Urban and Financing Strategies for Wastewater Management in Nigeria

1 Awoyoola Rohees and 2Engr. Oyebode O.J

Abstract

The percentage of the population who uses improved sources of drinking water is known as access to water, while access to sanitation refers to the percentage of the population who uses improved sanitation facilities. Household connections, public stand pipes, boreholes, covered wells, and springs are examples of improved drinking water in Nigeria, while improved sanitation includes public sewer or septic system, pour flush , ventilated improved pit latrines, and pit latrines with slabs. As a result, aim to provide appropriate, secure, improved, sustainable, and accessible potable water and adequate, safe, improved, sustainable, and accessible sanitation to all Nigerians in an affordable and sustainable manner through a cost-sharing formula between government and the beneficiary on expenditure and operating costs. This paper is focused on urban sanitation and how financial planning will foster the wastewater management in Nigeria. The result is achieved by evaluating the challenges in sanitation, in financing wastewater management and the issues that arise when wastewater is treated. The paper also covers the suggested solution and suggest some financial strategies to cater for wastewater management.

Keywords

Urban Sanitation, Financing, Wastewater, Nigeria

1.0 Introduction

According to the National Policy on Water and Sanitation (2000), The percentage of the population who uses improved sources of drinking water is known as access to water, while access to sanitation refers to the percentage of the population who uses improved sanitation facilities. Household connections, public stand pipes, boreholes, covered wells, and springs are examples of improved drinking water in Nigeria, while improved sanitation includes public sewer or septic system, pour flush latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, and pit latrines with slabs. As a result, aim to provide appropriate, secure, improved, sustainable, and accessible potable water and adequate, safe, improved, sustainable, and accessible sanitation to all Nigerians in an affordable and sustainable manner through a cost-sharing formula between government and the beneficiary on expenditure and operating costs, according to the National Water Policy (2004). This implies that there will be a real challenge for the policy implementation as regards careful balance between affordable tariffs for the poor and a high degree of cost recovery. According to the National Water Resources Management Policy (NWRMP) 2003, The standards and activities relating to the collection, elimination, or disposal of human excreta, household waste water, and refuse as they affect people and the environment are referred to as sanitation. Appropriate health and hygiene knowledge and behavior, as well as acceptable, accessible, and long-term sanitation facilities, are all part of good sanitation. The minimum acceptable basic level of sanitation must meet the following requirements: be associated with appropriate health and hygiene awareness and behavior; provide a system for disposing of human excreta, household waste water, and refuse in an acceptable and affordable manner for users; be safe, hygienic, and easily accessible, with no unacceptable environmental impact. In Nigeria, coverage definitions in terms of water supply and sanitation are described as efforts that will lead to increased services nationwide to meet the nation's level of socio-economic demand through the design of new projects that will avoid oversizing while meeting population demand, combat leakages and losses, and reduce unaccountability for the WASH sector. The ratio of generated water and sanitation to water and sanitation paid for in water and sanitation supply systems is referred to as unaccountability. Such access and coverage of water supply and sanitation should enable each Nigerian to have sufficient access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation as a basic human right, ensuring that public health needs are met; allow water and sanitation to be managed in a way that ensures its sustainability as a resource for current and future generations of Nigerians; and allow the treatment of wastewater; Allow for the recognition of water as a scarce and vulnerable resource that is managed efficiently and with its economic value realized; the ownership of water to be vested in the Federal Government on behalf of the Nigerian people, with effective management of water and sanitation exhibiting clear accountability, as well as the management of water resources and sanitation at the lowest appropriate level; and the ownership of water to be vested in the Federal Government on behalf of the Nigerian people, with effective management of water and sanitation exhibiting clear accountability. Adequate sanitation must meet social, cultural, technological, user satisfaction, and environmental friendly requirements, implying that in Nigeria, adequate sanitation means access to safe excreta disposal facilities, household services, public facilities, and liquid and solid waste disposal without contaminating water supplies, posing health risks to residents, or degrading the environment. Every year, a variety of sources include different estimates for WASH. In 2000, the defunct3 Federal Ministry of Water Resources reported that only 48% of Nigerians living in urban and semi-urban areas and 39% of those living in rural areas had access to potable water. In spite of these low figures the average water delivery to the urban areas is only 32 litres per capita per day (litre per capita per day (lpcd) and that to rural areas is 10 lpcd. According to the NDHS (2003), There are no facilities for 10.1 percent of the urban population, while 6.1 percent use pit latrines and 28.7% use flush . Rural areas aren't as well-served as urban areas. According to the survey, 34.1 percent of rural households have no toilet facilities at all and must rely on bushes and rivers to relieve themselves. Open is a natural occurrence all over the world. These unsanitary practices of excreta and waste treatment have far-reaching consequences for people's health and the environment. According to CBN (2006), the percentage of the population with access to safe drinking water increased from 30% in 1999 to 65% in 2005. According to the 2005 estimates, state capitals received 67 percent coverage, while urban areas received 60 percent, semi-urban areas received 50 percent, and rural areas received 55 percent. According to the FOS's MICS from 1999, only 52 percent of urban dwellers (48 percent if peri-urban areas are included) and 39 percent of rural dwellers have access to potable water. According to the Federal Ministry of Water Resources in 2000, about 71 percent of those living in rural areas do not have access to clean and sufficient sanitation. According to the FMAWR's 2006 Baseline Survey, national sanitation stands at 60.52 percent, with urban and rural sanitation at 67.56 percent and 65.62 percent, respectively. According to the EU WSSSRP, national sanitation coverage is 30% (35 percent for urban and 25% for rural) and water coverage is 47%. (65 percent urban and 30 percent for rural). According to the above data source, sanitation coverage has increased by 4% since 1990, when it was 26% (33 percent for urban and 22% for rural). In Nigeria, rates of institutional sanitation and water coverage are also poor. According to a UNICEF-sponsored report from 2003, there is only one toilet for every 500 students in schools, which is ten times the appropriate standard of 50. According to recent MDG monitoring estimates from the WHO/UNICEF JMP, 7.75 million toilets would need to be installed by 2015 to meet Nigeria's MDG sanitation goal of 70% coverage by 2015. This number means that over the next eight years, 775,000 household toilets would need to be installed (including 2008). In fact, however, more than this number of household latrines will be needed due to the eventual failure, breakdown, and abandonment of some low-cost latrines between 2008 and 2015 (Okay Sanni and Associates 2009). According to UN estimates, rural sanitation access rates have increased by just 3% in the last fifteen years, from 33% in 1990 to 36% in 2004, while urban sanitation access has increased by 5%, from 51% to 53%. (4) Although these access and development rates are comparable to those in Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria's large population means that more people (72 million in 2004) live without sanitation than in any other African nation (WHO/UNICEF JMP 2006). December 2005, but the JMP estimates for 2008 are lower, with 47 percent (6 percent for urban and 30 percent for rural, compared to 50 percent (80 percent for urban and 34 percent for rural) in 1990. According to JMP info, Nigeria is the only country in the world with declining water access (urban by 2 percent and rural by 6 percent ). The Multi-Indicator Cluster Survey 3 (MICS3) (2007), on the other hand, estimated a 49.1% increase in drinking water coverage, with 75.7 percent in urban areas and 37.4 percent in rural areas. The three northern geopolitical zones had the lowest coverage (around 42%), while the south-east and south-south geopolitical zones had around 54 percent and the south-west had 71.1 percent. According to the JMP 2008, only about 30% of the population used improved sanitation, leaving 70% of the population without such facilities. Furthermore, a 2006 survey by WaterAid of 15 rural Local Government Areas (LGAs) paints a grim picture: only 25% of the rural population has access to safe drinking water, and only 5% has access to improved sanitation. Although the country's disparate water and sanitation statistics are appalling, none of the sources provide a positive image of the country. 1.1 Area of Study

Nigeria is the most populated country in Africa, with a total land area of 923,768km2, an estimated population of 144.7 million people (2.7 percent population growth rate), and an illiteracy rate of 28% in 2008. It is also the second largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa after South Africa, and the tenth largest producer of crude oil in the world, with 2.1 million barrels per day. According to the CBN, the country's GDP was over US$190 billion in 2008, while the World Bank estimated it to be around US$170 billion, reflecting a 5-year average growth rate of 6%. Agriculture, Industry, Building and Construction, Distributive Trade (wholesale and retail), and Services are the five broad sectors that make up the economy. Nigeria's economy is based on crude oil, which accounts for more than 90% of foreign earnings, 65% of discretionary revenues, and nearly 20% of GDP. In 2008, the country's per capita income was less than US$2000, and it received just around $2 in Official Development Assistance (ODA) per capita, compared to $28 per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to the National Policy on Water and Sanitation (2000), There are six major hydrological basins in the region. Low-lying swamp forests can be found in the far south, accompanied by typically flat thick rain forests in the middle belt, relatively flat savannah grasslands in the far north, and semi-arid areas in the far north. Crystalline rock outcroppings and gently rolling hills characterize the country's central region. Crystalline rocks underpin 60 percent of the region, consolidated sedimentary materials 20 percent, and unconsolidated sedimentary materials 20 percent. Between 1981 and 1990, Nigeria was one of the signatories to the United Nations International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, whose aim was to provide water to all people of the region. Despite the efforts of numerous governments at all levels, the country's water supply and sanitation coverage continues to be worsening. Nigeria is a diverse country with over 250 ethnic groups. In terms of demography, 42.3 percent of Nigerians are between the ages of 0 and 14, 54.6 percent are between the ages of 15 and 64, and 3.1 percent are between the ages of 65 and above. Nigeria has a three-tier federal system, with a federal government (known as the Federal Government), 36 state governments, and 774 local governments. The 36 states are divided into six geographical zones, which are divided into six areas. The country's urban population is about 47% of the total population, with the remainder living in rural areas. The national poverty rate is 54 percent, but it differs greatly across regions and urban/rural environments, as shown by disparities in literacy, health, and poverty indicators, population, and water and sanitation indicators.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 History of wastewater treatment

While drainage systems were installed well before the nineteenth century, wastewater treatment is a relatively recent method. Previously, “” was collected in buckets along streets and drained into “honeywagon” tanks by workers. This was sent to rural areas and disposed of on farmland. The introduction of flush toilets in the nineteenth century resulted in an increase in the amount of waste produced on these agricultural lands. Cities started to use drainage and storm sewers to carry wastewater into waterbodies as a result of this transportation problem, despite Edwin Chadwick's suggestion in 1842 that "rain go to the river, sewage to the soil." Waste discharged into waterways resulted in severe contamination and health issues for downstream users. In Hamburg, Germany, an English engineer named Lindley constructed the first “modern” sewerage system for wastewater transportation in 1842. The Lindley method was developed mostly by the use of better materials and the addition of manholes and sewer appurtenances; the Lindley principles are still followed today. Only after the waterbodies' assimilative ability had been surpassed and health issues had become intolerable did wastewater treatment become evident. Various options were tried between the late 1800s and the early 1900s, before the processes we use today were tried in 1920. However, until the mid-century, its architecture was empirical. The use of centralized wastewater systems was promoted and planned. Communities that discharge into the plant bear the burden of wastewater treatment. Today, there have been significant advancements in the production of portable water from wastewater. In recent years, regardless of the receiving stream's capacity, a minimum treatment level has been required before discharge permits have been granted (Peavy, Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985). Also presently, the emphasis is shifting from centralized systems to more sustainable decentralized wastewater treatment (DEWATS) particularly for developing countries like Ghana where wastewater infrastructure is weak and traditional methods are difficult to manage (Adu-Ahyia and Anku, 2010).

2.2 Objectives of wastewater treatment

Wastewater treatment is very necessary for the above-mentioned reasons. It is more vital for the:  Reduction of biodegradable organic substances in the environment: organic substances such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur in organic matter needs to be broken down by oxidation into gases which is either released or remains in solution.  Reduction of nutrient concentration in the environment: nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous from wastewater in the environment enrich water bodies or render it eutrophic leading to the growth of algae and other aquatic plants. These plants deplete oxygen in water bodies and this hampers aquatic life.  Elimination of pathogens: Pathogens are species that cause disease in plants, livestock, and humans. They're sometimes called microorganisms because they're so tiny that they can't be seen by the naked eye. Bacteria (e.g. vibro cholerae), viruses (e.g. enterovirus, hepatitis A and E virus), fungi (e.g. candida albicans), protozoa (e.g. entamoeba hystolitica, giardia lamblia), and helminthes are examples of microorganisms (e.g. schistosoma mansoni, asaris lumbricoides). Infected animals and humans excrete huge amounts of these microorganisms in their feces (Awuah and Amankwaa- Kuffuor, 2002).  Recycling and Reuse of water: Water is a limited and finite resource that is often overlooked. Population growth in the latter half of the twentieth century has put additional strain on already inadequate water supplies. The agrarian character of many areas has also changed as a result of urbanization. Increased population means more food must be produced, and agriculture, as we all know, is by far the largest consumer of available water, implying that economic growth is putting new demands on available water sources. The temporal and spatial distribution of water is also a major challenge with groundwater resources being overdrawn (National Academy, 2005). It is for these reasons that recycling and reuse is crucial for sustainability. 2.3 Sources of wastewater

Wastewater can be described as in the figure below;

Figure 1: Sources of Wastewater  Stormwater Runoff is water from streets, open yard etc after a rainfall event which run through drains or sewers.  Industrial wastewater is liquid waste from industrial establishments such as factories, production units etc.  Domestic wastewater also known as municipal wastewater is basically wastewater from residences (homes), business buildings (e.g. hotels) and institutions (e.g. university). It can be categorized into greywater and blackwater. Greywater also known as sullage is liquid waste from washrooms, laundries, kitchens which does not contain human or animal excreta. Blackwater is wastewater generated in toilets.  Blackwater may also contain some flush water besides urine and faeces (excreta).  Urine and faeces together is sometimes referred to as night soil.  Sewage is the term used for blackwater if it ends up in a sewerage system. Septage is the term used for blackwater if it ends up in a .  Sewerage system is the arrangement of pipes laid for conveying sewage.  Influent is wastewater which is yet to enter in a wastewater treatment plant or liquid waste that is yet to undergo a unit process or operation.  Effluent is the liquid stream which is discharged from a wastewater treatment plant or discharge from a unit process or operation.  Sludge is the semi-solid slurry from a wastewater treatment plant.  On-Site System: this is wastewater disposal method which takes place at the point of waste production like within individual houses without transportation. On- site methods include dry methods (pit latrines, composting toilets), water saving methods (pourflush and aqua privy with soakage pits and methods with high water rise ( with septic tanks and soakage pit, which are not emptied).  Off-Site System: in this system, wastewater is transported to a place either than the point of production. Off- site methods are bucket latrines, pour-flush toilets with vault and tanker removal and conventional sewerage system.  Conventional sewerage systems can be combined sewers (where wastewater is carried with storm water) or separated sewers.  Septic Tank is an on-site system designed to hold blackwater for sufficiently long period to allow sedimentation. It is usually a water tight single storey tank.  Faecal sludge refers to all sludge collected and transported from on-site sanitation systems by vacuum trucks for disposal or treatment.  Unit Operation: this involves removal of contaminants by physical forces. Unit Process: this involves biological and/or chemical removal of contaminants.  Wastewater Treatment Plant is a plant with a series of designed unit operations and processes that aims at reducing certain constituents of wastewater to acceptable levels.

2.4 Characteristics of Wastewater

Wastewater has different characteristics depending on where it comes from. Industrial wastewater with urban or domestic wastewater characteristics may be discharged together. If industrial wastewater is discharged with domestic wastewater, it can require some pretreatment. The characteristics of wastewater differ by industry, so different treatment methods are required. For example, a cocoa processing company might have a skimming tank in its preliminary treatment stage to handle spilt cocoa butter, while a beverage plant might not. In general, the contaminants in wastewater are categorized into physical, chemical and biological. Some indicator measured to ascertain these contaminants include (Peavy, Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985 & Obuobie et al., 2006):

Physical Characteristics

 Electrical Conductivity (EC) indicates the salt content  Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) comprise inorganic salts and small amounts of organic matter dissolved in water  Suspended solids (SS) comprises solid particles suspended (but not dissolved)in water

Chemical Characteristics

 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) indicates the amount of oxygen in water  Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) indicates the amount of oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in a sample of water in a defined time period.  Chemical oxygen demand (COD) indicates the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant  Total Organic Compound (TOC)  NH4-N and NO3-N show dissolved nitrogen (Ammonium and Nitrate, respectively).  Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen is a measurement of organically-bound ammonia nitrogen.  Total-P reflects the amount of all forms of phosphorous in a sample. Biological Characteristics

 Total coliforms (TC) is encompassing faecal coliforms as well as common soil microorganisms, and is a broad indicator of possible water contamination.  Faecal coliforms (FC) is an indicator of water contamination with faecal matter. The common lead indicator is the bacteria Escherichia coli or E. coli.  Helminth analysis looks for worm eggs in the water

2.5 Process of wastewater treatment

The unit operations and processes of wastewater treatment can also be classified as such due to the existence of the pollutants in wastewater—physical, chemical, and biological. The following is a summary of the waste-water treatment units' activities and processes (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), 2003):

Physical unit operations

 Screening  Comminution  Flow equalization  Sedimentation  Flotation  Granular-medium filtration

Chemical unit operations

 Chemical precipitation  Adsorption  Disinfection  Dechlorination

Biological unit operations

 Activated sludge process  Aerated lagoon  Trickling filters  Rotating biological contactors  Pond stabilization  Anaerobic digestion

2.6 Levels of wastewater treatment

There are three broad levels of treatment: primary, secondary and tertiary. Sometimes, preliminary treatment precedes primary treatment. i. Preliminary treatment: Removes grits and coarse suspended matter. Screening and grit chambers may be used to eliminate these contaminants. This makes it easier to operate and maintain subsequent treatment units. At this stage of the procedure, flow measurement devices, such as standing-wave flumes, are needed (FAO, 2006). ii. Primary treatmentThrough sedimentation, it eliminates settleable organic and inorganic solids, as well as floating materials (scum) by skimming. This stage allows for the removal of up to 50% of BOD5, 70% of suspended solids, and 65% of grease and oil. Heavy metals, organic nitrogen, and organic phosphorus are also excluded. At this stage, however, no colloidal or dissolved constituents are extracted. Primary effluent is the effluent generated by primary sedimentation units (FAO, 2006). iii. Secondary treatmentis the process of removing residual organics and suspended solids from primary effluent. Aerobic biological treatment systems often eliminate biodegradable dissolved and colloidal organic matter. When organic matter is removed, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, as well as pathogenic microorganisms, are removed. Mechanical treatment, such as trickling filters, activated sludge methods, and rotating biological contactors (RBC), or non-mechanical treatment, such as anaerobic treatment, oxidation ditches, and stabilization ponds, are examples. iv. Tertiary treatment When clear wastewater constituents that cannot be removed by secondary treatment must be removed, advanced treatment is used. Significant quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, biodegradable organics, bacteria, and viruses are removed during advanced care. Traditional sand (or similar media) filters and newer membrane materials can also be used to efficiently filter secondary effluent. Some filters have been improved, and helminths are removed by both filters and membranes. The latest method is disk filtration which utilizes large disks of cloth media attached to rotating drums for filtration (FAO, 2006). At this stage, disinfection by the injection of Chlorine, Ozone and Ultra Violet (UV) irradiation can be done to make water meet current international standards for agricultural and urban re-use.

2.7 Urban Sanitation

Sanitation is a top priority for communities all over the world. Defects in the delivery of this vital service lead to environmental health issues and the depletion of limited water supplies. The rapid growth of cities, as well as the resulting concentration of people, results in an increase in the amount of that must be safely handled. The relative success in providing cities with usable water has resulted in increased volumes of wastewater, both domestic and industrial, that must be managed. The amount of wastewater produced per household exceeds the infiltration ability of local soils, necessitating increased drainage capacity and the installation of sewer systems as population densities in cities rise. Wastewaters flowing out of cities may have an effect on downstream water supplies, jeopardizing their long-term viability. Cities and countries differ in terms of the combination of challenges they face and their ability to address them. Table 1 shows a basic typology of problems based on the degree of national economic growth. Confronting these issues necessitates the need to overcome a variety of obstacles, including various environmental health issues as well as financial, administrative, and technological obstacles. 2.8 Challenges of Urban Sanitation

The environmental health challenges facing the urban sanitation subsector in developing countries are of two types (Serageldin, 1994). First, there's the "old agenda" of delivering adequate sanitation facilities to all urban households. Second, there's the "latest agenda" of safely handling urban wastewater and safeguarding the quality of critical water supplies for current and potential populations. The relative value of each agenda is usually determined by the degree of growth, as shown in Table 1, but these two "agendas" coexist in most developed world cities, even some of the most modern.

Table 1: Economic-environmental Typology of Urban Sanitation Problems

Urban Sanitation Lower-income Lower middle Upper middle- Upper-income Problem countries (< US$ income income countries (> US$ 650 per capita) countries (US$ countries (US$ 6,500 per capita) 650-2,500 per 2,500-6,500 per capita) capita)

Access to basic Low coverage, Low access for Generally Good coverage; sanitation service especially for urban poor; acceptable mainly sewered urban increasing use coverage; higher poor; mainly non of sewerage sewerage levels sewered options

Wastewater Virtually no Few treatment Increasing Generally high treatment treatment facilities; poorly treatment treatment levels; operated capacity; major investments operational over past 30 years deficiencies

Water pollution Health problems Severe health Severe pollution Primarily issues from inadequate problems from problems from concerned with sanitation and raw untreated poorly amenity value and domestic sewage municipal treated municipal toxic substances "in discharge and the streets" mixed industrial discharges

2.9 Basic sanitation services for urban households

In urban areas, sanitation systems, including sewerage, have not kept up with population growth. Despite this, countries made substantial strides during the 1980s, resulting in a 50% rise in the number of urban residents with sufficient sanitation facilities (see Figure 1). These accomplishments, while remarkable, were insufficient because the number of people without proper sanitation rose by 70 million over the same time span, and twice as many people remained unserved as were served. The results of a recent survey by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in 63 countries are shown in Figure 2 (WHO/UNICEF, 1993). These findings differentiate between the types of sanitation services available to upper- and lower-income urban residents. The health effects of service gaps are immense, and they disproportionately affect the urban poor. Human excreta is the main pollutant of concern in most low-income areas. According to the World Health Organization, 3.2 million children under the age of five die each year in developing countries from diarrhoeal diseases, mostly as a result of inadequate sanitation, polluted drinking water, and other food hygiene issues (WHO, 1992). Infectious and infectious diseases connected to polluted water are the third leading cause of lost productive years in the developing world due to morbidity and mortality (World Bank, 1993a). Children in households with sufficient water and sanitation facilities have a 60 percent lower risk of diarrheal death than children in households without such facilities (World Bank, 1992)

Figure 2:Access to urban sanitation in developing countries, 1980-90 (After World Bank, 1992)

Figure 3: Urban sanitation by technology type and income (After WHO/UNICEF, 1993) Sewerage is providing a growing share of urban sanitation services, especially in middle-income countries. Sewers represent about 40% of the urban population. However, user contributions have been minimal, and public subsidies for these household services have largely benefited the middle and upper classes. As a result, there are few public services available for water treatment and disposal. Looking ahead, the task of the next two decades dwarfs the gains achieved in the previous decade; an additional 1,300 million urban residents will need sanitation services, on top of those who do not currently have it.. In total, this is roughly six times the increase in service provided during the 1980s. Clearly, the goal of providing adequate sanitation services to all urban households still faces significant financial, institutional, and technological challenges.

3.0 Methodology

The methodology employed in this paper on the urban sanitation and financial strategies for wastewater management involves several process of which it involves observing the challenges of urban sanitation, it also looks at the financial challenges in wastewater management, the approach to wastewater treatment, and the Strategic planning and policies for sustainable sanitation services and also the basic sanitation for urban households.

4.0 Result and Discussion

4.1 Financial Challenges in Wastewater Management

For developing nations, completing basic sanitation facilities and progressing on wastewater treatment and pollution control poses significant financial challenges. Recognizing the need for an urban sanitation subsector as well as relying on innovative ways of funding urban sanitation, sewerage, and wastewater management are also essential for mobilizing the necessary financial capital.

4.2 Responding to the demands of households and communities

In recent years, there has been a remarkable convergence on market- and environment-friendly policies for managing water resources and providing reliable, equitable, and long-term water and sanitation services. Three closely linked guiding principles articulated at the 1992 Dublin International Conference on Water and the Environment are at the core of this consensus:  The ecosystem principle. Planners and policy makers at all levels should take a holistic approach linking social and economic management with protection of natural systems.  The institutional principle. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving user, planners and policy makers at all levels, with decisions taken at the lowest appropriate level.  The instrument principle. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognised as an economic good.

The challenge for the urban sanitation subsector is to bring these general principles into effect on the field. The new consensus emphasizes a core concept of public finance, namely, that efficiency and justice both demand that private resources be used to finance private goods and public resources be used solely to finance public goods. The presumption that social units, whether households, commercial organizations, local societies, or river basin associations, are better positioned to weigh the costs and benefits of various levels of investment is implicit in this theory. The definition of the decision unit, as well as the definition of what is internal (private) and external (public) to that unit, are critical in applying this theory to the urban sanitation subsector. It's helpful to consider the various levels at which such units can be described. The demand for sanitation services at each level must be recognized, and each social unit should be responsible for the direct services it receives. To demonstrate how this new ideal can be put into practice, consider how urban sanitation can be funded..

4.3 Sanitation, sewerage and wastewater management

The advantages of better sanitation, and therefore the necessary funding arrangements, are complicated. Households place a high priority on sanitation facilities that provide them with a private, convenient, and odour-free facility that eliminates excreta and wastewater from the property or confines it adequately on-site at the lowest level (see Figure 4). However, there are obviously advantages that accrue at a higher degree of abstraction and are thus "externalities" from the perspective of the household. Households are willing to pay for the first type of service benefits, according to willingness-to-pay studies (see, for example, Ducci (1991)), but have little or no interest in paying for additional (environmental) benefits that they consider unimportant.

Figure 4: Levels of decision-making on water and sanitation (After Serageldin, 1994)

Households in a specific block value services that extract excreta from the block as a whole at the next stage (i.e. the block). Residents value facilities that remove excreta and wastewater from the neighborhood, or that make these wastes harmless by treatment, as they pass up a level to that of the neighborhood. Similarly, waste collection and/or disposal from the city and its environs is valued at the municipal level. Cities, on the other hand, do not operate in isolation; pollution from one city pollutes the water supply of downstream cities and other users. As a result, the mutual value of environmental change can be perceived by communities of cities (as well as farms, factories, and others) in a river basin. Finally, because environmental pollution in one river basin can affect the health and well-being of a nation as a whole, wastewater management in that basin can also provide additional national economic, health, and environmental benefits. The example of typhoid in Santiago (World Bank, 1994c; Ferreccio, 1995) illustrates the latter point. The basic concept of public finance is that expenses should be allocated to various levels in the hierarchy based on the benefits that each level provides. As a result, funding for drainage, sewerage, and wastewater treatment should be distributed roughly as follows: i. Households pay the cost incurred in providing on-site facilities (, toilets, sewerage connections). ii. The residents of a block collectively pay the additional cost incurred in collecting the wastes from individual homes and transporting these to the boundary of the block. iii. The residents of a neighbourhood collectively pay the additional cost incurred in collecting the wastes from blocks and transporting these to the boundary of the neighbourhood (or of treating the neighbourhood wastes). iv. The residents of a city collectively pay the additional cost incurred in collecting the wastes from blocks and transporting these to the boundary of the city (or of treating the city wastes). v. The stakeholders in a river basin (cities, farmers, industries and environmentalists) collectively assess the value of different levels of water quality within a basin and decide on the level of quality they wish to pay for, and on the distribution of responsibility for paying for the necessary treatment and water quality management activities. vi. The nation, for the achievement of broader public health or environmental benefits, may decide to pay collectively for meeting more stringent treatment standards.

4.4 Wastewater treatment Even where the proper funding and structural principles are followed, very difficult issues with regard to wastewater treatment facility financing will occur. Two very different models are used in industrialized countries. The approach taken in many industrialised countries has been to establish uniform environmental standards and then collect the funds needed to finance the necessary investments. Also in the world's wealthiest nations, it is becoming increasingly clear that such a strategy is prohibitively costly and financially unviable. Customers' bills are the astronomically to pay the huge costs involved (over US$ 60,000 million this decade) as the target date for compliance with European Union (EU) water quality requirements is being reviewed in the UK. Between 1972 and 1989, the US government offered $56,000 million in federal construction grants to local governments to help them develop mandated secondary treatment facilities, but these grants have now been phased out (and replaced by State revolving funds for municipal loans) at a time when more strict environmental requirements are being proposed. Many local governments are also refusing to comply with the federal government's unfunded mandates (Austin, 1994). San Diego, for example, has declined to spend US$ 5,000 million on federally mandated secondary treatment, claiming that using long, coastal outfalls for sewage disposal is more cost-effective. San Diego filed a lawsuit against the federal government, which it recently prevailed in federal court (Mearns, 1994). The US National Research Council has advocated a change in which costs and benefits are both taken into account in the management of sewage, with a shift to a water quality-based approach at the coastal zone, watershed or basin level (National Research Council, 1993).

In a few countries, a different model has been developed. In these countries, river basin institutions have been put into place which: a) Ensure broad participation in the setting of standards, and in making the trade-offs between cost and water quality. b) Ensure that available resources are spent on those investments which yield the highest environmental return. c) Use economic instruments to encourage users and polluters to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of their activities.

These institutional structures are discussed in greater detail further down. River basin funding and management models are being used in Germany and France, as well as more recently in Brazil, to collect funds for wastewater treatment and water quality management from the basin's users and polluters. Stakeholders, such as consumers and polluters, as well as community groups, are interested in determining the amount of services to be increased and, as a result, the level of environmental quality they wish to "purchase." For 80 years, this method has proven to be effective, resilient, and versatile in meeting the financing needs of the densely industrialized Ruhr Valley, and since the early 1960s, for all of France. There is growing evidence that if such participatory agencies were developed, people would be willing to pay substantial amounts for environmental improvement, even in developing countries (Serageldin, 1994). A household survey in Brazil's state of Espirito Santo found that families were able to pay 1.4 times the cost of water collection systems, but 2.3 times the cost of sewage collection and treatment systems. A river basin authority (similar to those in France) is being established in the Rio Doce Valley, an agricultural basin of nearly three million people in south-east Brazil.Stakeholders have stated that they are willing to pay about US$ 1,000 million for environmental improvements over a five-year period. Recent surveys in the Philippines indicate that many households are willing to make large payments for investments that will enhance the efficiency of nearby lakes and rivers. The ramifications of the industrialized countries' experience for developing countries are obvious. Also wealthy countries handle only a portion of their sewage; for example, only 52% of sewage in France is treated, and only 66% in Canada. Most nations, including the United States, Japan, and France, have given environmental grants to municipalities to help them reach their current rate of treatment. Given the low initial levels in developing countries (for example, only around 2% of wastewater in Latin America was treated at the start of the decade) and the critical importance of improving the quality of the aquatic environment, an approach is needed that makes the best use of available resources while also providing incentives to polluters to reduce the loads they impose on the environment. An effluent tax is one form of incentive that is used in many countries, ranging from France, Germany and The Netherlands to China and Mexico. It can be applied to any dischargers, cities or industries, with two benefits; it induces waste reduction and treatment and can provide a source of revenue for financing wastewater treatment investments. The dramatic impact of the Dutch effluent tax on industrial discharges is described by Jansen (1991). The experience of China in the application of an industrial effluent tax for financing industrial wastewater management improvements has been described by Suzhen (1995). Municipal and industrial effluents are taxed similarly in France and Mexico, which encourages local investment in municipal wastewater treatment plants. However, an effluent tax can be used in conjunction with municipal sewer usage charges to ensure that businesses do not avoid paying for their discharges by passing the expense on to the municipality, and that the municipal sewerage authority has enough money to install and maintain sewerage and treatment facilities.

4.5 Strategic planning and policies for sustainable sanitation services

Using a strategic planning approach to address urban sanitation issues should result in the selection of the appropriate policy tools, agreement on targets, selection of appropriate service delivery requirements, and development of strategic expenditure and cost recovery programs. The issue of acceptable quality levels is especially perplexing, and it can ultimately be resolved by taking into account consumer expectations and willingness-to-pay. Since many households cannot afford traditional sewerage without substantial government subsidies, service levels are likely to be spatially segregated in a big city with many pockets of poverty. Willingness-to-pay surveys were carried out (Whittington et al., 1992), and the results were used to help define differentiated financing options. Explicit subsidies were targeted to the city's low-income population. Since municipal wastewater treatment is such an expensive and long-term endeavor, sound strategic planning and strategies for treatment are critical. The recently approved Central and Eastern European Environmental Action Programme (CEE), formulated with the assistance of the World Bank (1994b), Recognizes that, as financial resources become available, the CEE countries may need a strategy to shift toward Western European standards over a 15-25 year span. Despite the fact that urban sewerage systems in the CEE are usually satisfactory, 40% of the population is currently served by wastewater treatment plants. In many CEE cities, domestic pollution accounts for 60-80% of the combined municipal and industrial organic waste load. Furthermore, several existing plants are currently overburdened, under- utilized, and under-maintained, or have been bypassed. The following is a checklist of policy questions posed in the CEE Action Programme to be answered before proceeding with municipal waste-water investments: i. Have measures been taken to reduce domestic and industrial water consumption? ii. Has industrial wastewater been pre-treated? iii. Is it possible to reuse or recycle wastewater? iv. Can the proposed investment be analysed in a river basin context? If so, have the merits of the investment been compared with the benefits from different kinds of investments in other parts of the river basin? (Note that a least-cost solution to achieve improved water quality may involve different, or no, treatment at different locations.) v. Has the most cost-effective treatment option been used to achieve the desired ambient water quality? vi. Has there been an economic analysis to assess the benefits (in terms of ambient water quality) that could be achieved by phasing investments over 10 years or more?

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper identifies a number of financial and related challenges that cities and countries face as they attempt to meet the growing demand for sanitation and sewerage services, as well as better wastewater management. To begin, cities must finish the "old agenda" of providing sanitation to the entire urban population. It is obvious that consumers can and should provide the majority of the funding for this. To do so, you must provide services that people want and are willing to pay for. Innovative credit systems would be needed to assist poor urban households in meeting their sanitation needs. Institutional structures should be based on the mutual responsibility concept, with decision-making devolved to the lowest level appropriate; service delivery agencies should be sensitive and accountable to users. Local collaborations would be essential in many cases to ensure strong community engagement in service delivery and funding, as well as a larger role for the private sector in mobilizing investment capital.On the technological side, cities should think about strategic sanitation planning to adapt service choices to customer incomes and desires, and they should use cost-effective technology to deliver the services. Second, while struggling with the "old agenda," developed world cities are being urged to embark on the "modern agenda" of wastewater treatment and water quality management. As the recent experience of the industrialised countries has shown, this poses a massive financial challenge. National and local governments are being forced to make difficult decisions about how much to invest in protecting the marine environment, who should pay, and how to spend limited money. In developing countries, resource constraints and challenging trade-offs reinforce the need to make strategic decisions that make the best use of available resources while still incentivizing dischargers to reduce their emission loads, such as through economic instruments like water pricing and pollution taxes. New institutional structures, such as river basin associations, are needed to allow stakeholder involvement in difficult decisions about environmental quality, funding, and the distribution of action responsibilities. In an ideal world, such structures would respect the concept of non-interference in municipal operations while also allowing municipalities to behave as good environmental citizens, for example, by financially self-sufficient water and sewerage services. New planning approaches, such as strategic planning and policies that define long- term environmental objectives, identify essential immediate steps, and evaluate sustainable implementation methods, are also needed.Finally, pricing and demand management play a role in increasing reliance on recycling and reuse in wastewater management. The obstacles are formidable, but evidence suggests that they are not insurmountable. Adopting effective investment and cost-recovery strategies, as well as maintaining the implementation of strategic actions, needs political will and support from urban citizens. References

Austin, T. Roiled waters: water politics in the 1990s. Civ. Eng., 64(7), 49-51.

Ducci, J. 1991 Valuacion contingente y proyectos de Alcantrillado Sanitario: Resumen de algunos estudios de caso. Conference paper for Seminario Evaluacion Economica de Proyectos: La Utilizacion del Metodo de Evaluacion Contigente, Bogota, 6-31 May.

Ferreccio, C. 1995 Santiago, Chile: avoiding an epidemic. In: Serageldin, I., Cohen, M. and Sivaramakrishnan, K. [Eds] The Human Face of the Urban Environment: Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 6. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 160-62.

IFC 1992 Investing in the Environment: Business Opportunities in Developing Countries. International Finance Corporation, Washington, D.C.

Mearns, A.J. 1994 How clean is clean? The battle for Point Loma. Wat. Env. Res., 66(5), 667-668.

National Research Council 1993 Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Serageldin, I. 1994 Water supply, sanitation and environmental sustainability: the financing challenge. Keynote address to The Ministerial Conference on Drinking Water and Environmental Sanitation: Implementing Agenda 21, Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 22-23 March.

Suzhen, Y. 1995 Strategies for controlling industrial wastewater pollution in Beijing. In: Serageldin, I., Cohen, M. and Sivaramakrishnan, K. [Eds] The Human Face of the Urban Environment: Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 6. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 163-68.

WASH 1993 The Economic Impact of the Cholera Epidemic in Peru: An Application of the Cost of Illness Methodology. WASH Field Report No. 415. Water and Sanitation for Health, Washington, D.C.

Whittington, D., Lauria, D.T., Wright, A.M., Choe, K., Hughes, J.A. and Swarna, V. 1992 Household Demand for Improved Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kumasi, Ghana. UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program Report No. 3. Washington, D.C. World Bank 1992 Development and the Environment: World Development Report, 1992. Oxford University Press, New York. World Bank 1993a Investing in Health: World Development Report, 1993. Oxford University Press, New York

World Bank 1993b Water resources management. Policy Paper, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank 1994a Infrastructure for Development: World Development Report, 1994. Oxford University Press, New York.

World Bank 1994b Environmental Action Programme for Central and Eastern Europe. Technical Department, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa Regions, Report No. 10603- ECA. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank 1994c Managing Environmental Problems in Chile: Economic Analysis of Selected Issues. Environment and Urban Development Division, Country Department I, Latin American and the Caribbean Region, Report No. 13061-CH. World Bank, Washington, D.C

WHO 1989 Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Technical Report Series 778, World Health Organization, Geneva.

WHO 1992 Our Planet, Our Health. World Health Organization, Geneva.

WHO/UNICEF 1993 Water Supply and Sanitation Monitoring Report 1993: Sector Status as of 31 December 1991. World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Programme, Geneva.

Adu-Ahyiah, M. and Anku, R. E. “Small Scale Wastewater Treatment in Ghana (a Scenerio)” Retrieved, 03-10-2010:1-6.

Awuah, E. and Amankwaa-Kuffuor, R., (2002) “Characterisation of Wastewater, its sources and its Environmental Effects” I-Learning Seminar on Urban Wastewater Management Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2003) “Waste-Water Treatment Technologies: A General Review” United Nation Publication.