triggered by the threat of pollution, the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) intervened and constructed a sewerage facility through a P100 million loan, payable in ten years, from Japanese aid agency OECF. The system was scheduled to be in service through a private operator by 2001. Legislation was passed allowing PTA to charge an Environmental Management Fee to visitors (P25 for foreigners, P10 for Philippine citizens). User fees will also be charged to business establishments and households. The sewerage system was
45
planned to serve about 70 percent of the islands population, as well as its main tourist areas. Other Experiences Some developers of subdivisions, Export Processing Zones, and other land intended for tenancy are now incorporating sewerage systems as a component, particularly those targeting the high-income market. Operation and maintenance are either supplied by private operators through management contracts or provided in-house using specially trained staff. Tariffs (following the polluter pays principle) from all connected establishments are collected monthly to cover the amortization and operating costs of the sewerage system, which usually includes collection, treatment and disposal facilities. Examples of such private systems are found in Mactan Export Processing Zone, Philippine Export Processing Zone in Cavite, Ayala Center, and Ortigas Center. Due to the magnitude of investment required for sewerage systems and the low interest in connecting to them, no NGOs are interested in conventional sewerage systems. They promote alternative low-cost off-site sanitation options, such as the small-scale wastewater management system in Tingloy, Batangas, to be initiated by Urban Waste Expertise Program (UWPEP) of Holland.
Most sewerage facilities in the Philippines have been designed as conventional systems. Although applicable and relatively inexpensive, community-based small bore sewer systems have not been tried extensively. This technology and other available options are discussed in Table 3.8. Table 3.8 Available Sewerage Technologies
Technology Description Advantages Less difficult to construct since only one pipeline needs to be laid. Minimal land requirement. Disadvantages Not economically feasible to treat entire wet weather flow. Flow in excess of the interceptor cap is
Sewage Collection Combined Drainage and sewerage Sewer system that uses a single conduit for collection and transport of domestic wastewater and storm water runoff.
46
Conventional Gravity Sewer
Collects effluent into a gravity reticulation system and transports to sewage treatment site away from urban/developed areas.
Simplified Sewerage
Small Bore Sewerage/ Common Effluent Drainage
Developed in Brazil, resembles conventional system with reduced design criteria since conventional system design is generally quite conservative. Collects septic tank effluent into a gravity pipe system similar to conventional gravity sewer system.
No need to construct septic tanks. No problem of combined sewer overflow. Provides greatest user convenience since all excreta and pathogens are transported away from developed areas. Same as conventional sewage system. Less costly due to reduced size.
Condominal Sewer System
Also developed in Brazil, utilizes 100mm sewer line installed in backyards. Wastewater for entire block discharges to single point connection then to reticulation system to sewage treatment site.
Requires fewer manholes and uses smaller pipes at shallower depths than conventional sewer. Less land required for sewage treatment because most organic loading is removed in individual septic tanks. Total length of the pipe is significantly reduced and laid at shallow depths, leading to additional construction cost savings.
stored or usually discharged to receiving water body. Combined sewer overflow exerts severe environmental impact during wet periods. Very high construction costs, as conventional sewers tend to be built deep and large. Operation and maintenance also difficult and expensive. Sewer lines tend to be constructed deeper and larger. Operation and maintenance difficult and expensive. Sewer lines tend to be constructed deeper and larger. Operation and maintenance difficult and expensive.
Users are required to maintain sewer lines located on their property. Sound cooperation between sewerage agency, community leaders, and users a must.
Wastewater Treatment Subdivision Communal septic tank Scale Septic or communal upfl ow Tank anaerobic sludge blanket unit with overflow into a drainage ditch; or communal package treatment plant (variation of activated sludge) discharging to nearby waterway.
Small scale, low cost (except for package treatment plant)
Requires community participation and commitment.
47
Primary Treatment
Treatment Using Aquatic (Duckweed) Plants
Minimum treatment required for effluent discharged to receiving water bodies via outfall. Limited reduction of organic pollution, still high OD. Duckweed plants (Lemnaceae) have voracious appetite for wastewater nutrients
Low cost treatment process that can remove 35 percent of BOD.
Significantly pollutes receiving body of water.
Conventional Sewage Treatment
Wastewater treated in two stages; primary treatment followed by secondary treatment.
Treated effluent is suitable for industrial or urban re-use, recharge of surface and groundwater, crop irrigation, or discharge to lakes and streams. Can be economical for handling large volumes of wastewater in areas where land cost are high. Meets BOD and suspended solids criteria in DENR guidelines.
Needs very large land area. Very high initial capital investment.
Very high initial cost for equipment (generally imported). Operators must be highly skilled both in maintenance of equipment and process. High power consumption. Less than secondary level treatment; very low removals of organic matter and some chemicals. Large land requirement.
Anaerobic Treatment
Uses upflow anaerobic sludge reactor that can remove 60-80 percent of BOD and COD.
Reasonable BOD and suspended solids removal; well stabilized sludge may be used as soil conditioner. Most economical method of sewage treatment where land is available at relatively low cost. Low operation and maintenance costs.
Waste Stabilization Ponds
Decomposable organic waste are stabilized by microorganisms and disease-causing agents reduced significantly due to long detention periods in antagonistic environment. Biological activity may be anaerobic, facultative, or aerobic.
3.4.3 Special Waste
The Toxic and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990 (Republic Act 6969) made the first step toward adequate treatment and
48
disposal of hazardous waste. The Act sets a framework for the control of these wastes but is only starting to be implemented by DENR.
Lack of effective enforcement of the legislation and appropriate penalties for violators renders it an ineffective deterrent; waste generators still dispose their effluents as cheaply as possible. While most industries are required to treat effluent prior to discharge into receiving waters, factories provide primary treatment only, and no secondary treatment facility accepts these effluents for further treatment. There are still no large plants capable of treating and disposing toxic and hazardous liquid wastes. Moreover, the absence of effective monitoring of effluent discharges allows unscrupulous waste generators to dispose toxic and hazardous liquid wastes in municipal drainage systems or water bodies.
Box 3.3
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Summary of Technical Barriers and Constraints to Improved Sanitation and Sewerage

Lack of incentives for appropriate technologies Persistent use of technologies that do not significantly reduce pollution in street drains and receiving waters Lack of incentives to connect to existing sewerage systems Inadequate septage desludging and too few vacuum vehicles to collect septage Inadequate septage/wastewater treatment facilities Lack of treatment provision for special wastes High cost of conventional sewerage systems Lack of local experience in sanitation and sewerage management Limited information available at local level on sanitation and low-cost sewerage technologies
3.5
Financial 49
3.5.1 Investments in Sanitation and Sewerage since 1970 In the absence of consolidated data on investments in sanitation and sewerage management since 1970, research was undertaken to compile information on completed and ongoing sub-sector projects. In most cases, spending for water supply projects dwarfs investment in sanitation and sewerage. Comparing the investment in water supply and the sanitation and sewerage sub-sector is instructive, given that the volume of water supply delivered is directly proportional to wastewater generated. Based on the available data, a summary of investments made in the subsector since 1970 is estimated, assuming an allowance of about 25 percent for projects that were implemented by other government and private organizations (PTA's Sewerage for Boracay Environmental Infrastructure Project, projects implemented by land developers, NGOs, etc.). Investment in the sub-sector was estimated at P1.5 billion per year. This figure is 29 times less than the estimated P43.8 billion average annual investment for water supply projects. In other words, for every 97 pesos spent on water supply projects, only 3 pesos were spent on sanitation and sewerage projects. Figure 3.3 Investment in Water Supply versus Sanitation and Sewerage
P1,506m/yr Sanitation & Sewerage
Ratio: 1:29
P43,750m/yr Water Supply
50
SECTOR
PERIOD
NO. OF YEARS
AVE. ANNUAL INVESTMENT (MILLION PESOS) 43,749.95
PERCENT
Water Supply Sanitation & Sewerage
1974-2000
26
96.67
1970-2000
30
1,505.82 45,255.77
3.33 100.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR BOTH SECTORS
3.5.2 NUSS Implementation Plan The 1992 NUSS prepared an implementation plan for five pilot HUCs as demonstration project sites for sanitation and sewerage investment of P1.771 billion. Following snags in project implementation and the withdrawal and replacement of some sites, feasibility studies of the five pilot LGUs were completed in December 1996, and the budget portfolio was realigned. Subsequently, the Philippine national government negotiated with the World Bank for an appropriate loan, approved in October 1997 with a projected financing plan amounting to P2.161 billion. The project became officially known as the Water District Development Project (WDDP). The sewerage component became the Urban Sewerage, Sanitation and Drainage Facility of the World Bank, with Land Bank of the Philippines as implementing agency. Figure 3.5 presents the WDDP spending plan, as originally conceived and as revised in 1997. Figure 3.4 WDDP 10-year Implementation Plan
700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 47 1994 66 1995 1996 25 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 286 176 276 273 273 273 273 229 420 649 564
1994 NUSS Projection
1997 Revised Projection
Source: NUSS, 1994
51
WDDP Staff Appraisal Report, July 1997
LBP initiated loan negotiations with LGUs in 1998. During the period, local elections loomed and no firm commitments to the project were obtained. Every selected LGU backed out of the project due to financial difficulties triggered by the Asian economic crisis, plus changes in local leadership and their project priorities. The World Bank and LBP restructured WDDP and offered LGUs another opportunity to participate. The restructured project now caters to lower or feeder investments in sanitation and sewerage, such as the Barangay Environmental Sanitation Plan (BESP). The project began with two participating LGUs in August 2000. To date, there are four participating LGUs with an estimated loan amount (based on the Subsidiary Loan Agreement) of P590 million, about 27 percent of the planned 1997-2002 investment budget. WDDP is financing sanitation and sewerage projects in the urbanized centers of Cabanatuan City, San Fernando City, Panabo Davao del Norte, and various municipalities of Palawan Province. The proposed sanitation investment is expected to improve public health and living conditions for more than 50,000 households. WDDPs Project Management Office in LBP found that most LGUs were not aware of the implications and pote ntial benefits of the project. WDDP needs LGUs to champion the implementation of sanitation-related investments, which have been given low priority in the past. Consequently, continuing presentations by PMO/LBP have drawn funding queries from more LGUs, building a long pipeline of prospective participants. Another finding is the lack of willingness to pay for sewerage disposal, particularly among households. For this reason, only areas within the LGU with sensitive businesses that will be affected by domestic wastewater, such as tourist resort areas, protected areas and endangered resources, immediately favor provision of sanitation and sewerage infrastructures. Without these triggers, LGUs are less interested. They cite the following reasons:
? ? ? ? ?
constituents are not accustomed to paying fees for domestic waste disposal; constituents believe that off-site treatment is the responsibility of the LGU; lack of awareness of economic, public health and environmental benefits; high tariffs; current financial difficulties.
Initially, the lack of willingness-to-pay is equally distributed among rich and poor households. However, willingness-to-pay surveys conducted in three
52
of the 1994 WDDP pilot sewerage project areas revealed that, after a briefing and distribution of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials, a majority of the populace in those target urban centers agreed to connect and pay. These commitments led to the endorsement of the project by City Councils. Middle- and high-income groups are mostly in urban centers, so it is imperative that these groups give their approval. It is also sensible, since they have businesses to protect and can benefit from increased land values. Low-income groups in these areas are mainly in slums and squatter colo nies. Communal toilet facilities, which would be connected to the system, were proposed for them on a user pays basis. Other Sources In addition to the WDDP-USSD, additional funding for LGU sanitation and sewerage infrastructure has been initiated by Japans Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF). The program is called the Local Government Unit Support Credit Program (LGUSCP) with LBP as the conduit bank. OECF has lent the national government P3 billion for loans to LGUs. This funding can be utilized for housing, health, water supply, flood control, sanitation, sewerage, solid waste and forestry projects. Other sources of funds that could be accessed by LGUs for sanitation and sewerage include their own internal funds and commercial bank loans. 3.5.3 The National Strategy and Action Plan (NSAP) for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector A medium-term investment plan for sanitation and sewerage sub-sector was prepared for NEDA in 1999. The Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Strategy Plan was fina nced by Asian Development Bank and was prepared by Australian Water Technologies in association with Brockman Tym International and Global Works International. The Medium-Term Investment Plan covering 1999-2006 is presented in Figure 3.6. Sanitation project costs for LGUs were taken into account in devising the investment plan, as LGUs are able to secure loans for sanitation and sewerage projects as necessary (or according to demand).
53
Figure 3.5 Projected NSAP Investment Plan

8000 7000 Cashflow (Million Pesos) 6000 5000 4385 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 YEAR 4704 4459 4459 5596 6488 7380
Source: MTPIP NSAP, 1999
3.5.4 Review of Investment Costs of Various Sanitation and Sewerage Technologies While the 1994 NUSS thoroughly reviewed the costs of various sanitation and sewerage technologies, the investment costs for these technologies were u pdated in the 1999 NSAP. These cost parameters, which can be used for planning purposes, were used to update the Medium Term Investment Plan. Likewise, investment costs for various sanitation and sewerage technologies presented in the NUSS were updated to 1999 prices.
Box 3.4
? ? ? ? ?
Summary of Financial Barriers and Constraints to Improved Sanitation and Sewerage

limited funds at the local level to finance sanitation and sewerage infrastructure lack of financial support at the national level to provide incentives for sewerage projects limited willingness to pay for sewerage service by households inadequate provision of capital and revenue for sewerage/sanitation facilities low interest from potential private sector participants
54
4 4.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lessons Learned and Conclusions An assessment of current conditions and feasible improvements in the urban sewerage and sanitation sub-sector should be conducted, preferably involving all levels of government. This assessment would concentrate on large urban/commercial centers that, because of their size, generally are major contributors to sewerage and sanitation problems in the country. An assessment should also be undertaken in smaller urban municipalities that, due to their limited scale, do not have proper sewage disposal facilities. Prioritization of capital funding must be based on sound technical and operational solutions. A strategy that will create the framework for longerterm achievement of goals improved public health and greater economic development should be formulated. Funds to meet capital and operating costs can be sourced from government revenues, user fees (all users: industrial, commercial, residential), trust funds or sinking funds, indirect taxation, or by donations and grants from domestic and external sources, such as private sector companies, NGOs, and multilateral development agencies. However, assistance from the private sector is likely only where a profitable return on the investment can be projected. Sewerage management projects, even those employing alternative technology options, are very expensive. Individual users cannot be expected to shoulder the full cost of sewerage systems. The cost of urban sewerage and sanitation programs must be shared among households, business and other users, communities, local government units and the national government. The latter, directly and indirectly, benefits from the implementation of these sub -sector programs. The Philippine national government has been unwilling to subsidize sewerage projects. But if it intends to pursue health and environmental improvements, it is not enough to declare that sewerage and sanitation projects have the highest priority; environmental preservation has been on the governments priority list for a long time. It is also imperative for the national government to provide grants or subsidies to share the cost of such projects. In other countries, the push for environmental projects was accompanied by substantial financing assistance from the national government. It is essential for the Philippine government to be an active financing partner for sanitation and sewerage projects in urban areas. Pre-selection of cities has proven to be inappropriate, as the experience of the original NUSS/WDDP pilot sites demonstrates. Interest and commitment generated from cities through demand-driven approaches should be key factors in deciding where to undertake very costly sanitation improvement projects.
55
The recommendations of the National Urban Sewerage and Sanitation Strategy and its accompanying feasibility studies need to be addressed. The success of the restructured WDDP as a sanitation-cum-drainage project validates the concept of staged implementation for urban sanitation improvements, as recommended in the NUSS. This strategy is similar to those recommended in the 1999 NSAP. Sewerage projects must also consider users ability and willingness to pay. If tariffs are based on full cost recovery plus operation and maintenance costs as national government guidelines require many poor households will not be able to afford a sewer connection. Moreover, hierarchical approaches to project selection, rather than demand-driven approaches based on stakeholder input and support for the project, can make potential users unwilling to pay, regardless of income level. The next important question is: what can be done? Here are some suggestions:
?
Immediately formulate a medium-term investment plan for the sanitation sector alone, not as a component of a water supply and sanitation investment plan. Environmental funds available for the subsector from the World Bank through the WDDP and the LGUSCP of OECF (see Chapter 3.5.2) could be a starting point to stimulate LGUs to plan sanitation and sewerage projects. The medium-term plan should be supported by a national government enabling law (i.e., department order or decree) and guidance to LGUs for wastewater management. Amend some existing laws and regulations. Suggestions in the NUSS should be reconsidered (see Section 3.5.2). Political leadership both at the national and local levels will be required for success. Strengthen institutional effectiveness through new policies or following existing policies more rigorously, including improved enforcement and implementation guidelines. Clarify roles and responsibilities, and establish clear accountabilities for sewerage and sanitation sub-sector policies and projects. There should be a more clear delineation of functions and responsibilities among government agencies. More importantly, there should be clear accountabilities, i.e., who is accountable for what, where and when. Accountability extends not only to physical projects, but, critically, to finances: where funds go; which projects are to be financed; who will disburse and follow the funds (incoming and outgoing); and who will take charge of reporting on physical and financial progress. Financial issues are important and valid concerns.
56
Create an advocacy group for IEC and promotion of the sub-sector. The group would encourage all sectors to enforce wastewater management regulations. The advocacy group would lobby and initiate IECs on the national and LGU levels to increase awareness regarding domestic wastewater management. Implement community awareness programs about the present situation, problems faced, future challenges, and possible solutions that can be successfully undertaken with the help of the target beneficiaries. Experience demonstrates IEC programs build support for projects. Enact municipal government resolutions that: (a) require all households applying for connections to water supply systems have appropriate water-sealed toilets with septic tanks and wastewater disposal; (b) authorize LGU officials to endorse water supply operators to temporarily cut off service to customers that fail to comply with and/or violate sanitation ordinances; and (c) compel all users to pay appropriate fees for sewerage and garbage collection services. (These steps should have already been taken for industrial, commercial and other large scale users.) Develop appropriate and suitable low-cost sanitation and sewerage technologies that match costs with willingness to pay and ability to pay. These technological options may be demonstrated through community-scale pilo t projects.
4.2
Recommendations With the lessons learned and the conclusions from the situation assessment of the sub-sector, the following steps are recommended:
?
Develop a viable framework for sanitation and wastewater management, including institutions with the responsibility and accountability to manage sanitation and sewerage at both the national and local levels, delineating the roles of the service providers (i.e. Water District, LGU, private sector, and other agencies) within their areas of responsibility. Develop policies and guidelines for effective enforcement and implementation of regulations and legislation, including cost-sharing provisions. Document lessons learned what went wrong? what went well? in successful and unsuccessful projects. Provide LGUs with appropriate standards, guidelines and low-cost technology options to assist their decision-making.
57
Initiate demonstration sub-projects in LGUs to highlight effective urban sewerage and sanitation models and practices, taking into account earlier findings and conclusions, for effective replication in other LGUs.
Each component is designed to complement and reinforce the others. Thus, the sub -sector assessment activities and outputs have direct effect on the outputs of the other components, and vice versa.
58

1 Philippines Stage Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 Philippines Stage Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

STATE OF THE SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SUBSECTOR

Technical 3.4.1 On-Site Sanitation 3.4.2 Sewerage 3.4.3 Special Waste

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation Master Plan 4

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Dry System Human Excreta Sanitation Facility

Human excreta and sullage, collectively.

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

STATE OF THE SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SUB-SECTOR

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

25,000 - 200,000 25,000 - 200,000

<4,000 - 120,000 or more <4,000 - 120,000 or more

CC- Component City

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Figure 3.1 NATIONAL SEWERAGE AND SANITATION SITUATION

OFF-SITE SANITATION FACILITES

100% 80% % Population

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

OFF-SITE SANITATION EFFECTIVENESS

No Collection or Treatment: Possible Source of Pollutants 90%

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Problems With Implementation

Clear IRR, but not implemented/ enforced NAWAPCO (E/I)

Department of Health Circular, PD 522, IRR No 220 Series of 1974

Not fully enforced

DOH (E) DPW (I)

The Code on Sanitation of the

Not diligently enforced or monitored homes

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: 30 Years of Experiences and Lessons

PHILIPPINES: Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project

Philippines, PD 856 December 1975 DOH (E) DPW (I)

Creating the National Environmental Protection Council, PD 1121 April 1977

Requires Environmental Assessment for any project or undertaking

Polluter responsible to contain, remove and clean up certain pollution incidents

EA system does not strictly enforce sanitation and sewerage provisions

Formulation of a Philippine Environmental Policy, PD1151 June 1977

Only enforced on big polluters (i.e. industries)

Connection to available sewerage system not enforced