20Sewerage%20and%20Sanitation_Philippines

About the cover:About the cover:About the cover:About the cover:About the cover:Pondering the water pollution problem –about 70 per cent of the total organicpollution of Philippine waters comes fromuntreated domestic wastewater. This seriousthreat to the country’s freshwater sources andpublic health is something we just cannotafford to sit on.

Urban Sewerage and SanitationUrban Sewerage and SanitationUrban Sewerage and SanitationUrban Sewerage and SanitationUrban Sewerage and SanitationLessons learned from case studies

in the Philippines

World Bank Water and Sanitation ProgramEast Asia and the Pacific

in partnership with The Government of the Philippinesand The Government of Australia

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the dataand images included in this publication. The views expressedherein are not necessarily those of the World Bank, AusAID orthe Australian Government or the Government of thePhilippines. The findings, interpretations and conclusions arethe result of research supported by these organizations. Theydo not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, whichare those of the authors and should not be attributed to theWorld Bank, its affiliated organizations, to AusAID, the GOAor the GOP.

Published June 2003 World Bank Water and SanitationProgram – East Asia and the Pacific.

This document is written by Andy Robinson based on hisreport, prepared with the Engineering & DevelopmentCorporation of the Philippines, Urban Sewerage andSanitation: Final Report, released in April 2003,www.wpep.org

Cover photo credits: Andrew Whillas

Contents

Summary.......................................................................................... 1

Background...................................................................................... 3

Case Studies..................................................................................... 8

Factors of Success............................................................................. 14

Conclusions...................................................................................... 16

Recommendations............................................................................. 17

LLLLLessons learned from case studies in the Philippinesessons learned from case studies in the Philippinesessons learned from case studies in the Philippinesessons learned from case studies in the Philippinesessons learned from case studies in the Philippines

Urban Sewerage and Sanitation

Summary

Urban sanitation is one of the most seriouschallenges facing the Government of thePhilippines. As a result of rising urbanization overthe last twenty years, more than half thepopulation now live in densely populated citiesand towns. By some estimates, about 80% ofthese urban households have access to adequatesanitation, such as toilets, but the vast majorityof them are reliant on private sanitation facilities.

Less than 8% of the households in MetroManila have sewer connections, and coverageis lower still in the rest of the country. Onlythree of the 1,500 cities and towns in thePhil ippines contain functioning publicsewerage systems, and these are now old,undersized, and in need of majorrehabilitation. A few communal toilets havebeen constructed in low-income urban areas,but there is little evidence of any other publicsanitation services.

Faced with this void, urban residents haveprovided their own sanitation facilities. Manyhouseholds now own a private toilet and anindividual septic tank, while more expensivehousing developments often include privatesewerage systems and communal septic tanks.Unfortunately, there has been little control orregulation of these private facilities, and manyare badly designed and constructed. All toooften, poorly maintained septic tanks discharge

inadequately treated sewage and effluent1

directly into stormwater drains, waterways andstreets, with serious consequences for both waterquality and public health.

This bleak picture of urban sanitation in thePhilippines reflects a prolonged lack of activityor investment in the sector. WHO studies confirmthat sanitation is the most effective singleintervention for reducing diarrhoeal disease,which is one of the biggest killers in the EastAsia & Pacific region. Yet, in the last 30 years,investment in urban sanitation in the Philippinestotals only 1.5% of that spent on urban watersupply. At least fourteen sewerage feasibilitystudies have been conducted in Philippine citiesin recent years, but none have come to fruition.

However, there are signs of renewed interestin the sector, driven by growing evidence ofenvironmental decline and fears of its impact onvaluable tourist assets, and, by new approachesarising from institutional and technologicalinnovations. In order to encourage this trend, andto frame the key issues in the sector, the WaterSupply and Sanitation Performance EnhancementProject (WPEP) commissioned a study of UrbanSewerage and Sanitation in the Philippines. Thisfield note summarizes the findings of the WPEPPhase II Study2, in which seven case studies ofurban sewerage and sanitation systems in thePhilippines were used to investigate ‘factors ofsuccess’ and key constraints within the urbansanitation sector.

1 Effluent = wastewater flow from a sanitation facility (e.g. sewage treatment plant or septic tank)2 Robinson and EDCOP (2003) ‘Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: Final Report’, Manila: WPEP

URBAN SEWERAURBAN SEWERAURBAN SEWERAURBAN SEWERAURBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION 1

WPEP is an action research project in the Philippines, which is jointly funded by AusAID (the AustralianGovernment’s aid program), the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank and the Government ofthe Philippines (GOP). The executing agency for the GOP is the Water Supply and Sanitation ProgramManagement Office of the Department of Interior and Local Government (WSSPMO-DILG), with supportfrom the Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia and the Pacific (WSP-EAP). The goal of the project is “toenhance the access of the under-served rural and urban poor to adequate water and sanitation services ona sustainable basis.”

The WPEP action research agenda is demand driven through consultation with a broad range of watersupply and sanitation sector practitioners in the Philippines. In Phase I, WPEP funded six background studies,which provided the basis for the learning agenda. Following consultation on these studies, WPEP Phase IIcommissioned local consultants to undertake four field-based studies on the following topics:

• Small Towns Water and Supply Management Models (STWSMM);• Urban Sewerage and Sanitation (USS);• Small Scale Independent Providers (SSIP);• Rural Water: Models for Sustainable Development and Sector Financing (RWSFin)

This field note is one of a series summarizing the results of the WPEP research program.

“L“L“L“L“Luxuroius” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxuroius” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxuroius” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxuroius” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxuroius” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.LLLLLess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every year, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M asa result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.

“L“L“L“L“Luxurious” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxurious” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxurious” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxurious” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.uxurious” open sea toilets – a luxury the country cannot afford.LLLLLess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every yearess than U$30M is invested in sanitation every year, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M as, despite annual estimated losses of over U$590M asa result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.a result of declines in tourism and fish production and health costs related to water quality problems.

The Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP)

The Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and SanitationThe Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP) Performance Enhancement Project (WPEP)

The Philippines consists of a chain of over7,000 islands, dominated by the three islandgroups of Luzon (in the north), Visayas (in thecenter), and Mindanao (in the south). Theislands are heavily populated, with apopulation density more than double theaverage for the East Asia & Pacific region. Themajority of the 76 million inhabitants now livein urban areas, but urban growth has not beenmatched by economic development, and per

Background

capita incomes lag behind those of its neighbors(see comparative regional data on page 5).

Development potential in the Philippines restslargely on the abundant natural resources andwell-educated workforce, with major economicchallenges coming from rapid populationgrowth, high levels of poverty and inequality,low productivity and intensified globalcompetition. The Asian financial crisis, triggeredin mid-1997, hindered the Philippine economy,leading to a loss of foreign exchange reserves,a higher debt burden and falling share prices.There have since been signs of recovery, withGDP growth increasing from 0.1% in 1998 to3.0% in 2000, but the Philippine Peso continuesto lose value1, and both oil prices and interestrates have risen sharply.

The economic diff icult ies have beenheightened by serious political and securityproblems. Charges of corruption andinefficiency have affected many agencies,delaying projects and discouraging investment.However, a new administration took office inJanuary 2001, and it has initiated a gradualeconomic recovery, leading to improvedstability and confidence.

1 The official exchange rate has fallen from P40 = US$1in early 2000, to P53 = US$1 in early 2003


Privatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro Manila

The service area of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was dividedinto East and West Zones, and two separate concession contracts were let. The contracts requiredthe concessionaires to carry out the following sewerage and sanitation activities:

• Manila Water Company (East Zone Concessionaire) to expand coverage of CentralSewerage System and implement sanitation programs in densely populated urban areas(including septage collection, barge loading station, septage treatment plant, rehabilitationof sewage pumping station and sewage treatment plant)

• Maynilad Water Services (West Zone Concessionaire) to rehabilitate and upgrade existingsewerage systems, expand sewer network and improve management of sewerage services(including construction of two sewage treatment plants, evaluation of alternative methodsof sludge disposal)

Sewerage charges were planned to increase from 50% to 150% of household water bill, andthe 10% environmental fee (charged to MWSS customers without sewer connections) was to bereplaced by a sanitation charge equal to 75% of the water bill. However, as of early 2003, theseincreases have not taken place.

Adapted from Ancheta, 2000 and David, 2000

Privatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro ManilaPrivatization of Urban Sewerage & Sanitation in Metro Manila

1 Sewerage coverage targets are expressed as a percentage of the total number of householdsconnected to the MWSS water system

SewerageTSewerageTSewerageTSewerageTSewerageTargetsargetsargetsargetsargets1 20012001200120012001 20062006200620062006 20112011201120112011East Zone 3% 16% 51%

West Zone 16% 20% 21%

4 URBAN SEWERA URBAN SEWERA URBAN SEWERA URBAN SEWERA URBAN SEWERAGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITGE AND SANITAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

Sanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesUrban sewerage & sanitation sectorUrban sewerage & sanitation sectorUrban sewerage & sanitation sectorUrban sewerage & sanitation sectorUrban sewerage & sanitation sector

In the early 1970s, the establishment of theMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System(MWSS) marked the end of central governmentcontrol of urban water supply and sanitationservices in the Philippines. MWSS was taskedwith providing services in Metro Manila and itscontiguous urban areas, whilst management ofprovincial and municipal water and seweragesystems in the 1,500 other cities and towns waspassed back to local government.

Metro Manila has grown rapidly over the lastthirty years, and in the 1990s MWSS admittedthat it was struggling to attract the investmentneeded to expand and improve its services.Therefore, in 1997, MWSS took the bold stepof signing 25-year concession contracts with twoprivate consortia for the provision of watersupply and sanitation services to Metro Manila.These contracts included ambitious targets forexpanding sewerage and sanitation coverage(see box on previous page). To date, theconcessionaires have focused on water supply,with little progress toward the sewerage orsanitation targets, and the success of theprivatization is now being questioned followingtariff increases and the recent application byone of the concessionaires to withdraw from itscontract.

Most of the water supply and sanitationsystems outside the capital were in poor

condition when handed over, and the relevantLocal Government Units (LGUs) rarely had thecapacity, technical knowledge or funds neededto manage or improve their systems. Therefore,in 1973, LGUs were given the option to formsemi-autonomous Water Districts to managetheir urban water supply and seweragesystems, using support and financing from thespecial ly created Local Water Uti l i t iesAdministration (LWUA). More than 400 WaterDistricts have now been formed, but their mainconcern is water supply, and very few areactively involved in the provision of sanitationservices. This leaves LGUs responsible forsanitation services in most urban areas.

The term ‘sanitation’ usually refers toany service or facility that maintainspublic health by safely disposing ofhuman (or other) waste. However, theterm ‘sanitat ion’ is used sl ightlydifferently in the Philippines: disposalsystems are classed as either ‘sewerage’(pipe networks to off-site treatment anddisposal), or ‘sanitation’ (on-site facilitiessuch as toilets and septic tanks).

In this fieldnote, ‘sanitation’ has beenused in its more general form, referringto all services and facilities that safelydispose of human (or other) wastes,including sewerage systems.

Sanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the PhilippinesSanitation in the Philippines

Comparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional dataComparative regional data

Country Population Urban Pop. density GNP per Female Urban(millions) population (per sq.km) capita (US$) literacy1 sanitation2

TTTTThe Philippineshe Philippineshe Philippineshe Philippineshe Philippines 7676767676 59%59%59%59%59% 253253253253253 $ 1,040$ 1,040$ 1,040$ 1,040$ 1,040 95%95%95%95%95% 88%88%88%88%88%Thailand 61 22% 119 $ 2,000 93% 98%Malaysia 23 57% 71 $ 3,380 82% 100%East Asia & Pacific 1,855 35% 116 $ 1,060 78% 61%

Source: World Development Report 2001/02

1 Percent of literate adult women (aged 15 and above)2 Percent of urban population with access to sanitation (1996)


Access to urban sewerage andAccess to urban sewerage andAccess to urban sewerage andAccess to urban sewerage andAccess to urban sewerage andsanitationsanitationsanitationsanitationsanitation

Sadly, urban sewerage and sanitation doesnot appear to be a pr ior i ty of localgovernment. Outside of Metro Manila, publicsanitation services are almost non-existent.The three public sewerage systems that stilloperate (in Baguio City, Zamboanga City andVigan City) predate independence, havingbeen built by the Americans in the late 1920sand early 1930s. These aging systems provide

limited residential coverage, as their sewernetworks are centered on the downtownbusiness districts and have seen little expansionover the last seventy years.

The absence of sewerage or other publicsanitation services leaves the urban populationwith few options for safe excreta disposal.Non-poor urban households have respondedby building their own sanitation facilities. Flush(or pour-flush) toilets are popular in thePhilippines, and the majority of urbanhouseholds have connected their toilets toprivate septic tanks. Many private housingdevelopments now construct small‘independent’ sewer networks, which servethose within the development, and pipe their

1 A recent MWSS report estimates that 60% of the pollution load in the Pasig River and Laguna Bay derives from septic tankeffluent and domestic wastewater discharges

Sanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesSanitation services in the PhilippinesPPPPPopulationopulationopulationopulationopulation Access to sanitation servicesAccess to sanitation servicesAccess to sanitation servicesAccess to sanitation servicesAccess to sanitation services

(million)(million)(million)(million)(million) Sewerage On-Sewerage On-Sewerage On-Sewerage On-Sewerage On-site Nonesite Nonesite Nonesite Nonesite None

Metro Manila (MWSS service area) 13.3 4% 41% 55%

Other urban and rural areas 63.0 0% 88% 12%

National 76.3 1% 74% 25%

Source: ADB, 2001 On-site sanitation = sanitary toilets, septic tanks etc.

sewage to a communal septic tank.Whatever the system, be it individual orcommunal, septic tanks in the Philippinesrarely use the eff luent disposal systemsrequired by national regulations, and areseldom desludged (see box on Septic Tanks,next page).

There are now huge numbers of septic tanksbeing used in urban areas, with more than a millionin Metro Manila alone. Despite this, sludgetreatment and disposal facilities are scarce, and

there is little or no control of effluent discharge.As a result, indiscriminate disposal of inadequatelytreated effluent and untreated sludge arewidespread, with serious consequences for bothwater quality and public health1.

The urban poor remain excluded fromsanitation services. Sewer networks do not reachthe slum and squatter settlements found in mostPhilippine cities, and their inhabitants seldomhave enough space or cash to construct privatefacilities like septic tanks. Communal toilets havebeen provided in some densely populated low-income areas, but these typically serve smallgroups of households and are rarely well-managed. Instead, most urban poor rely onunsanitary toilets, or defecate in the open.


Septic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank Systems

Operation:Operation:Operation:Operation:Operation: a septic tank is a water-filled box designed to collect and partially treat toiletwastes (feces and urine). When the toilet is flushed, the wastes flow through a pipe into thetop of the septic tank. Heavy solids, such as feces, settle to the bottom of the tank, whileliquids pass through before overflowing into a disposal system. Over time, bacteria withinthe septic tank break down some of the organic matter, thus the larger the tank is, and themore chambers it has, the better the treatment provided. Nevertheless, however well theseptic tank functions, both the solids within the tank and the liquid that overflows from itcontain harmful pathogens, hence are a potential source of infection and disease. For thisreason, the effluent liquid must always be safely disposed of, either by allowing it to soakinto the ground (away from water sources), or by passing it into a sewer network.

Maintenance:Maintenance:Maintenance:Maintenance:Maintenance: settled solids gradually accumulate at the bottom of the septic tank. When thissludge, or septage, occupies two-thirds of the depth of the tank, it needs to be removed,otherwise there is a risk that excreta will pass directly through the tank and overflow into thedisposal system. The sludge is smelly, wet and highly pathogenic, so should always be removedby mechanical means (e.g. using a vacuum tanker) before being taken to an approvedsludge treatment and disposal site.

Practice:Practice:Practice:Practice:Practice: two types of septic tanks are found in the Philippines: private septic tanks, whichcollect wastes from individual household toilets; and communal septic tanks, which collectwastes from a number of household toilets, generally through a small sewer network. Privateseptic tanks are the most common - usually small, single chamber tanks, which provideminimal treatment and limited sludge storage. Very few of these private septic tanks areregularly desludged, which reduces the level of treatment provided, and heightens the riskof untreated sewage and effluent finding its way into the local environment. According to the1975 ‘Code on Sanitation of the Philippines’, all private septic tanks should pipe their effluentto a ‘sub-surface adsorption system’ (or other treatment device), but this type of soakawaysystem requires additional space and investment, thus most urban households in thePhilippines prefer to pipe their septic tank effluent directly to a nearby drain, canal orwatercourse.

Septic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank SystemsSeptic Tank Systems

SEPTIC TANK


Case Studies

In 2003, WPEP completed a study of urbansewerage and sanitation in the Philippines.This study combined participatory communityassessments (made using the MPA1) with casestudies of seven urban sewerage andsanitation systems in five Philippine cities. Theobjectives of the study were to:

• assess the performance of the differenturban sewerage & sanitation systems

• analyze the parameters that underlietheir successful or unsuccessfulperformance, and

• provide recommendations for the

1 Methodology for Participatory Assessments (MPA) provides indicators and tools that allow assessors (including the communitythemselves) to measure the sustainability and use of community water and sanitation services, and the process whereby theywere established

introduction of sustainable and large-scale sewerage and sanitation systems inthe Philippines

The case studies included examples of thefollowing sanitation models:

• public sewerage systems (three casestudies)

• independent sewerage systems servingsmall housing developments (two casestudies)

• communal toilets in low-income urbanareas (two case studies)

Case study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study detailsCase study details

LLLLLocationocationocationocationocation UrbanUrbanUrbanUrbanUrban SystemSystemSystemSystemSystem ManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement PPPPPopulationopulationopulationopulationopulation SystemSystemSystemSystemSystempopulationpopulationpopulationpopulationpopulation servedservedservedservedserved coverage* coverage* coverage* coverage* coverage*

Baguio City 252,000 Public sewerage LGU 5,300 2%Zamboanga City 402,000 Public sewerage Water District 3,700 1%Vigan City 45,100 Public sewerage Water District 1,360 3%Bacolod City 429,000 Independent sewerage LGU 1,030 0.2%

Independent sewerage LGU 990 0.2%Dagupan City 130,000 Communal toilet LGU 308 0.2%

Communal toilet LGU 204 0.2%

* Proportion of the urban population served


1. Access to sanitation1. Access to sanitation1. Access to sanitation1. Access to sanitation1. Access to sanitation

It is clear that the case study systems havehad little impact on access to sanitation. Theycover only a fraction of their host cities and servean insignificant proportion of the urbanpopulation.

Four of the case studies involve smallsystems: the two independent sewerage systemsin Bacolod City serve housing developments,each containing less than 200 households,while the two communal toilets in Dagupan Cityare used by some 40 – 60 households. The threepublic sewerage systems cover larger areas,including substantial numbers of commercialproperties, but even these systems serve lessthan 3% of their urban populations.

The case study systems have seen littleexpansion or improvement during their lifetime,with most operating at or beyond their capacityfor some time. The Baguio City sewerage systemis the exception, thanks to the 1984 JICA grant

that enabled construction of a sewage treatmentplant and rehabilitation of parts of the sewernetwork. Since then, the city government hasfunded further improvements and rehabilitation,and overseen a 30% increase in the number ofsewer connections. However, despite theseefforts, residential coverage remains very low(2%).

MPA research conducted in smallcommunities1 (refer to Figure 1) within the serviceareas of the case study systems shows that, onaverage, 92% of households have access topiped water supplies or to private water facilities,while 82% have access to sanitation facilities.The socio-economic data indicates that someof those without water supply are middle classfamilies that share water supplies with theirneighbors, whereas poor2 households are theonly ones without sanitation facilities. The MPAalso reveals that, even in neighborhoods wherepublic sanitation services are readily available,a significant proportion of the community hasinvested in private septic tanks.

1 Two sample communities were surveyed at each of the five case study locations2 ‘Poor’ as defined by the participants during the MPA process

Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1Figure 1


Focus group discussions suggested that poorhouseholds lack access to sanitation servicesfor the following reasons:

• uncertain land tenure (l imitinginvestment by both residents and serviceproviders)

• high cost of services (notably connectionfees)

• insufficient space for facilities (no roomfor septic tanks; no route for sewer lines)

• marginal location (below main sewerline; on slopes too steep for sewers)

2. Financial sustainability2. Financial sustainability2. Financial sustainability2. Financial sustainability2. Financial sustainability

None of the Philippine case studies havecapital or financing costs to repay, as thesewerage and sanitation systems are all eithermore than twenty years old, or were whollygovernment (or grant) funded. Despite this, onlyone of the case studies generates sufficientrevenue to cover its operation and maintenance(O&M) costs.

Metro Zamboanga Water District sets itssewerage charges at 50% of the water bill, andhas a 99% collection rate, allowing it to fullyrecover its O&M costs. All of the other systemscharge flat rate (or zero) tariffs, collectrevenues lower than their costs and, aredependent on subsidies from the LGU or, wheremanaged by a Water District, on cross-subsidiesfrom water supply income.

3. Institutional arrangements3. Institutional arrangements3. Institutional arrangements3. Institutional arrangements3. Institutional arrangements

The public sewerage systems examined aremanaged at the city level, by either the citygovernment or Water District, while smallersewerage and sanitation systems are generally runby lower level LGUs, such as Barangay Councils1,or by some form of residents’ association.

Water Districts and City LGUs provide urbanservices under very different conditions. WaterDistricts operate within government regulations,but normally receive no government funding,thus rely on effective management of their water

The Philippines already has one of the lowest per capita water availability in Southeast Asia. Unabateddumping of untreated wastewater in the country’s water courses further reduces the available resource forwater supply

1 Barangay is the smallest administrative unit in the Philippines (20– 100 barangays per city)


Tariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio City

In Baguio City, the Public Utilities & Safety Office (PUSO) manages the technical aspects ofthe sewerage system. Billing and collection are carried out by the City Treasurer’s Office, whilethe City Accounting Office handles disbursements and accounts. In 1995, Baguio City governmentsigned a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the Baguio City Water District, whereby theWater District would add sewerage charges to the water bills of those with sewer connections,and return this sewerage revenue to the city government. The sewerage charges were to be setat 60% of the water bill, and the water district was to receive a collection fee equal to 10% of thesewerage revenues to recompense for its administrative costs. Unfortunately, immediately priorto implementation, the Water District decided that their collection fee was inadequate, andcalled off the agreement.

Unable to charge based on actual water consumption, the LGU uses a flat rate seweragetariff (based on average water consumption in four categories). However, there is no effectivesanction for non-payment of sewerage fees, and less than 25% of costs were recovered in2001. The City Treasurer’s Office recently declared that commercial customers would not receivetheir business permit until they paid their annual sewerage fees, but this appears to have hadlittle impact on revenues to date.

Sewerage and sanitation is often an afterSewerage and sanitation is often an afterSewerage and sanitation is often an afterSewerage and sanitation is often an afterSewerage and sanitation is often an after-thought-thought-thought-thought-thoughtin the development of Philippine towns. Crowdedin the development of Philippine towns. Crowdedin the development of Philippine towns. Crowdedin the development of Philippine towns. Crowdedin the development of Philippine towns. Crowdedcities allow insufficient space for thecities allow insufficient space for thecities allow insufficient space for thecities allow insufficient space for thecities allow insufficient space for theestablishment of sewer lines or septic tanks.establishment of sewer lines or septic tanks.establishment of sewer lines or septic tanks.establishment of sewer lines or septic tanks.establishment of sewer lines or septic tanks.

Tariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio CityTariff Collection Arrangements, Baguio City

Environmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performance

Case studyCase studyCase studyCase studyCase study SewageSewageSewageSewageSewage TTTTTreatment facilityreatment facilityreatment facilityreatment facilityreatment facility SludgeSludgeSludgeSludgeSludge EffluentEffluentEffluentEffluentEffluent EffluentEffluentEffluentEffluentEffluenttreatmenttreatmenttreatmenttreatmenttreatment disposaldisposaldisposaldisposaldisposal disposaldisposaldisposaldisposaldisposal testing testing testing testing testing

Baguio City Full Sewage treatment plant Drying beds River Yes

Zamboanga City None None None Sea outfall No

Vigan City Partial Communal septic tanks None River/fields No

Bacolod City Partial Communal septic tank None Creek No

Partial Communal septic tank None Open drain No

Dagupan City Partial Septic tank None Soil No

Partial Septic tank None Swamp No

and sewerage systems to generate revenues.As a result, Water Districts use relativelysophisticated systems for setting, billing andcollecting tariffs, and carefully monitorperformance and expenditure. In contrast, CityLGUs receive substantial government fundingon top of their local revenues, but usually haveno budget allocation for sewerage or sanitation,and no dedicated sanitation staff. To makematters worse, the financial results of LGUsewerage and sanitation systems are combinedwith those of its other government offices,making budgeting and planning of sanitationservices very difficult.

Small LGUs have even less success inmanaging sewerage and sanitation systems.Typically, they have very low revenues from theirsystems, negligible government funding, nosanitation staff and limited technical capacity.Therefore, they are reliant on externalassistance and user contributions wheneverrepairs or rehabilitation are required.

4. Environmental sustainability4. Environmental sustainability4. Environmental sustainability4. Environmental sustainability4. Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability is a seriousproblem. The Baguio City sewerage systemis the only case study that safely disposes ofthe sewage and wastewater that it collects.Thanks to the generous JICA grant received,the Baguio City sewage treatment plant nowproduces t reated ef f luent sui table fordisposal into the nearby river, and has sludgethickeners and sludge drying beds that yielddried solids suitable for use as agriculturalfertilizer.

The other case study systems offer nosewage treatment, other than the limitedtreatment and solids removal provided bytheir septic tanks, and have no facilities tosafely dispose of the sludge collected, or totest the quality of the septic tank effluentf lowing f rom thei r sys tems in to localwatercourses and fields.


Environmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performanceEnvironmental performance

5. User satisfaction5. User satisfaction5. User satisfaction5. User satisfaction5. User satisfaction

The MPA investigated user satisfaction withexisting sewerage and sanitation services. Thesesatisfaction levels reflect, among other things,the performance of the system, the level ofservice provided, and the cost of the service.The highest satisfaction levels were foundamong users of heavily subsidized LGUsewerage systems, while the lowest were amongusers of the communal toilets. Both poor andnon-poor households remarked that they expecta high standard of service when they have topay for it, and users of the two Water Districtmanaged sewerage systems stated that thecurrent sewerage charges were too high for thequality of service provided.

Urban households using septic tanks weregenerally very satisfied, noting that thefac i l i t ies were re l iable and almostmaintenance f ree, whereas sewerconnections were perceived to be expensiveand to require frequent maintenance. Theonly drawbacks relating to septic tanks werefound among those living in more marginalareas: the urban poor in riverine and coastalneighborhoods, where high water levelscause frequent blockages; and, householdsliving on steep slopes, which make buildingand maintaining adequately-sized septictanks difficult.

Public toilets visited by the study team were so ill-maintained, it was no wonder their userswere the least satisfied of all.


Baguio City can look forward to continuing income from tourism, thanks to foreign aid and subsidies. Whatwill other cities do that are not so lucky?

Factors of Success

Whi l s t t he neg l i g i b l e bene f i t s o rimpacts achieved by the sewerage andsanitation systems examined by the WPEPstudy inevitably limit the positive lessonslearned, the following common ‘factors ofsuccess’ emerged from the analysis:

• dedicated sanitation units (trainedtechnical staff and separate sanitationbudget)

• autonomous management (politicaland fiscal)

• local political support

In most cases, those managing urbansewerage and sanitation systems are localgovernment officials or Water District staff, withmany other duties and responsibilities, and littletime or incentive to improve the provision of


sanitation services. The establishment of asanitation unit comprising trained staff, whosemain responsibi l i ty is the ef fect ivemanagement of the sewerage or sanitationsystem, clearly improves the chances ofsuccess. However, small systems can rarelyafford to employ specialist sanitation staff.Instead, they require professional support andmonitoring, which is currently unavailable inmost Philippine cities and towns.

The importance of the autonomousmanagement of water supply and sanitationservices is well-recognized, being the centralidea behind the creation of Water Districts. Thefreedom to set cost-reflective tariffs thatgenerate reliable revenues, and to allocatethese revenues according to operational andstrategic priorities, are vital for the effectivefinancial management of sanitation services.Detailed and transparent sanitation accounts,based on accurate billing and collectionsystems, create a tight focus on cost recoveryand, when reinforced by regular performancemonitoring, provide sound incentives forefficient management.

Political support is essential to the financingof new sanitation facilities, and to theirsustainability. Neither local authorities norWater Districts have the necessary capital orleverage to finance expensive sewer networksor sewage treatment facilities. Therefore, majorsanitation improvements are dependent on adelicate mix of government funding, externalassistance and increased user charges.Obtaining these funds, and enacting thereforms needed to manage the systemssustainably, requires careful negotiation and

good cooperation between local stakeholders,especially when elected officials are sensitiveto popular concerns regarding tariffs.

Key ConstraintsKey ConstraintsKey ConstraintsKey ConstraintsKey Constraints

The scarcity of success stories reflects themassive constraints upon the urban sanitationsector in the Philippines. Key constraintsidentified by the WPEP study include:

• limited demand for alternatives to septictanks (users are satisfied with theirsystems)

• shortage of financially viable options forurban sanitation improvements

• low awareness of environmental healthimpacts of present sanitationarrangements

• ineffective enforcement of sanitationregulations or user charges

• competition from urban water supply (forfunding, resources, political support)

There are also institutional constraints.LGUs are currently unable to provide efficientsanitation services. They lack technical capacity,and are run by elected officials with strongincentives to keep tariffs low and allocate fundsto other more popular activities. Water Districtsappear to offer an alternative, being relativelyautonomous and having a tight focus onoperational efficiency and cost recovery.Unfortunately, inflexible government financingrules give Water Districts few incentives to investin either sanitation services or infrastructure inlow-income areas, which greatly limits theirability to provide sanitation services to theurban poor.


Conclusions

There are few upbeat conclusions that canbe drawn from this examination of urbansewerage and sanitation in the Philippines.Aging public sanitation systems provide variableservices to a tiny minority, while the urban poorremain largely without adequate sanitation.Participatory appraisals confirm that most non-poor urban households have invested in privatesanitation facilities, and are satisfied with theirsimple septic tank systems, despite externalconcerns about the environmental health risksassociated with inadequately treated septageand improperly disposed septic tank effluent.

Conventional alternatives to this status quogenerate minimal interest. Urban householdsappear reluctant to pay for public sanitationservices when there seems little wrong with theirprivate facilities, leaving service providers withfew incentives to make the huge investmentsinvolved in starting city-wide sewerage systemsfrom scratch. Breaking this deadlock will requirea much wider awareness of the problemscaused by inadequate sewage and wastewatertreatment, plus access to lower cost sanitationtechnologies, and the use of more demand-responsive approaches to implementation.

Urban sanitation services are often lumpedtogether with water supply, and supplied by thesame provider. Sadly, sanitation services are lesspopular with politicians, so always lose out in

the competition for funding and resources. Thiswas borne out by the case studies, whichgenerally lacked funding and support. The fewsuccesses involved relatively large seweragesystems, whose managers had sufficient fundsto set up autonomous sanitation units, with theirown resources and budgets. However, it wasalso clear that both ‘independent’ seweragesystems and communal toilets are viable optionsfor urban sanitation on a smaller scale,provided that demand is genuine, and thatsustainable local financing and managementcan be established.

The magnitude of the urban sanitationproblem in the Philippines cannot be overstated.It requires careful targeting of the limitedresources available, and a more incrementalapproach to sanitation improvements. Low-costsanitation technologies will be vital, in tandemwith the provision of improved services tosmaller areas, using ‘neighborhoodapproaches’ to build local consensus anddemand. Sanitation improvements will alsoneed more local and national support, throughdedicated local sanitation units, enforceableregulations, and strategic planning. Moregovernment funding is essential, notably for theprovision of sanitation services to the urbanpoor, who remain excluded from publicsanitation services, and unable to developprivate alternatives.


Recommendations


1. Financing urban sanitation1. Financing urban sanitation1. Financing urban sanitation1. Financing urban sanitation1. Financing urban sanitation improvements improvements improvements improvements improvements

The central problem is that urban sanitationimprovements are expensive, and the market forthese services is small. Most septic tank usersare non-poor urban households, who pay nosanitation charges. As a result, sanitation serviceproviders have lost their main revenue base.

Densely populated urban housing rarely hasthe space or ground conditions necessary for theseptic drainage fields required by law. However,it is unrealistic to expect thousands of urbanhouseholds to stop using their private septic tankssimply because others believe that the effluent isharmful. This sea change will require substantiveevidence of the environmental health risksassociated with current septic tank systems, topave the way for enforceable sanctions againstthe discharge of inadequately treated effluent.Until awareness of the environmental health risksincreases dramatically, it will be very difficult topersuade either the Philippine public, or itspolitical representatives, that more investment inurban sanitation is necessary.

A more practical solution is to begin chargingseptic tank users for their discharges (based onthe ‘polluter pays’ principle), and then use thisrevenue to develop sludge and effluent collection,and treatment facilities. Political approval andeffective administration of such an environmentaltax will be difficult but, if successful, would createconsiderable demand for improved sanitationservices. In Manila, households without sewerconnections already have a 10% environmentaltax added to their water bills, which is helping tofund the development of free septic tankdesludging and sludge disposal services.

2. Management models for urban2. Management models for urban2. Management models for urban2. Management models for urban2. Management models for urban sanitation sanitation sanitation sanitation sanitation

Urban sanitation charges are most successfulwhen added to water bills, as charges can belinked to water consumption, and disconnectionof water supply provides an effective sanctionagainst non-payment. However, as the Baguio

City case illustrates, the water service provideris not always willing (or able) to collect sanitationcharges. Furthermore, whilst there are strongsynergies in financial management, sanitationservices require different skills and resources tothose needed for water supply, and thus benefitfrom being managed by an autonomous unit.

The fact that LGUs have the finalresponsibility for urban sanitation services, andthe importance of local political support,recommends that LGUs retain overall control oftheir local services. However, this does not meanthat LGUs have to be service providers. LGUsneed to establish sanitation units to monitor andregulate (at the city level), while contracting outas many sanitation services as possible,including: billing and collection of sewerage andsanitation charges; desludging and sludgetreatment services; and, effluent testing. Thebenefits of linking water and sanitation chargesalso suggest that LGUs should encourage andassist water service providers to establishsanitation units (or link with other sanitationservice providers) wherever possible.

3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the3. Low cost sanitation facilities for the urban poor urban poor urban poor urban poor urban poor

The majority of the urban population hasaccess to adequate sanitation services, even ifthese services currently lack appropriatetreatment or disposal. However, most of theurban poor living in slum and squatter housingthroughout the Philippines have no access tosanitation services. The urban poor bear thebrunt of the environmental and health costscaused by inadequate sanitat ion and,therefore, the top priority for the urbansanitation sector must be to provide sanitationservices to these disadvantaged groups.

Those with no sanitation facilities rarely havesufficient space or legal tenure to allow theconstruction of private septic tanks, whetherthey can afford them or not. Most also lack thereliable water supply required to flush wastesthrough a sewer network. This leaves few


immediate options for sanitat ionimprovements, other than communal toilets.The lessons learnt from the case studiessuggest that communal toi lets can besuccessful, if sited according to demandand w i l l i ngness to pay, w i th s t rongcommun i t y i nvo l vemen t and theestablishment of sustainable management.Meanwhile, longer-term efforts shouldfocus on deve lop ing v iab le low cos tsanitation systems for the urban poor, whileimproving the water supply, land tenureand microfinance options that will enableprivate sanitation facilities to develop inlow-income areas.

4. Neighborhood solutions to urban4. Neighborhood solutions to urban4. Neighborhood solutions to urban4. Neighborhood solutions to urban4. Neighborhood solutions to urban sanitation problems sanitation problems sanitation problems sanitation problems sanitation problems

A neighborhood approach, wherebyurban sanitation problems are solved on alocal scale, breaks the enormous challengeof improving citywide sanitation coveragedown into more manageable uni ts .Neighborhood solutions require participatoryappraisal of sanitation priorities, with localNGOs and community groups providingintermediation between user groups andservice providers, in order to build localconsensus and demand for improved services.

The independent sewerage systems currentlyin use by private housing developments aregood examples of neighborhood solutions, andprove that private demand for sewerage exists.These systems have the potential to becombined into larger urban systems, orupgraded with low-cost sewage treatmentfacilities. The development of technologiescapable of upgrading individual septic tanksystems and incorporating them into low costsewer networks wil l enable moreneighborhoods to opt for this sort of improvedlocal sanitation.

Neighborhood solutions allow a moreincremental (and flexible) approach to sanitationimprovements, with progress depending on thedemands and capacity of each neighborhoodand its service provider. They also provide amethod of targeting sanitation investments moreclosely, and thus of ensuring that benefits reachexcluded groups like the urban poor. Thisincremental and targeted approach helps tospread the cost of sanitation facilities over time,while the demonstration effect of successful localsystems gradually increases the number ofhouseholds willing to pay for sanitation services.Eventually, these combined effects may persuadelocal and national government that investmentin urban sanitation services is both vital andaffordable.

Despite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene amongDespite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene amongDespite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene amongDespite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene amongDespite a high level of awareness in proper hygiene amongall the communities, this did not translate into improvementall the communities, this did not translate into improvementall the communities, this did not translate into improvementall the communities, this did not translate into improvementall the communities, this did not translate into improvementin sanitation behaviorin sanitation behaviorin sanitation behaviorin sanitation behaviorin sanitation behavior. The underlying reason is the lack of. The underlying reason is the lack of. The underlying reason is the lack of. The underlying reason is the lack of. The underlying reason is the lack ofaccess to sanitary disposal facilities.access to sanitary disposal facilities.access to sanitary disposal facilities.access to sanitary disposal facilities.access to sanitary disposal facilities.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

ADB (2001) ‘Water supply & sanitation sector profile: Philippines’, Manila: Asian Development BankAncheta, C (2000) ‘Urban sewerage and sanitation: 30 years of experience and lessons’,

Manila: Water Supply & Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project – Phase IDavid, C (2000) ‘MWSS Privatization: Implications on the price of water, the poor and the environment’,

Manila: Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-14Mukherjee, N and van Wijk, C (2003) ‘Sustainability planning and monitoring in community water

supply and sanitation: a resource guide on the Methodology for Participatory Assessments (MPA) forCDD Programs’, Washington DC: Water and Sanitation Program/ IRC International Water andSanitation Center

Robinson, A and EDCOP (2003) ‘Urban Sewerage and Sanitation: Final Report’, Manila: WPEP

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The inputs of Philippine and international peer reviewers, members of WPEP Project SteeringCommittee and Technical Working Group and World Bank staff have been helpful in ensuring thequality of this document.


20Sewerage%20and%20Sanitation_Philippines

Documents

case studies

sanitationurban sewerage

philippinesurban sewerage

urban sewerage andsanitation

government of thephilippines

philippinesworld bank

theworld bank

sanitation programeast