Global Water Funding: Innovation and efficiency as enablers for safe, secure and affordable supplies [1st ed.] 9783030494537, 9783030494544

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxix
The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 1-41
Where We Are (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 43-108
Where We Need to Be (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 109-144
The Costs Involved (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 145-187
Funding Flows Today (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 189-224
The Gap Between Aspirations and Realities (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 225-261
Addressing Capital Costs (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 263-293
Lowering Operating Costs (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 295-315
Demand Management and Resource Recovery (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 317-341
Innovation, Efficiency and Affordability (David Lloyd Owen)....Pages 343-366
Back Matter ....Pages 367-372

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Global Water Funding Innovation and Efficiency as Enablers for Safe, Secure and Affordable Supplies

David Lloyd Owen

Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management

Series Editor Justin Taberham London, UK

This series is dedicated to the rapidly growing field of Natural Resource Management (NRM). It aims to bring together academics and professionals from across the sector to debate the future of NRM on a global scale. Contributions from applied, interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches are welcome, including aquatic ecology, natural resources planning and climate change impacts to endangered species, forestry or policy and regulation. The series focuses on the management aspects of NRM, including global approaches and principles, good and less good practice, case study material and cutting edge work in the area. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15182

David Lloyd Owen

Global Water Funding Innovation and efficiency as enablers for safe, secure and affordable supplies

David Lloyd Owen Envisager Newcastle Emlyn, UK

Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management ISBN 978-3-030-49453-7    ISBN 978-3-030-49454-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49454-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover design: D-BASE/gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access  1 1.1 Introduction   1 1.2 A Brief History of Water and Sewerage Infrastructure   2 1.2.1 Bulk Water and Water Treatment   2 1.2.2 Water Carriers and Household Connections   3 1.2.3 Sanitation and Sewerage   4 1.2.4 Sewage Treatment   6 1.3 Where Should We Be? Water, Public Health, Development and Sustainability   7 1.3.1 Water and the Burden of Disease and Lost Time  8 1.4 The Impact of Poor Sanitation in South East Asia  11 1.5 In Search of Lost Time  13 1.6 The Human Right to Water  13 1.7 The European Union and Common Standards  15 1.8 Access to Safe Water and Sanitation  17 1.9 International Initiatives ‘Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene’  18 1.9.1 The Sustainable Development Goals  18 1.9.2 Access Can Depend on Seasons  23 1.10 Potable or Safe Water Standards: The World Health Organization 24 v

vi Contents

1.11 Water Availability  26 1.11.1 Renewable Water Resources  26 1.11.2 Water Stress and Scarcity  27 1.12 The Impact of Climate Change  30 1.12.1 Observed and Predicted Impacts of Climate Change on Water Management  31 1.13 Conclusions  34 References 34 2 Where We Are 43 2.1 Introduction  43 2.2 Data and Data Gaps  44 2.3 A Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Integrity Index  46 2.4 Levels of Water Access  47 2.5 Regional Overview: Europe—Developed  48 2.5.1 Advanced Treatment: Nutrient Removal  54 2.5.2 Comments on Countries  59 2.6 Regional Overview: The Americas—Developed  63 2.6.1 Canada  63 2.6.2 Chile  65 2.6.3 USA  65 2.7 Regional Overview: South East, East Asia and Oceania—Developed 68 2.7.1 Improvement of Asset Condition in Australia  70 2.7.2 Japan’s Recent Adoption of Sewerage  71 2.7.3 Infrastructure Development in South Korea  71 2.8 Regional Overview: Middle East and North Africa, Developed 73 2.9 Regional Overview: Eastern Europe and Central Asia  75 2.9.1 The Danube Countries: Outside the European Union  77 2.10 Regional Overview: South Asia  78 2.10.1 Bangladesh  79 2.10.2 India  80 2.10.3 Pakistan  82

 Contents 

vii

2.11 Regional Overview: South East, East Asia and Oceania—Developing 84 2.11.1 China  86 2.11.2 Indonesia  86 2.11.3 Taiwan  88 2.12 Regional Overview: The Americas—Developing  88 2.12.1 Brazil  90 2.12.2 Cuba  90 2.13 Regional Overview: Middle East and North Africa  91 2.13.1 Water Resources and Management in the Gulf States  91 2.13.2 Egypt  94 2.13.3 Saudi Arabia  95 2.14 Regional Overview: Sub-Saharan Africa  95 2.14.1 Mauritius  97 2.14.2 Democratic Republic of Congo  97 2.14.3 Uganda  97 2.14.4 Kenya  98 2.15 Conclusions  99 References100 3 Where We Need to Be109 3.1 Introduction 109 3.2 The Other Sustainable Developmental Goals 6 Targets 109 3.2.1 Sewage Treatment 110 3.2.2 Inland Water Quality 110 3.2.3 Water Use Efficiency and Stress 111 3.2.4 Integrated Water Resources Management 115 3.2.5 Inland Water Quality Restoration 118 3.2.6 Monitoring Water-Related Ecosystems 118 3.3 Central Assumptions for 2030 and 2050119 3.3.1 Population Projections and Assumptions 120 3.3.2 Population and Water Stress 120 3.3.3 Water Access and Water Stress 121 3.3.4 Household Size and Water Demand 122

viii Contents

3.3.5 Connections and Populations 123 3.3.6 The Impact of Rising Standards 123 3.4 Forecasts for Needs by 2030 and 2050124 3.5 Conclusions 142 References142 4 The Costs Involved145 4.1 Introduction 145 4.2 Cost Assumptions 145 4.2.1 The Timescale 146 4.2.2 The Cost of Extending Water and Sewerage Services146 4.2.3 Defining the Sector 147 4.3 Previous Cost Estimates 147 4.3.1 The Water and Sanitation Millennium Development Goals 147 4.3.2 Estimating the Millennium Development Goals148 4.3.3 The World Water Vision—Universal Water and Sanitation by 2025148 4.3.4 OECD Reviews 150 4.3.5 Some Other Recent Surveys 151 4.3.6 Global Water Intelligence—Global Water Market Surveys 153 4.3.7 World Bank Analysis 156 4.4 Per Capita Estimates 160 4.4.1 Meeting the Millennium Development Goals: Basic Urban Services 160 4.5 Rehabilitation and Renewal 162 4.6 European Union Compliance: Advanced Asset Development164 4.6.1 Upgrading and Extending Services in England and Wales 165 4.6.2 Complying with European Union Directives 166 4.7 North America: US Environmental Protection Agency Needs Surveys 169 4.8 Latin America 171

 Contents 

ix

4.9 Cost Assumptions 171 4.9.1 Timing 171 4.9.2 Central Cost Assumptions 172 4.9.3 Quality of Input Data and Costs 173 4.10 Cost Estimates 176 4.11 Comparing the Costs of New Assets and Rehabilitation181 4.12 Conclusions—The Forecasts in Context 182 References184 5 Funding Flows Today189 5.1 Introduction 189 5.2 Tariffs 190 5.2.1 Cost Recovery 190 5.2.2 Cost Recovery Policy 190 5.2.3 Cost Recovery in Practice 191 5.2.4 Cost Recovery and Utility Finance Data 192 5.2.5 How Far Can We Go? Affordability and the Limits to Tariffs 194 5.2.6 Water Tariffs and Household Incomes 196 5.2.7 Tariff Limits in Theory 197 5.2.8 Cost Recovery and Politics 198 5.2.9 Consumer Choice: ‘Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay!’ 198 5.2.10 Cost and Confidence 199 5.2.11 Service in Formal and Informal Settlements 199 5.2.12 A Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa 201 5.2.13 Tariff Structures 204 5.3 Non-tariff Sources of Funding 205 5.3.1 Official Development Assistance 205 5.3.2 Official Development Assistance as a Part of Funding Flows 207 5.4 Debt Finance 210 5.4.1 Lending by Multilaterals, Development Banks and National Aid Agencies (Non-­ Official Development Assistance) 210 5.4.2 Green Bonds and Water Infrastructure 210 5.4.3 Debt Issuance 211 5.5 Subsidies 212

x Contents

5.6 Indirect Financing 214 5.7 Funding Flows for Private Sector Water Utilities 215 5.8 Funding Flows 217 5.9 A Caveat About Data Quality and Availability 220 5.10 Conclusions 221 References222 6 The Gap Between Aspirations and Realities225 6.1 Introduction 225 6.2 What Happens Where There Is Insufficient Access? 225 6.2.1 Alternatives to Piped Water 226 6.2.2 Bottled Water 227 6.2.3 Point of Use and Point of Entry 227 6.2.4 Can Point of Use Represent the Best of Both Worlds? 230 6.3 Tariffs and Cash Flow Generation 231 6.3.1 Tariff Generation Today 231 6.3.2 Tariffs and Economic Growth 232 6.3.3 Tariffs: Affordability and the Willingness to Pay 233 6.4 Gaps in Governance and Funding 235 6.4.1 Plans and Their Implementation 236 6.4.2 A Look at Africa’s Funding Gap 240 6.4.3 The Ability to Meet Targets 241 6.4.4 O&M and Cost Recovery 243 6.5 Assessing Operating Costs 245 6.5.1 Tariffs and Funding Needs 249 6.5.2 Tariff Generation Between 2015 and 2050249 6.5.3 Global Capital Spending Needs, 2015–50249 6.5.4 Can Other Funding Sources Cover Such Spending Gaps? 256 6.6 Conclusions: An Unbreachable Gap? 258 References259

 Contents 

xi

7 Addressing Capital Costs263 7.1 Introduction 263 7.2 Gold Plating and Incentivising Efficiency 264 7.2.1 The Impact of Community Involvement 265 7.2.2 Regulation and Incentivising Efficiency 266 7.2.3 Incentive-Based Economic Regulation in England and Wales 267 7.2.4 USA—Cost Savings Through Design-­­Build-­ Operate Contracts 269 7.2.5 Lowering Costs in Supplying Villages in Punjab270 7.2.6 Rural Water Pumps in Sub-Saharan Africa 270 7.3 Sanitation and Sewage Treatment 271 7.3.1 Condominial Sanitation 272 7.3.2 Localised Labour 273 7.3.3 Distributed Sludge Management 274 7.4 Cutting the Cost of Procurement 274 7.4.1 Urban Sanitation 275 7.4.2 Rural Sanitation 276 7.5 Grinding Away at Corruption 277 7.5.1 The Impact of Corruption in India and China278 7.5.2 Transparency International’s ‘Corruption in the Water Sector’ Report 279 7.5.3 The Water Integrity Network’s 2016 Report 279 7.5.4 Aid-Related Outflows: A World Bank Study 279 7.5.5 Some Examples of Progress 280 7.5.6 Combatting Corruption 281 7.6 ‘Nature-Based Solutions’ 282 7.7 Conclusions—The Scope for Capital Efficiency 286 References288 8 Lowering Operating Costs295 8.1 Introduction 295 8.2 Smart Operations 297

xii Contents

8.3 The Potential Impact on Operating Spending 298 8.3.1 Minimising Pumping Costs 298 8.3.2 Storm Sewerage Overflow Detection and Response300 8.3.3 Monitoring for Sewer Overflows 300 8.3.4 Smart Sewerage Capacity Optimisation 301 8.3.5 Making the Extant Networks Deliver More 302 8.3.6 Efficient Deployment of Meters and Monitors 304 8.4 Specific Interventions for Developing Economies 305 8.4.1 Monitoring, Mobile Money and Water 305 8.4.2 Remote Pump Condition Monitoring 307 8.4.3 Data Collection, Transmission and Interpretation308 8.4.4 Managing and Monitoring Losses 309 8.4.5 Smart Sanitation in Senegal 309 8.4.6 India—Performance-Based Purchasing Power Parity Contract for Water Services 310 8.4.7 Making Such Innovations Commonplace 310 8.5 Conclusions: The Scope for Savings 311 References313 9 Demand Management and Resource Recovery317 9.1 Introduction 317 9.1.1 Wasteful Acronyms: NRW and UFW 318 9.1.2 The Cost of Non-revenue Water 319 9.1.3 Lowering Non-revenue Water 321 9.1.4 Pressure Management 322 9.1.5 Leak Detection 323 9.1.6 Non-revenue Water Management in Practice 324 9.2 Demand Management 325 9.2.1 Smart Water Metering and Demand Management326 9.2.2 The Greening of White Goods 327 9.2.3 Demand Management in Action 329 9.2.4 Responding to Drought in Melbourne 329

 Contents 

xiii

9.2.5 Demand Management and the Water-­ Energy Nexus 330 9.2.6 Improving Efficiency for Commercial Customers331 9.3 Resource Recovery 332 9.3.1 Water Reuse 333 9.3.2 The Economics of Water Reuse 333 9.3.3 Phosphorous Recovery 334 9.3.4 Sludge to Energy 334 9.3.5 The Impact of Resource Recovery 335 9.4 Conclusions 336 References337 10 Innovation, Efficiency and Affordability343 10.1 Introduction 343 10.2 Management Challenges 344 10.3 The Private Sector 344 10.4 Lowering the Cost of Project Capital 346 10.5 Finance in Developing Economies 347 10.5.1 Pooled Finance in the Philippines 349 10.5.2 Revolving Credit in the Philippines 349 10.5.3 Revolving Credit in Colombia 350 10.5.4 Innovative Bond Structures in India 350 10.5.5 Wastewater Recovery Revenues from Industrial Customers Supporting a Bond in South Africa 352 10.5.6 Blended Funding Supported by Reclaimed Water Sales in Mexico 352 10.5.7 Community-Level Support Blended with Commercial and Output-Based Aid Grants in Kenya 353 10.5.8 Grant Aid and an Extant Contract’s Cash Flows Support a Sewage Treatment Upgrade in Jordan 353 10.5.9 Cambodia—Supporting Private Operators to Connect Poor Households 354

xiv Contents

10.6 Financial Efficiency in Developed Economies— Thames Tideway and Glas Cymru 354 10.7 The Scope for Efficiency 355 10.8 Conclusions 364 References365 Conclusions367 Index369

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Table 1.7 Table 1.8 Table 1.9 Table 1.10 Table 1.11 Table 1.12 Table 1.13 Table 1.14 Table 1.15 Table 1.16

Deaths and DALYs caused by poor access to safe water and sanitation 10 Potential benefits from universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation 11 Potential benefits from the MDGs and universal access compared12 Impact of poor access to water and sanitation 12 South East Asia: financial and economic losses 12 The principal EU water and wastewater-related directives 16 WHO definitions of physical access 17 The water MDG and SDG ladders compared 21 The sanitation MDG and SDG ladders compared 21 Access to safe water worldwide in 2010 22 Percentage of people without safe drinking water 22 People without access to safe water and sanitation worldwide (billion) 23 Drinking water quality parameters 25 Water stress: water consumption as a percentage of runoff in a country 28 Water scarcity: internal renewable resources 28 Number of people living in areas of water scarcity and stress, 0 AD to 2005 AD 29

xv

xvi 

List of Tables

Table 1.17 Table 1.18 Table 1.19 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 2.11 Table 2.12 Table 2.13 Table 2.14 Table 2.15 Table 2.16 Table 2.17 Table 2.18 Table 2.19 Table 2.20 Table 2.21 Table 2.22 Table 2.23 Table 2.24 Table 2.25 Table 2.26 Table 2.27 Table 2.28 Table 2.29 Table 2.30

Percentage of people living in areas of water stress and shortage29 Water, population and economic growth 30 The impact of climate change by 2050–85 33 Data availability in the JMP 2015 survey 45 WASII: Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Integrity Index 46 Developed economy household water access 47 Developing economy household water access 48 Service summary for Europe—developed 49 Household water access—Europe—developed 49 Infrastructure Integrity Index—Europe—developed 49 Sewage infrastructure development in Northern Europe 50 Sewage infrastructure development in Southern Europe 53 Sewage infrastructure development in the Accession States 53 Advanced sewage treatment in Europe in 2013 55 Compliance with the UWWTD, 2014 56 Bathing quality in Europe in 2017 57 Inland water quality in 2015 58 England—compliance with the 1976 Bathing Waters Directive61 England—compliance with the 2003 Bathing Waters Directive61 Performance of utilities in the EU Danube 62 Service summary for the Americas—developed 64 Household water access—the Americas—developed 64 Infrastructure Integrity Index—the Americas—developed 64 Development of Canada’s sewage treatment systems 65 Development of Chile’s sewage treatment systems 66 US drinking water pipe classification, 1980–2020 67 Age of urban water pipes 67 US non-compliant water supplies, 2008 67 Water and wastewater infrastructure condition, 1998–2017 67 US urban sewage treatment development, 1940–2012 68 Service summary for South East, East Asia and Oceania— developed69 Household water access—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developed69 Infrastructure Integrity Index 69

  List of Tables 

Table 2.31 Table 2.32 Table 2.33 Table 2.34 Table 2.35 Table 2.36 Table 2.37 Table 2.38 Table 2.39 Table 2.40 Table 2.41 Table 2.42 Table 2.43 Table 2.44 Table 2.45 Table 2.46 Table 2.47 Table 2.48 Table 2.49 Table 2.50 Table 2.51 Table 2.52 Table 2.53 Table 2.54 Table 2.55 Table 2.56 Table 2.57 Table 2.58 Table 2.59 Table 2.60 Table 2.61 Table 2.62 Table 2.63 Table 2.64

xvii

Australia—condition of water infrastructure, 1999–2010 70 Sewage treatment development in Japan 70 Development of sewerage, 1967–2007 71 Urban water access in South Korea 72 Sewerage and sewage treatment in South Korea 72 PUB’s ‘Water For All’ projections 72 Service summary for MENA, developed 74 Household water access—MENA, developed 74 Infrastructure Integrity Index—MENA, developed 74 Sewage infrastructure development in Turkey and Israel 75 Service summary for Eastern Europe and Central Asia 76 Household water access—Eastern Europe and Central Asia 76 Infrastructure Integrity Index—Eastern Europe and Central Asia 76 Performance data in the Danube Basin 77 Service summary for South Asia 78 Household water access—South Asia 78 Infrastructure Integrity Index—South Asia 79 Water utility performance, 2006–07 and 2012 79 Treated tap water access, 2011 81 Untreated tap water access, 2011 81 Sanitation access, 2011 81 Sewerage, 2011 81 Provincial urban service delivery (2014–16) 82 Service summary for South East, East Asia and Oceania— developing84 Household water access—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developing84 Infrastructure Integrity Index—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developing85 Excreta flows in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam 85 Phnom Penh Water, Service delivery, 1993–2014 86 Five-year plans 87 The Water Pollution Prevention Plan for 2016–2020 87 Effluent treatment (BOD5 reduction) 88 Service summary for the Americas—developing 89 Household water access—the Americas—developing 89 Infrastructure Integrity Index—the Americas—developing 89

xviii 

Table 2.65 Table 2.66 Table 2.67 Table 2.68 Table 2.69 Table 2.70 Table 2.71 Table 2.72 Table 2.73 Table 2.74 Table 2.75 Table 2.76 Table 2.77 Table 2.78 Table 2.79 Table 2.80 Table 2.81 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15

List of Tables

Infrastructure development in Brazil 90 Infrastructure and regions in Brazil 91 Infrastructure and city size in Brazil 91 Service summary for the Middle East and North Africa 92 Household water access—Middle East and North Africa 92 Infrastructure Integrity Index—Middle East and North Africa92 Groundwater use and reserves, 2010 93 Resources in 2010 (groundwater abstracted rather than renewable resources) 93 Water consumption by sector, 2010 94 Water consumption compared with resources, 2010 94 Wastewater treatment and reuse, 2010 95 Service summary for sub-Saharan Africa 96 Household water access—sub-Saharan Africa 96 Infrastructure Integrity Index—sub-Saharan Africa 96 NWSC programme implementation 98 NWSC performance profile 99 Utility performance in Kenya 99 Number of countries reporting by overall quality category 111 Indicator scores for good ambient water quality at 25, 50 and 75 percentiles 112 Number of countries by water-use efficiency 113 WUE by sector 113 Institutional capacity for IWRM at national level in 2017–18116 Budgeting for IWRM (2017–18) 117 Breakdown of IWRM budgeting by country, 2017–18 117 Water demand in 2000 and 2030 and the forecast supply shortfall121 Water consumption by household size (litres per capita per day) 122 Urban population, 2015–50 125 Rural population, 2015–50 125 Urban population change, 2015–50 126 Rural population change, 2015–50 126 Urbanisation, 2015–50 127 Urban water—no access to household piped water 128

  List of Tables 

Table 3.16 Table 3.17 Table 3.18 Table 3.19 Table 3.20 Table 3.21 Table 3.22 Table 3.23 Table 3.24 Table 3.25 Table 3.26 Table 3.27 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18

xix

Urban water—not safely managed 129 Rural water—no access to household piped water 130 Rural water—not safely managed 131 Urban—no connection to the sewerage network 133 Urban sewage—not safely managed 134 Urban wastewater treatment—below secondary treatment level 135 Urban—wastewater requiring tertiary treatment 136 Rural sanitation—not safely managed 137 Rural sewage—untreated 138 Need for desalination by 2050 140 Need for water reuse by 2050 140 Advanced wastewater treatment—current status and aspirations141 World Water Vision needs and spending by 2025 ($ bn pa) 149 World Water Vision necessary spending by 2025 ($ bn pa) 149 Some previous estimates for spending needs for universal service provision 149 General estimates for annual spending on water and sanitation ($ bn pa) 150 OECD infrastructure spending needs 2005–30 151 Infrastructure spending needs ($ billion) 152 Frost + Sullivan spending needs for 2010–25 152 OECD (2030) and F + S (2025) per capita spending forecasts compared 153 Four GWI market surveys compared 154 Global expenditure on municipal water and sanitation, 2010 ($ billion) 154 Costs for meeting SDGs and local standards, 2018–30 156 Household water and sanitation investment cost estimates, by scenario ($ billion) 157 Urban water, $ million per annum 158 Rural water, $ million per annum 158 Urban sanitation, $ million per annum 158 Rural sanitation, $ million per annum 159 Breakdown of capital, capital maintenance and operating spending160 WHO capital spending estimates for connecting urban water services, 2005 161

xx 

List of Tables

Table 4.19 Table 4.20 Table 4.21 Table 4.22 Table 4.23 Table 4.24 Table 4.25 Table 4.26 Table 4.27 Table 4.28 Table 4.29 Table 4.30 Table 4.31 Table 4.32 Table 4.33 Table 4.34 Table 4.35 Table 4.36 Table 4.37 Table 4.38 Table 4.39 Table 4.40 Table 4.41 Table 4.42 Table 4.43 Table 4.44 Table 4.45 Table 4.46 Table 5.1 Table 5.2

WHO spending estimates for maintaining urban water services, 2005 161 UN capital spending estimates for connecting water projects, 2005 161 Annual improvement costs, per person reached 162 Cost of rehabilitating water systems 164 England and Wales total water and sewerage capital spending 1990–2020 (£m) 165 Cost of complying with the EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 166 Cost of complying with the EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 167 Further cost of complying with the EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 168 US EPA drinking water needs 170 US EPA clean water needs 170 Investment needs in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2010–30171 Quality of input data 174 Cost by service and region ($ per capita/connection) 175 Rural water and sanitation 176 Urban water 176 Wastewater treatment 177 Sewerage 177 Sludge management 178 Desalination and water reuse 178 Urban sewerage, wastewater treatment and metering and monitoring179 Total urban and rural spending needs 179 Sewerage—new build and rehabilitation costs 180 Sewage treatment—new build and rehabilitation costs 180 Metering and monitoring—new assets and replacements 180 The WASID forecast 183 The World Bank’s forecast 183 The GWI (2018) forecast 183 The WRI (2020) forecast 184 Water pricing implementation progress, 2000–02 191 Water tariffs and cost recovery, ($, %) 192

  List of Tables 

Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 5.21 Table 5.22 Table 5.23 Table 5.24 Table 5.25 Table 5.26 Table 5.27 Table 5.28 Table 5.29 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7

xxi

Cost recovery and national income 193 Coverage and national income 194 Utility finances in 2000 and 2010 194 Water tariffs and household incomes as a percentage of household income 195 Acceptable range of household income for water services (%) 196 Limits of affordability, percentage of household income 197 Access to piped water by time and connections 200 Cost of piped water and consumer trust 201 Cost of water services in sub-Saharan Africa, 2010–13 202 Water service provision in sub-Saharan Africa, 2010–13 202 Performance of the 25% best performing utilities 203 Tariff structures 204 Average WASH-related ODA funding 2010–14 206 ODA water and sanitation funding 2013–17 206 ODA fund flows for water and sanitation, $ per capita pa 207 ODA utilised for water and sanitation 207 Sources of WASH finance by reporting cycle 208 ODA as grants, loans and non-ODA loans 208 Geographic distribution of ODA and non-ODA funding 209 Non-ODA lending, 2012–16 210 Overall debt finance issuance 211 Operating and capital spending subsidies 213 Operating revenues against costs for 38 utilities 215 Overall funding flows in some developing economies 217 Revenues utilised for water and sanitation 218 Disclosures on government and total WASH spending 218 National WASH budgets 219 Utility and non-utility water spending 226 Self-supply and utility spending compared ($ million) 227 Point of use market spending forecasts ($ billion) 228 Point of entry market spending forecasts ($ billion) 229 Tariffs for urban water, sanitation and sewage treatment services, 2015 232 Price limits and household income 233 Tariffs for ‘affordable’ services as percentage of household income234

xxii 

List of Tables

Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 6.15 Table 6.16 Table 6.17 Table 6.18 Table 6.19 Table 6.20 Table 6.21 Table 6.22 Table 6.23 Table 6.24 Table 6.25 Table 6.26 Table 6.27 Table 6.28 Table 6.29 Table 6.30 Table 6.31 Table 6.32 Table 6.33 Table 6.34 Table 6.35 Table 6.36 Table 6.37 Table 6.38 Table 6.39

Tariffs for ‘political’ services as percentage of household income235 Policy development 236 Development of national urban sanitation planning 237 Sanitation policy and planning capacity development by 2018–19237 Collection of data, from 2009–10 to 2016–17 238 Development of plans and resources, 2018–19 238 Planned outcomes, 2019 239 Underspending—ACID study preliminary findings 240 Areas of inefficiencies identified by the ACID study 241 Countries and universal access to basic services by 2030 in 2015 and 2017 242 Percentage of countries with adequate funding to meet SDG 6242 Level of funding for SDG 6 243 Cost recovery and financial capacity 244 Evolution of O&M cost recovery 244 O&M coverage by tariffs 244 Urban and rural water services O&M costs, 2015 to 2050 246 Urban and rural sanitation O&M costs, 2015–50 246 Urban wastewater treatment O&M costs, 2015–50 247 Overall urban and rural O&M costs, 2015–50 248 Urban tariff operating cost surpluses (and deficits), 2015 248 ‘Affordable’ scenario: potential annual tariff revenue generation250 ‘Affordable’ scenario: potential funding flows, 2015–50 250 ‘Political’ scenario: potential annual tariff revenue generation251 ‘Political’ scenario: potential funding flows, 2015–50 251 Urban capital spending needs, 2015–50 252 Rural and global capital spending needs, 2015–50 252 Urban operating spending needs, 2015–50 253 Rural and global operating spending needs, 2015–50 253 Urban total spending needs, 2015–50 254 Rural and global total spending needs, 2015–50 254 Tariffs and funding needs—‘affordable’ tariffs 255 Tariffs and funding needs—‘political’ tariffs 256

  List of Tables 

Table 6.40

xxiii

Global ODA and debt funding flows, annual average for 2015–18257 Table 6.41 The impact of ODA and debt finance on funding needs, 2015–50257 Table 7.1 Household water connection costs 266 Table 7.2 Ofwat’s final tariff determinations and company business plans compared 268 Table 7.3 Capital spending allowed by Ofwat against company business plans 269 Table 7.4 Condominial sanitation capex cost savings 272 Table 7.5 The Orangi Pilot Project progress, 1991–2016 273 Table 7.6 Impact of decentralisation on project costs 275 Table 7.7 Impact of corruption on water contracts in India 278 Table 7.8 The scope for capital savings 287 Table 8.1 Potential efficiency savings for UK water utilities and users 312 Table 8.2 The scope for operating savings 312 Table 9.1 Global NRW 319 Table 9.2 Cost of NRW 320 Table 9.3 Impact of pressure management on water operations 323 Table 9.4 Impact of metering on domestic water consumption 327 Table 9.5 Water consumption by standard and efficient household goods328 Table 9.6 WELS standards and adoption 328 Table 9.7 Impact of demand management in Melbourne 330 Table 9.8 Potential impact of municipal resource recovery 336 Table 9.9 The scope for demand management and resource recovery 336 Table 10.1 Base and prime bank rates, 2020 347 Table 10.2 Ten-year long-term bond coupons between 2000 and 2020 347 Table 10.3 The potential for capital efficiencies 356 Table 10.4 Efficiency gains and weighting for capital spending 357 Table 10.5 Efficiency gains and weighting for operating spending 358 Table 10.6 Tariff over operating spending ratio under ‘affordable’ tariffs 359 Table 10.7 Tariff over operating spending ratio under ‘political’ tariffs 359 Table 10.8 Impact of efficiency scenarios on capital spending forecasts 360 Table 10.9 Impact of efficiency scenarios on operating spending forecasts360 Table 10.10 Fund flows under ‘affordable’ tariffs 361

xxiv 

List of Tables

Table 10.11 Fund flows under ‘political’ tariffs 361 Table 10.12 Funding flow with ‘affordable’ tariffs, net of ODA and debt finance 362 Table 10.13 Funding flow with ‘political’ tariffs, net of ODA and debt finance362 Table 10.14 Rural total spending by efficiency scenario 364

Introduction

The Evolution of This Book After the limited progress made by the World Water Decade (1980–90) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs 2000–15), the Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG  6) sought to deliver universal access to safe water and sanitation by 2030. As will be made plain, that is already almost certainly not going to happen. The author’s three decades of experience in the sector, along with recent work on the financial and administrative capability to meet the Sustainable Development Goal number 6 (SDG 6) by 2030 (GLAAS 2017, 2019), underline this. Rather than giving up in despair, the author believes we are now in a position to make good past shortfalls in the decades from 2030 to 2050. In addition, a global survey means that the costs for developing high-­ quality and sustainable water and sanitation services in developed economies need to be considered. The sustainable element is of particular importance due to the combined effects of climate change, population growth and urbanisation. This book marks the confluence of two streams of enquiry. The first sought to quantify global water and sanitation funding needs for 59 countries, then 67 countries (Lloyd Owen 2009) and finally for over 98% of the global population (Lloyd Owen 2011). The first two studies also considered how tariffs could fund these works, along with other xxv

xxvi Introduction

sources of funding. A further book (Lloyd Owen 2012) sought to develop a moral and economic case for universal access to sustainable water and sanitation services. This work was augmented by information assessed in the preparation of 14 editions of the Pinsent Masons/Arup water yearbook between 1999 and 2016 (Lloyd Owen 2016). Instead of hoping against hope for the broad adoption of full and sustainable cost recovery tariffs, let alone further funding flows, the author has subsequently considered the potential to reduce future funding needs closer to current funding flows. Lloyd Owen (2018) examined the potential for ‘smart water’ approaches to bring about a series of savings in operating and capital spending needs along with avoiding the need for some new assets as extant assets are used more effectively or demand management eases future water infrastructure needs. Smart water remains a work in progress, one whose potential lies in a series of incremental savings being knitted together to achieve more profound (or ‘disruptive’) savings. The next step (Kingdom et al. 2018) was to consider how capital efficiencies could be more broadly adopted in developing economies, allied with reducing the cost of funding for this work and making these projects more attractive to funders.

Looking Beyond Finance The traditional approach for meeting the MDGs and SDG 6 targets has been to estimate what needs to be spent and to consider where the money ought to come from. The shortfall of this approach is that the gap between spending needs and funding flows in many countries is so great as to be unbridgeable. This in turn has encouraged a degree of fatalism about meeting various targets over the years. As well as developing a detailed analysis of the costs and funding, this book considers the potential impact of lowering the cost of developing new assets and operating, managing and maintaining them. The impact of demand management and ways of improving access to lowcost funding are also considered. This is a perhaps belated appreciation that the costs of attaining universal and sustainable access are such that

 Introduction 

xxvii

those costs have to be questioned at every turn in order to make a laudable ideal a practical reality. This survey does not include spending needs for irrigation or industry while non-residential municipal water is mentioned in passing.

Practicalities Versus Politics The author is not concerned with ‘debates’ over private versus public service provision, paying for water against water being a ‘gift from God’ and so on. The ‘hijacking’ of the MDGs and SDGs by politicians, NGOs and special interest groups has become a serious impediment to their attainment. His interest lies with the practical possibilities necessary to ensure that universal access to both safe and sustainable water and sanitation can be delivered in an affordable manner. Delivery and its efficient deployment have to transcend ideology. The author believes that this is the first time the topic of universal access to water and sanitation has been approached in terms of all the costs involved, their funding and ways to reduce that funding, and through a global, rather than a developed or developing world, perspective. A lower level of expectations for those living in developing countries is wrong, as would be differing expectations within countries and societies. Indeed, some innovations emerging in lesser developed economies have a great deal to offer elsewhere, especially when leapfrogging intermediate approaches and taking a less sentimental approach towards stranded assets. These are the boundaries of possibilities. They exist to outline what can be done, to make good things done and even to exceed them.

Acknowledgements Justin Taberham was the catalyst, turning a contact into a contract. Joanna O’Neil showed great forbearance at Palgrave Macmillan. Mark Lane invited me to develop the then Masons Water Yearbook in 1998 and has been a constant support ever since. Paul Farrow

xxviii Introduction

commissioned me to write the two surveys on water finance for Thomson in 2005 and 2008. Xavier Leflavie and Anthony Cox at the OECD invited me to develop my first global water model in 2011 and then to examine the potential for smart water in 2012. Richard Davies at Parthian asked me to write more broadly about the need for safe water in 2010. David Johnstone has been a most agreeable source of ideas and introduced me to the work being carried out in the area by Oxford University. Sophie Trémolet and Bill Kingdom developed the capital efficiency work programme at the World Bank. Jim Winpenny has been a long-standing source of ideas about water economics. The interest of Pictet in exploring long-term water drivers (especially when megatrends) for their water thematic fund has been of crucial value since its launch in 2000. The fund is currently managed by Philippe Rohner, Cederic Lecamp, Marc Olivier Bufette and Anthony Rawlence. Asit Biswas, Jim Hochies and Michael Deane, my fellow Advisory Board, have conspired to make a sounding board of the highest order. Finally, Bethan and Trystan have crunched many pages and columns of numbers over the years and shown they have fine eyes for picking out errors. Polly has been a constant source of love and support throughout the endless stream that has been the genesis of this book.

References GLAAS (2017) UN-Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2017 report: financing universal water, sanitation and hygiene under the sustainable development goals. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. GLAAS (2019) National systems to support drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene: global status report 2019. UN-Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2019 report. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. Kingdom, W. D., Lloyd Owen, D. A., Trémolet, S. C. M., Kayaga, S. & Ikeda, J. (2018) Better Use of Capital to Deliver Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Services: Practical Examples and Suggested Next Steps. World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA.

 Introduction 

xxix

Lloyd Owen, D.  A. (2018) Smart Water Technologies and Techniques: Data Capture and Analysis for Sustainable Water Management. John Wiley, Oxford, United Kingdom. Lloyd Owen, D. A. (2016) InDepth: The Arup Water Yearbook 2015–16, Arup, London, UK. Lloyd Owen, D. A. (2012) The sound of thirst: Why safe urban water for all, is achievable, affordable and essential. Parthian Books, Aberteifi, United Kingdom. Lloyd Owen, D. A. (2011) Infrastructure needs for the water sector. OECD, Paris, France. Lloyd Owen, D. A. (2009) Tapping Liquidity: financing water and wastewater to 2029. Thomson Reuters, London, UK.

1 The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access

1.1 Introduction Despite the evident need for universal access to safe water and sanitation and a sustainable and resilient infrastructure, water tends to be a low priority amongst politicians and policy makers. As water is, to quote Karen Bakker, an “uncooperative commodity”, it is both capital intensive and revenue scarce. In addition, water spending and standards are increasingly vulnerable to pressure from populist viewpoints. Collectivist-­left viewpoints include water services being ‘free’ and viewing utilities more as providers of employment than as providers of services. Liberationistright viewpoints range from lowering public health (water) and environmental (sewage) standards to climate change denial. For these approaches to be addressed, it is necessary to develop in some detail an evidencebased case for prioritising water and sewerage spending.

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Lloyd Owen, Global Water Funding, Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49454-4_1

1

2 

D. Lloyd Owen

1.2 A  Brief History of Water and Sewerage Infrastructure While effective forms of large-scale water and sewage treatment are a relatively recent development, organised water provision and sewerage were widely adopted several millennia ago, typically falling into disuse until their gradual re-adoption over the past three to four hundred years. These time scales and the obstacles encountered, especially regarding sanitation and sewage treatment, are a useful reminder of the challenges facing us when seeking the universal adoption of these services. The settlement at Skara Brae, in the Orkney Islands, UK, had household water and sanitation networks from 3500 to 3000 BC, the earliest such systems as yet identified.

1.2.1 Bulk Water and Water Treatment Bulk water transfer schemes are a feature of major urban settlements where local needs outstrip resources. Examples range from Rome (Solomon 2010) where the aqueduct system developed since 312 BC provided the city with 700–900 litres per capita per day to the reservoir and canal network developed in Sri Lanka from 300 BC to 1186 AD (De Silva 1988). Slow sand filtration was first used by the Egyptians, and small-scale units were in use in early modern Europe. The first large-scale water treatment plant was in Paisley, Scotland, in 1804 (Huismann and Wood 1974). Raw water was passed through a settling basin to take out solids and then through six feet of gravel followed by six feet of sand before use. Water not used at a textile bleaching plant was carted to customers and sold at half a penny per gallon. Chlorine was first used to treat mains water in 1897 although in 1845 John Snow used chlorine to control a cholera outbreak in London (WHO 2003).

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

3

1.2.2 Water Carriers and Household Connections The management of post-Roman London’s water started in 1236 when the Corporation of London acquired abstraction rights for the Tyburn stream in the City and a conduit was built to serve Cheapside in 1285. A Brotherhood of St Cristofer of the Waterbearers was formed in 1496 to regulate the carting of water around the City, with 4000 members a century later (Barty-King 1992). Household connections to piped water networks are related to customers being able and willing to pay for water for washing and lavatory flushing as well as for cooking and drinking. In many cases, these services were developed by entrepreneurs. In London, the Corporation appointed Hugh Myddleton to oversee a bulk water transfer scheme in 1605 which was built between 1609 and 1613. Such was the scale of the New River Company’s transfer that it still provides 8% of Thames Water’s input (Barty-King 1992). New River water was piped directly to customer pipes. Similarly, JP Morgan Chase, the American bank, was founded in 1799 to provide water to 2000 customers in Lower Manhattan (JP Morgan Chase 2008). Other early examples include the Waterworks for Newcastle and Gateshead (founded in 1697); the first water distribution franchise in Paris was awarded in 1782 while the York Water Company has served York County, Pennsylvania, since 1816. By 1700, there were 20 private suppliers or conduits in operation, serving people along the banks of the Thames. River pollution obliged most to relocate to Kew, where the river water remained relatively clean. The Chelsea Waterworks Company was incorporated in 1723 to serve Chelsea and Pimlico opened a slow sand filter to improve its water in 1829, providing 85,000–115,000 litres of water a day (Simpson 1838). The Metropolis Act of 1852 made water filtration compulsory for all water extracted from the Thames within five miles of St Paul’s Cathedral and from 1855 companies were prohibited from extracting water from the tidal river, which extends 30 km upriver from London Bridge.

4 

D. Lloyd Owen

1.2.3 Sanitation and Sewerage Planned sanitation was widely adopted in early cities. Knossos, a palace-­ city in Minoan Crete (2800–1100 BC), had two conduits: one for rainwater and the other for foul water (Gray 1940). The Babylonian cities of Ur and Babylon had vaulted sewers for household wastes and gutters and drains for surface runoff (Jones 1967; Maner 1966). Sewerage was adopted by Indus Valley culture (from 3300 BC), with houses connected to open channels running down the centre of the streets. Wastewater would be passed through pipes into covered sumps, where solids would settle out and could be removed. The systems were for both rain and foul sewerage and operated until the civilisation declined from 1700 BC (Webster 1962). As with aqueducts, the Roman Empire distinguished itself with its sewers (Oleson 2010). Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his ‘Roman Antiquities’ (c8–7 BC) observed that “the extraordinary greatness of the Roman Empire manifests itself above all in three things: the aqueducts, the paved roads, and the construction of the drains” (Roman Antiquities, 3.67.5). Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (c7BC–23 AD) likewise notes that “the Roman prudence was more particularly employed on matters which had received but little attention from the Greeks, such as paving their roads, constructing aqueducts, and sewers, to convey the sewage of the city into the Tiber” (Geography, 5.3.8). In medieval cities, sewers formed part of drainage pathways, typically found down the middle of a road. Their purpose was to let rainwater and wastes drain to the nearest river or stream. The first covered sewer in Paris (Reid 1991) was built in 1370, taking sewage from the Right Bank and discharging it into the Seine near the Louvre. By 1636 there were 24 covered sewers in Paris (Krupa 1991). London’s first public lavatory, or house of easement, opened in the thirteenth century, discharging straight into the river. By 1400, there were eight public houses of easement serving a city of 100,000 people. John Harrington built the first modern flush lavatories in 1596 and in 1778–97 Joseph Bramah sold 6000 lavatories. From the 1450s, human dung was carted away from London and

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

5

used as fertiliser on the fields outside the city. Urban growth forced the development of sewage farms and sewage treatment later on. The first sewerage scheme in the modern world was developed in Boston in 1704 as a private sewer ‘beneficial to the common citizen’, with those connected paying for its construction (Armstrong 1976). Between 1708 and 1736, 654 sewer permits were issued, making Boston amongst ‘the most dry and clean cities in the world’. The first centralised sewerage system was developed in Hamburg in 1843 (Metcalfe and Eddy 1928). Eight other German cities adopted sewerage schemes by 1868. Case Study: London—Sewerage and Life Expectancy In 2007, the British Medical Journal stated that sanitation is the “most important medical advance in the past 150 years” (British Medical Journal 2007). This reflects the role modern sewerage has had in lowering the impact of cholera in major cities. Cholera outbreaks in London in 1848–49 and 1853–54 claimed 25,175 lives. Edwin Chadwick’s Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of 1842 linked the need for adequate water and sanitation to combat ill-health in urban Britain (Halliday 1999). A total of 137 schemes to clean up the Thames had been rejected until the ‘Great Stink’ forced Parliament to close in June 1858 (Simon 2008) and Joseph Bazalgette’s proposal was accepted that year (Shapin 2006). Bazalgette’s scheme involved connecting all of London’s sewers into two sewer mains running on the north and south embankments of the river with 82  miles of sewer mains built over the next 16 years. The network was completed in 1875 at a cost of £20 million (Cook 2001). Life expectancy in England and Wales rose from 40 years in 1847 to 50 from 1880 and to 62 by 1912. Infant mortality remained between 138 and 163 deaths per 1000 live births between 1841 and 1900, falling to 100 by 1912 due to the expansion in sewerage across urban Britain (Woods et al. 1988, 1989) as average annual spending on sewerage rose from £19 million in 1881–95 to £43 million in 1895–10 (Human Development Report 2006; Bryer 2006; Szreter 1997; Hassan 1985; Bell and Millward 1998; Halliday 1999).

In the mid-nineteenth century, there were two broad theories about the transmission of diseases such as cholera. The Miasmics believed that noxious gasses or miasmas from sources like sewage gave off deadly

6 

D. Lloyd Owen

effusions and that sewage wastes needed to be removed within two to three days to prevent miasmas. The Contagionists believed the disease was spread by people and urged quarantining the sick. Delegates at the 1874 International Sanitary Conference voted unanimously to declare “ambient air is the principal vehicle of the generative agent of cholera”. Robert Koch described the cholera bacillus to the Berlin Imperial Cholera Commission and the ‘Conference for the Discussion of the Cholera Question’ in 1884 (Koch 1884). Koch’s belief that cholera was transmitted in drinking water was rejected by French and British delegations (Howard-Jones 1984). After a cholera outbreak in Hamburg in 1892 Koch isolated the bacillus in the River Elbe, finding that while it remained in Hamburg’s unfiltered water, it was absent in filtered water provided to neighbouring Altona.

1.2.4 Sewage Treatment The impact of direct discharge of sewage into rivers has long been appreciated. London’s New River of 1613 (see Sect. 1.2.2) was constructed due to the demand for uncontaminated water. Initial works to deflect sewage from rivers were based on sewage farms and nutrient recovery for making gunpowder. Night soil or sewage was applied to sewage farms as a nutrient. Other early examples of sewage farms include Bolesławiec in Poland and Edinburgh in the UK (Angelakis and Rose 2014). Sewage treatment emerged in the 1880s, originally using sand filtration and chemical precipitation. Anaerobic digestion, which works by accelerating the biological processes which digest sewage sludge, was developed in 1913–14 (Alleman 2005). Ten activated sludge treatment facilities were installed in England between 1914 and 1921, with the first being built in the USA in 1916. In Germany screening and settling were used in Frankfurt in 1887, with chemical precipitation in Leipzig in 1897 and the Imhoff Tank in Essen in 1908, which separates sewage sludge from wastewater for anaerobic digestion. Tertiary treatment was developed in 1920. Britain’s Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal (RCOSD) “marked the transition from folklore to a scientific approach to sewage treatment” (Sidwick 1976) and published ten reports between 1889 and 1915. The

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

7

Commission’s emphasis was on the quality of the effluent discharged, rather than the treatment process (Beder 1997). The fifth report (Cd. 4278, 1908), published in 1908, examined various approaches to treating domestic sewage, and dealt with the sewage treatment, the need for sewage farms to be properly managed and the role of settlement, filtration and biological treatment for larger volumes of sewage (RCOSD 1908). The eighth report (Cd. 6464, 1912) outlined standards of sewage discharge into rivers and tidal waters and introduced the ‘20:30 standard’ whereby the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of discharges should not exceed 20 milligrams per litre and total suspended solids should not exceed 30 milligrams per litre (RCOSD 1912).

1.3 W  here Should We Be? Water, Public Health, Development and Sustainability The need to have uncontaminated water to avoid various diseases and the role of sanitation in ensuring this have been appreciated since the nineteenth century. Despite this, the economic and health impact of poor access to water and sanitation remains considerable. Access to safe water and sanitation depends on reliable and easily available sources of potable water. It is the quality of the water and its availability in relation to current and future demand that is the chief concern. Looking at all water quality and quantity concerns, there are nine principal impacts from compromised water resources and supplies: Pathogens: The impact of death and disease from drinking sewage-­ contaminated water. Pollution: The impact from drinking water from groundwater or surface water resources that have been contaminated by industrial, agricultural or other effluents, along with the impact of this water on other municipal and industrial users. Natural contaminants: Unsafe levels of arsenic can be found in groundwater, for example in the USA and Bangladesh. Iron, manganese and fluoride contamination can also be problematic.

8 

D. Lloyd Owen

Internal contamination: Contamination that arises within the water distribution system, including the impact of lead piping in plumb-solvent areas and contamination arising from deteriorating systems. Time costs: The time spent collecting or waiting to collect water from distant sources. This includes the impact of water scarcity on its local distribution and availability. Time is also lost where people do not have their own lavatories. Educational costs: The impact of children missing out on education due to having to collect water or because of poor water and sanitation access in schools. Scarcity: Direct and indirect costs of groundwater depletion or surface water over-abstraction. For example, having to mobilise alternative water resources or increase the depth of groundwater abstraction. Resource conflicts: Water shortages within a catchment area resulting in municipal, industrial and agricultural demand being greater than available supplies. Resource degradation: The need to find alternative water sources due to contamination or agricultural land becoming infertile due to excessive salination (or other contamination) from groundwater supplies. These incur costs both from their direct impact and in the cost of remediating them or having to depend on alternative water sources instead of using potable water normally provided by utilities. As safe water supplies are difficult to secure except when in tandem with safe sanitation (safe excreta disposal and its treatment) the two need to be considered together, especially regarding their public health impacts. Likewise, connecting hand washing to water and sanitation is important, since poor access to water reduces people’s ability to wash their hands regularly, while improved sanitation minimises the spread of diseases in the first place (Bartram and Cairncross 2010).

1.3.1 Water and the Burden of Disease and Lost Time Lacking access to safe water and sanitation can be debilitating or deadly, especially in developing economies. The most recognisable concerns are water supplies infected with pathogens and where scarcity is impacting

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

9

water provision. The World Health Organization (WHO) has a four-step classification of water-related diseases (UN 2010): Water-borne: From faecal contaminated water (e.g. dysentery, diarrhoea, cholera and typhoid) Water-washed: Spread due to insufficient washing water (e.g. trachoma and scabies) Water-based: Organism spends part of its life in water (e.g. schistosomiasis) Water-related: Insect vector spends part of its life in water (e.g. malaria) The first two are directly related to access to drinking water and the safe disposal of sewage. The latter two are caused by people living near unhealthy stretches of water or, more to the point, water which is shared by creatures that directly or indirectly harm human health. In the case of schistosomiasis, the organism reaches water bodies through inadequate sanitation. Three main approaches to estimating the impact of poor water and sanitation have been identified: (1) evaluating the burden of poor water and sanitation in human terms, (2) estimating the financial burden this causes and then (3) through considering the economic benefits of improved access to water and sanitation. These estimates also need to consider the impact of cases of diarrhoea that did not result from contaminated water. The impact of inadequate water and sanitation can be measured in terms of deaths, productive time lost through illness, productive time lost through needing to obtain water or waiting to go to a lavatory and ancillary elements such as the impact of poor access and a degraded environment on tourism. A DALY (disability-adjusted life year) refers to the equivalent of one person being unable to work for a year due to illness, the ‘opportunity cost’ or opportunities lost by a lack of access to water and sanitation. In total, at least 9.1% of all DALYs and 6.3% of all deaths worldwide in 2002 stemmed from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (Howard and Bartram 2003). By 2015, this had fallen to 3.5% and 2.1% respectively (Prüss-Üstün et al. 2016). The fall may reflect improved access to water and sanitation or vagaries in the data itself.

10 

D. Lloyd Owen

Prüss-Üstün et al. (2016) surveyed the global impact of environmentally caused death and disease on overall human health and mortality. In the case of diarrhoea, 57% of cases are attributed to environmental factors (unsafe water and sanitation along with using untreated wastewater for irrigation). The data in Table 1.1 has also been weighted to strip out the impact of environmental factors other than water, sanitation and hand washing. Assuming that the average person affected earns $774 per annum (the average gross national income [GNI] per capita for low-income countries in 2017 as assessed by the World Bank for 2017), each DALY costs $774, which works out as $46.1 billion annually lost through illness before taking into account the impact on this on their dependents. The difficulty of quantifying the financial impact of poor access to water and sanitation is highlighted by three surveys using WHO and World Bank data between 2000 and 2015. The first (Table 1.2) considered the benefits of universal access to safe water and sanitation in terms of reduced illness and increased productivity. The second survey (Table  1.3) compared the projected benefits of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or halving the number without access to ‘improved’ water or sanitation against those if universal access to safe water and sanitation could be achieved. Table 1.1   Deaths and DALYs caused by poor access to safe water and sanitation 2015 data

Deaths

DALYs

Diarrhoea Intestinal nematodes Malaria Trachoma Schistosomiasis Lymphatic filariasis Onchocerciasis Leishmaniasis Dengue Neonatal conditions Protein-energy malnutrition Water-borne and water-washed Water-based and water-related Neonatal and malnutrition Environmental Total

845,810 3299 258,702 0 16,977 1 0 6476 24,524 27,009 13,646 849,109 306,680 40,654 12,624,495 55,656,266

56,606,913 5,229,544 23,074,450 298,711 3,136,235 1,704,217 29,914 451,527 1,232,880 2,181,957 1,417,093 62,135,168 29,629,222 3,599,050 596,412,171 2,735,774,494

Adapted from Prüss-Üstün et al. (2016)

11

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

Table 1.2  Potential benefits from universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation $ values are for 2000

Unit

Health sector treatment costs saved Patient treatment costs saved Cases of diarrhoea Cases of diarrhoea avoided Diarrhoea avoidance—productive days gained Diarrhoea avoidance—school attendance days gained Diarrhoea avoidance—baby days gained Diarrhoea avoidance—productive days gained Improved access—annual time gain Improved access—annual time gain Value of avoided deaths Total economic benefits

$ million pa $ million pa Million cases pa Million cases pa Million days pa Million days pa

Value 50,022 2322 5388 3718 22,059 1863

Million days pa $ million pa Million hours pa $ million pa $ million pa $ million pa

9953 5508 992,634 405,457 22,803 555,901

Adapted from Hutton and Haller (2004)

The third survey (Table 1.4) by LIXIL (2016) works on the basis of losses resulting from inadequate access. This survey estimated that the impact of inadequate sanitation rose from $182.5 billion in 2010 (1.0% of GDP) to $222.9 billion in 2015 (0.9% of GDP). In India, this is equivalent to 5.2% of GDP.

1.4 T  he Impact of Poor Sanitation in South East Asia These studies were carried out to consider the economic benefits of developing nationwide access to sanitation services (Table  1.5). ‘Water and environment’ chiefly refers to the higher costs of treating water due to contaminated water resources. These studies highlight the impact of Indonesia’s lack of integrated sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure. Dealing with waterborne disease can be a comparatively recent achievement. For example, 40% of schoolchildren in the southern states of the USA had hookworm in 1900 and its subsequent elimination resulted in improved literacy and higher incomes (Bleakley 2007).

12 

D. Lloyd Owen

Table 1.3   Potential benefits from the MDGs and universal access compared $ billion pa (2010 values) Healthcare gains Mortality reductions Health-related productivity Time Total

Sanitation MDG

Water MDG

WSS MDG

Universal sanitation

Universal water

Universal WSS

4.90

0.80

5.70

11.50

3.50

15.00

5.80

0.75

6.50

9.10

2.80

12.00

2.76

0.33

3.08

6.52

1.79

8.33

40.07 53.60

4.12 6.10

44.39 114.12 59.70 141.30

20.32 28.30

134.44 169.60

Note: WSS—water supply and sanitation Adapted from Hutton (2012) Table 1.4   Impact of poor access to water and sanitation $ billion (2015 values)

Latin America

Former Soviet Empire and ME

Asia Africa Pacific

Global Total

Mortality Productivity loss Healthcare costs Access—productive time lost Total

11.5 0.4 9.6 0.7

4.6 0.3 4.0 0.1

14.5 0.3 3.2 1.4

92.2 15.5 39.7 24.8

122.8 16.5 56.6 27.0

22.2

9.0

19.3

172.3

222.9

Adapted from LIXIL (2016) Table 1.5   South East Asia: financial and economic losses $ million pa (2005 values)

Health

Welfare and access

Water and environment

Tourism

Total

Cambodia Indonesia Philippines Vietnam India

200 3650 1050 315 38,490

38 1225 38 43 10,730

286 2505 636 646 4210

74 170 40 69 260

608 7545 1754 1072 53,690

Sources: Adapted from Kov et  al. (2008), Hutton et  al. (2008), Napitupulu and Hutton (2008), Rodriguez et al. (2008), Thang et al. (2008)

In France, Smets (2008) suggests that the death rate fell from 41 per 1000 people per year in 1848 to 28 by 1858 due to improved water supplies and then from 27 in 1895 to 21 in 1906 from improved sanitation. These were basic measures, as Smets also notes that public water networks grew from 25,000 km in 1940 to 800,000 km in 2004, while households with indoor lavatories grew from 27% in 1954 to 98% by 2014.

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

13

1.5 In Search of Lost Time According to the World Health Organization, one of the chief benefits of improving access to water and sanitation is that it gives people more time to work (Prüss-Üstün et al. 2008; Hutton and Haller 2004). Assuming 20 billion extra working days could be generated, they calculated that this would lead to $63 billion in productivity gains. The Stakhanovian assumption that all time saved will be spent in gainful employment ought to be treated with some caution, as seen in Tangiers.

Case Study: Tangiers—People Will Be People In 2007, 850 people living in low-income households in Tangier were offered interest-free loans for water connections repayable over three to seven years depending on how far they lived from the water mains (Devoto et al. 2009; Tremolet 2011). Customers paid the full cost of connections and water and the loans were subsidised. The work was carried out by Amendis (Veolia) with funds available for social projects, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s JPAL Poverty Lab examined its impact. Seventy per cent of those offered the subsidised loan took it up, even though this doubled their water bills when repaying the loan during the period. As the area had street pumps which provided potable water, this was about comfort and convenience rather than public health. By joining the scheme, people would in effect be buying time. Those who took this up enjoyed significant gains in time. Instead of longer working hours, they spent it relaxing, shopping and going out. The subsidised loan created a significant rise in the happiness of households. The urban poor rarely get the most enjoyable jobs, so spending more time as drudges may not be the most attractive option.

1.6 The Human Right to Water The United Nations (UN) defines the Human Right to Water as a regular supply of safe drinking water sufficient for domestic needs and sanitation that is safe for people and the environment and acceptable to use and that both of these are affordable and easily accessible (UN Human Rights

14 

D. Lloyd Owen

Council 2010a, b), and the UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 recognises “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights”. The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), heads of State and Government and high-level representatives reaffirmed their “commitments regarding the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, to be progressively realized for [their] populations with full respect for national sovereignty”. It is important to note that access is defined as being ‘affordable’ rather than ‘free’ as was sought by some lobbies at the time. Case Study: Argentina—Service Extension and Health How does Private sector partnerships (PSP) affect public health? In Argentina child mortality fell by 5–7% during the 1990s in areas of Argentina where water services were run by the private sector compared with those where services were still run by the public sector, with a 24% fall in the poorest municipalities (Galiani et al. 2005). This can work only when affordability is factored into such contracts.

The WHO states that “all people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water”. Safe drinking water is defined as meeting the standards set out by the World Health Organization in its drinking water quality ‘Guidelines’ (4th Edition, WHO 2011). This is the only globally accepted water or wastewater standard. The lack of similar global standards for other aspects of water and sewage services and infrastructure reflects the localised nature of these utilities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe declared in 2009 “that access to water must be recognised as a fundamental human right because it is essential to life on earth and is a resource that must be shared by humankind” (EU 2009). The European Union (EU) regards access to a clean environment as a human right and has sought to achieve this through a series of directives, stipulating inland and bathing water standards and the sewage treatment infrastructure required to enable this. The EU Water Framework Directive

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

15

(2000/219) notes that “water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such”. This means charging for water to reflect the true costs of its use while ensuring the affordability of water services. The EU has stated that “all States bear human rights obligations regarding access to safe drinking water, which must be available, physically accessible, affordable and acceptable” (Ashton 2010). In England and Wales, the Water Act of 2001 prevents water utilities from cutting off customers who have not paid their water bills. While developed out of concerns about affordability, it has also been used by those who do not wish to pay for their water. By April 2017 arrears of £2.2 billion had been accrued, which resulted in paying customers having to subsidise non-payers by £21 per annum (Ofwat 2017).

1.7 T  he European Union and Common Standards The EU is the central driver for water and wastewater infrastructure development in Europe, both because of the impact of its environmental directives and as a source of infrastructure funding. Europe consists of three distinct markets. Firstly, there are the Western European economies, where water spending has been driven by European environmental and public health directives for some decades. Next are the ‘accession states’ that joined the European Union in 2004 or 2007 (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania) along with Croatia in 2013, where infrastructure has been upgraded and extended in the wake of their joining through the part EU-funded ‘acquis’ procedure. In many cases spending has fallen over the past two decades in the other eastern European countries, with the exception of those who are seeking to join the EU.  Norway and Switzerland have adopted the EU’s standards. The most pertinent EU directives are summarised in Table 1.6.

16 

D. Lloyd Owen

Table 1.6   The principal EU water and wastewater-related directives Name of directive Code

Comments

1991/271 All towns with more than 2000 population equivalent to have their sewage discharges treated to at least secondary standard, with higher standards for ‘sensitive waters’. Water Framework 2000/219 All inland waters to be of ‘good ecological quality’ by 2027. From 2010, water and wastewater services are meant to be charged on cost recovery, partly to fund the compliance work and also to encourage water use conservation. Groundwater 2003/550 Threshold levels for ‘good chemical quality’ to be met through outlawing the discharge of certain substances and instigating clean-up programmes to improve groundwater quality. This directive is currently under revision. Marine 2005/393 Targets for the ‘good environmental status’ of Environment European coastal waters, with compliance by 2021. Drinking Water 1998/83 WHO standards are used as standards, with broad compliance. A revised directive is under development. Landfill 1991/102 The disposal of sewage sludges at landfill is being restricted, with a 65% reduction in biodegradable wastes as a proportion of the amount landfilled in 1995. Waste 1998/558 Emission standards for all waste sent to Incineration incineration, including sewage sludges, with more controls on discharges to soil, surface water and groundwater. Sewage Sludge 1986/278 The application of sewage sludges to agricultural land is regulated so as to ensure that heavy metals and other contaminants in the soil do not exceed set levels. Bathing Water 1976/160 The original directive, with compliance levels: Mandatory and Guideline; meeting the latter requires ending the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea. 2003/581 Higher standards and real-time monitoring. The Bathing Water ‘sufficient’ standard, broadly equivalent to the (revised Guideline applying since 2015, and a new Good directive) standard from 2023. Urban Wastewater

(continued)

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

17

Table 1.6 (continued) Name of directive Code IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control)

Comments

1993/423 All factories and other installations will have to meet existing environmental standards, with individual operating permits required for discharging materials into the environment.

Source: Author, based on original EU directives as codified

Table 1.7   WHO definitions of physical access Level of access No access Basic access Intermediate access Optimal access

Litres per cap/ day

Health risks

5

Very high

30 minutes round trip One tap in or near house

20

High

50

Low

Two or more taps in house

100–200

Very low

Adapted from WHO (2004)

1.8 Access to Safe Water and Sanitation Access to water and sanitation refers to the distance to these services, their quality and safety, and their seasonal availability. Safe drinking water means that it meets the World Health Organization’s 2011 ‘guidelines’ for drinking water quality. Increased connections to sewerage networks will have an impact as traditional urban sewerage requires a minimum water input to flush solids through the network to the mains and their final destination. The degree of access affects the amount of water people can obtain. In Jinja, Uganda, people with communal springs, handpumps or standposts used 16 litres a day, against 50 for an in-compound yard tap and 155 for household taps (WELL 1998). The UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 will also increase domestic water consumption as shown in Table  1.7, moving from basic to intermediate access assumes a 150% increase in access to water.

18 

D. Lloyd Owen

1.9 International Initiatives ‘Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene’ The UN’s water and sanitation Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6.1–6.3) are their third attempt to realise universal access to water and sanitation. The two previous initiatives—the International Decade for Clean Drinking Water (1981–90—universal access to clean water and sanitation) and the Water & Sanitation Millennium Development Goals target 7C (2000–15—to halve the number of people without access to ‘improved’ water or sanitation)—were partially realised due to limited funding being available as well as the capacity to deliver the necessary projects. Approximately 2.8 billion people gained improved water access between 1981 and 2015 (1.2 billion in 1981–90 and 1.6 billion in 2000–15) but population growth of 2.8 billion over the same period meant the numbers without access remained unchanged.

1.9.1 The Sustainable Development Goals In 2015 (United Nations, 2015), the United Nations unveiled its 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 6 seeks to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. SDG 6 includes: [6.1] universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all; [6.2] access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations; [6.3] improve inland water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimising the release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing water recycling and safe reuse globally. SDG 6.1.6–6.3 aims for universal access to safe drinking water and at least basic sanitation and safe faecal management by 2030, covering both those who do not currently have this level of access and the impact of population growth and urbanisation by 2030. It is in essence a return to the 2000 World Water Vision (WWV, Cosgrove and Rijsbnerman 2000)

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

19

which sought universal safe water and sanitation coverage by 2025. Despite the Camdessus Report’s publication in 2003 (Winpenny 2003) the WWV was not built on at the time in part due to the poor quality of information about infrastructure and funding costs at the time (ERM 2003). The population of the 140 countries highlighted by the Hutton and Varughese’s 2016 (Hutton and Varughese 2016) cost evaluation on SDG 6 for the World Bank is set to rise from 6.12 billion in 2015 to 7.14 billion by 2030. Using the WHO’s revised criteria, by 2030, 2.29 billion people will need their water access to improve from unsafe to safe and a further 2.24 billion from basic to safe. For sanitation, 2.61 billion will need sanitation access to improve from unsafe/none to safe while a further 3.16 billion will have only basic access. In these countries, the author estimates that 2.42 billion urban dwellers (81%) currently do not have their sewage treated to at least secondary level. The World Bank’s Water Global Practice (WGP, Winpenny et al. 2017) notes that as SDG  6 is “much more ambitious” than the Millennium Development Goals, developing countries “face enormous challenges” concluding that “ODA falls woefully short of the amounts needed to attain the Water SDG”. WGP notes a total of $13 billion pa for ODA-­ related financing in water, including $5.7 billion pa for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). The United Nations’ ‘Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water’ (GLAAS) for 2017 adds that government spending on water and sanitation projects in developing economies rose by 4.9% per annum between 2013 and 2016, which is significantly below the growth needed to finance SDG  6 (WHO/UN Water 2017). The United Nations–World Health Organization Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) published its 2015 survey in 2017 (JMP 2017a, b). The 2012 World Health Organization and UNICEF JMP report announced that the water target for the Millennium Development Goals, of halving the proportion without access to improved supplies, has been met a full five years ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, ‘improved’ does not necessarily mean ‘safe’, let alone ‘potable’, which is bad for the 1.7–3.5 billion people worldwide who still do not appear to have access to the latter. This is a laudable achievement, but one which needs to be placed

20 

D. Lloyd Owen

within its broader context. Meanwhile, meeting the same target for sanitation remains ‘decades away’ (JMP 2012). In 2010, the JMP estimates that 780 million people lacked improved water and 2.5 billion lacked improved sanitation, numbers which were forecast to fall to 605 million and 2.4 billion respectively by 2015. Public trust in ‘improved’ water appears to be low, given that the JMP notes that 228 million people with household tap water who rely on bottled water for domestic consumption and that the number of urban dwellers relying on bottled water rose from 26 million to 192 million between 1990 and 2010, net of the bottled water–reliant, urban household access fell from 79% to 73% between 1990 and 2010. The 2012 JMP report for 2010 was based on 1982 sources, compared with 3408  in 2015 for the 2017 assessment. Data for access to water services was available for 99% of the global population, available when needed (at least 12 hours per day) for 41% and free from contamination (E. Coli or thermotolerant coliforms) for 46%. Although data for urban wastewater treatment was available for 88% of the global population, this covered only 2% of the sub-Saharan African population (JMP 2017a). On current forecasts (JMP 2017a), for the countries with less than 95% access to basic water services, on the annual rate of change seen in 2000–15, 10 countries are set to see access decline by 2030, 68 will not achieve universal access by 2030 and 16 will meet the SDG. Progress for sanitation coverage is worse than for water for countries with less than 95% access to basic services; on the annual rate of change seen in 2000–15, 20 countries are set to see access decline by 2030, 89 will not achieve universal access by 2030 and 14 will meet the SDG. Tables 1.8 and 1.9 compare the standards of access as defined in the MDGs and SDGs. The scale of the change in water use implied here is shown by the current level of ‘safe’ drinking water access. Until 2017, the JMP used access to ‘improved’ water and sanitation as their benchmark. From 2017, this has been changed to access to ‘safe’ water and sanitation (JMP 2017a). According to the UN/WHO (JMP 2015) 98% of people in developed countries have household piped water supplies, against 72% in developing countries and 32% in the least developed countries. In 2015, 82% of people have access to ‘improved’ sanitation and 96% ‘improved’ drinking

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

21

Table 1.8   The water MDG and SDG ladders compared Millennium Development Goal 7c

Sustainable Development Goal 6.1

Safe: Water that is free from contamination and readily available at the household level. Basic: Within 30 minutes of access to an Basic: Within 30 minutes of access improved water source. This includes to an improved water source. This piped water (household or yard and includes piped water (household further away), boreholes, protected or yard and further away), wells and springs, rainwater and boreholes, protected wells and packaged and delivered water. springs, and rainwater. Limited: More than 30 minutes Limited: More than 30 minutes from an from an improved water source. improved water source. Unimproved: Reliant on unimproved Unimproved: Reliant on wells or springs. unimproved wells or springs or surface water, and bottled (packaged) and delivered (tankered) water. Surface water: Reliant on surface water Adapted from JMP (2017a) Table 1.9   The sanitation MDG and SDG ladders compared Millennium Development Goal 7c

Sustainable Development Goal 6.2

Improved: Flush/pour-flush lavatories (with sewerage or septic tanks), composting lavatories and improved pit latrines. Shared: Improved facilities shared by or more households. Unimproved: Open pits, hanging and bucket latrines and flush/pour-flush units without sewerage or septic tanks. Open defecation

Safe: Private improved facilities where all faeces is safely disposed of or removed. Lavatories have a hand washing facility. Basic: Improved private flush/pour-flush lavatories (with sewerage or septic tanks), composting lavatories and improved pit latrines. Limited: Improved facilities shared by or more households. Unimproved: Open pits, hanging and bucket latrines and flush/pour-flush units without sewerage or septic tanks. No service: Open defecation

Adapted from JMP (2017a)

water in urban areas and 68% to ‘improved’ sanitation and 91% ‘improved’ drinking water globally. An analysis of the 2010 JMP data

22 

D. Lloyd Owen

Table 1.10   Access to safe water worldwide in 2010 Water supplies

Million people

Range

Low sanitary risk ‘safe’ Elevated sanitary risk Unsafe Unknown safety Unimproved No data Global total

3180 1260 1020 380 780 300 6900

2510–3220 740–2130 746–1610 380 780 300

Adapted from Onda et al. (2012) Table 1.11   Percentage of people without safe drinking water

MDG ‘unimproved’ Unsafe (water quality) Unsafe (water and sanitary risk)

2000 Actual (%)

2010 Actual (%)

2015 Projected (%)

2015 Target (%)

23 37 53

12 28 42

9 26 46

12 18 26

Adapted from Onda et al. (2012)

highlights the difference between ‘improved’ and what is in fact ‘safe’ drinking water (Onda et al. 2012). This is summarised in Table 1.10. In 2010, 1.8–3.7 billion people did not have access to safe drinking water. While the 2000 Millennium Development Goal of halving the percentage of people without access to ‘improved’ drinking water by 2015 was met, this is not the case for access to safe drinking water. The data is a global figure and was not broken down to the urban and rural levels. It was also evident that while the basic MDG targets were to be met, there would be a significant shortfall for the core targets (Table 1.11). Access to safe water to some extent depends on access to safe sanitation. Without the latter, water supplies can be compromised if exposed to ‘elevated sanitary risk’ as noted above. Onda et al. (2012) also estimate that 4.1 billion people worldwide have unsafe sanitation rather than 2.6 billion with ‘unimproved’ sanitation. In urban areas, there is also a link between safe access to water and sanitation and access to household piped water and sewage treatment, as demonstrated by 670 million people being classified as lacking safe sanitation although they have household sewerage.

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

23

Table 1.12   People without access to safe water and sanitation worldwide (billion) Basic water 2000 2015 Safe water 2000 2015 Water piped to premises 2000 2015 Basic sanitation 2000 2015 Safe sanitation 2000 2015 Household sewerage 2000 2015

Urban

Rural

Total

0.14 0.20

1.01 0.68

1.16 1.10

0.43 0.60

1.92 1.52

2.39 2.13

0.43 0.67

2.21 1.99

2.64 2.65

0.58 0.67

1.95 1.69

2.51 2.35

1.90 2.26

2.47 2.20

4.35 4.48

1.21 1.59

2.99 3.08

4.17 4.70

Adapted from JMP (2017b)

In 2017, JMP’s data was rebased to focus on ‘safe’ rather than ‘improved’ access. ‘Basic’ access is broadly comparable with ‘improved’ access (JMP 2017a). These figures are in broad agreement with the estimates generated by Onda et al. (2012) with the difference that they will be broadly adopted and will refocus attention on the scale of those without access. As seen in Table 1.12, the scale of those without suitable access to water and sanitation was significantly higher than previously assumed. To meet SDG 6 in the 140 countries highlighted by the World Bank (Hutton and Varughese 2016) will cost $43.1 billion pa for water and $69.4 billion pa for sanitation between 2016 and 2030, compared with capital spending current levels, estimated at $16 billion pa (Tremolet, personal communication, 2017).

1.9.2 Access Can Depend on Seasons Households may switch water supplies by season, for example, using rainwater during wet periods and municipally provided water during

24 

D. Lloyd Owen

drier periods. Subject to its correct handling, rainwater can be as safe as potable tap water. In contrast, areas which are subject to flooding or heavy rainfall may result in periods of poor access to sanitation along with impaired faecal sludge management (Jewitt et al. 2018)

1.10 P  otable or Safe Water Standards: The World Health Organization The World Health Organization sets standards for drinking water quality and in relation to its effect upon human health. The WHO states that “all people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water”. In 1958, the WHO published ‘International Standards for Drinking-Water’, outlining its water quality recommendations. This evolved into the 1984 publication ‘Guidelines for Drinking-­ Water Quality’ (GDWQ), a fourth edition being published in 2011. An Addendum was incorporated into the Guidelines in 2017 (WHO 2017) and a fifth edition is planned for 2021. Changes in the fourth edition concentrate on lead and arsenic in drinking water, along with the need to address bacterial contamination. Table  1.13 compares the number of drinking water parameters used by the WHO with other countries. Between 1970 and 2000, the World Health Organization found that 35 new waterborne pathogens have been recognised or found to be re-­ emerging, ranging from new varieties of hepatitis to Ebola fever and legionnaires’ disease (WHO 2003). Adoption of standards, even when legally enforceable, is distinct from their effective enforcement. According to Qu et al. (2012), China is the first developing country to adopt enforceable drinking water standards. In India, 16 of the values can be relaxed where no alternative water supplies are available (BIS 2012).

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access  Table 1.13   Drinking water quality parameters

WHO European Union USA China Japan India

25

Year

Parameters

2011 2003 2002 2012 2004 2012

155 48 88 106 50 62

Adapted from Qu (2012)

Case Study: Flint—Neither Managed Nor Monitored In April 2014, the city of Flint in the USA switched its water resource abstraction from Lake Huron to the Flint River to cut abstraction costs. That October, General Motors’ Flint car factory started abstraction of water from Lake Huron via a neighbouring town. GM stated that the Flint River water was corroding metal components. In January 2015, the city advised people that its water may be unhealthy for the elderly and children. Between February and June, tests by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at one household found lead levels in drinking water rising from 104 ppb to a peak of 13,200 ppb. Attempts to return to using Lake Huron water are overruled. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality states that the problem is a localised one, but in August it advised the city to optimise corrosion controls and Virginia Tech stated that corrosive water is releasing lead from the city’s pipes. Supplies from Lake Huron were reinstated in October but by December the city declared a state of emergency. This is a notable combination of poor management, inadequate monitoring and false economies. Instead of saving $4 million by switching water supplies, $55–97 million is being spent replacing lead pipes that performed adequately with the less plumbosolvent water from Lake Huron. From January 2016 to April 2018, bottled water was issued to people in the city at further cost. The long-term cost of dealing with elevated blood lead levels in children in the city is harder to quantify. Switching to a new water supply without considering its water properties was negligent, as was the lack of monitoring. Indeed, city-wide monitoring started only in 2016 with 633 properties sampled in the first six months for lead (Ruckart et al. 2019).

26 

D. Lloyd Owen

1.11 Water Availability The water cycle operates in three geographic areas. (1) Closed land regions (30 million  Km2) are where water stays within the river basin until it evaporates. There is a balance between rainfall and evaporation, of 9000 Km3 per annum. (2) The open land regions (119 million Km2) are areas with exoreic runoff, generally to the sea. These areas have more rainfall (110,000  Km3 each year) than evaporation (65,200  Km3 each year) with the remaining 44,800 Km3 flowing through rivers (42,600 Km3) or as underground recharge and runoff (2,200 Km3). (3) Finally there are the oceans (361 million  Km2) with evaporation of 502,800  Km3 and precipitation of 458,000  Km3 with the rest falling as surplus rainfall on land.

1.11.1 Renewable Water Resources Renewable water resources are the 42,600  Km3 per  annum that flow through the rivers, along with groundwater recharge of 2,200  Km3 per  annum. These can vary by 15–25% with, for example, drier than usual years worldwide in 1940–44, 1965–68 and 1977–79 and wetter years in 1926–27, 1949–52 and 1973–77 (Gleick 1993). Of the 42,600 Km3 annual river flows, 20,426 Km3 is lost as surface runoff in floods (the South Asian monsoon, for example), while 7774 Km3 flows through remote rivers, chiefly in inaccessible parts of the Amazon and Congo and also the northern coasts Europe and America. This leaves a net year-long, usable and accessible water input of approximately 14,100 Km3, or the basic runoff (Postel et al. 1996). This compares with an annual abstraction of 3829  km3 as estimated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for 2000 (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (2007)), with 73.4% of water withdrawals in 2000 being from surface waters, against 19.0% from groundwater, 4.8% from drainage water, 2.4% from wastewater reuse and 0.3% via desalination. In 2000, 2810  Km3 of surface water was withdrawn or 20% of accessible resources.

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

27

Rainfall varies by season as well as by place. Most continents have a wet season, broadly being in April to June for Europe and South America, June to October in Asia, May to August in Africa and January to April in Oceania. Asia, for example, has 35.8% of global river runoff, 59.6% of the world’s population and 62.1% of water abstractions, while South America has 25.6% of global river runoff, 8.4% of the population and 6.9% of water abstraction (Postel et al. 1996; UN DESA 2009). In Asia, 80% of runoff takes place between May and October, accounting for much of the flood losses.

1.11.2 Water Stress and Scarcity Water stress is defined as internally renewable water resources of 1000–1700  M3 per person per  annum and scarcity as being below 1000 M3 per annum, with a recently adopted extreme scarcity category at below 500  M3 per  annum (Falkenmark and Lindh 1976, 1993). According to the United Nations, water stress occurs when more than 10% of renewable freshwater resources are consumed. The European Environment Agency sees water stress starting at 20% of renewable resources being abstracted annually rising to severe stress when abstraction exceeds 40% (EA/NRW 2013). Countries with severe water stress often have to rely on non-renewable groundwater supplies or desalination. Increasingly, water reuse is also being adopted. Table 1.14 outlines the various levels of water stress. Definitions tend to vary by location. The European Environmental Agency regards Europe’s water as being ‘relatively abundant’, with a 13% abstraction rate. A 30% abstraction rate in Spain includes abstraction rates of over 100% in Andalusia and Segura, where the excess has to be made up through river transfers and desalination, along with rivers failing to reach the sea during dry periods. In Denmark, the European Environment Agency (EEA) reporting process states that all of Denmark’s groundwater is vulnerable to over-­abstraction and that it is vulnerable to temporary shortages, with 9.1% of renewable resources abstracted. Yet at 1092 M3 of water per capita

28 

D. Lloyd Owen

Table 1.14  Water stress: water consumption as a percentage of runoff in a country 0–5% 5–10% 10–20% 20–40% 40–100% 100%+

No problems (Norway, 0.7%, and Botswana, 1.4%) Local shortages possible (Denmark, 9.1%, and Vietnam, 8.9%) Problematic—local investment needed (Germany, 19.5%, and Burundi, 11.1%) National responses needed (Japan, 20.2%, and China, 20.2%) Desalination and water reuse necessary (Singapore, 94.5%, and Egypt, 88.9%) Dependent on non-renewable resources (Kuwait, 3,358%)

Adapted from Falkenmark M and Lindh G (1993) with author’s data

Table 1.15   Water scarcity: internal renewable resources Internal renewable resources (M3 per capita pa) No stress Stress Scarcity Extreme scarcity

>1700 1000–1700 500–1000 0.4 1700 1000–1700 0.4

1000–1700

1.80

1.10

1.10

1.10

3.90

1.60

0.2–0.4

0.4

0.2

or 40

% of global population

% of global GDP

GDP/ population

2010

2050

2010

2050

2010

2050

46 18 36

32 16 52

59 16 22

30 25 45

1.28 0.87 0.61

0.94 1.56 0.87

Adapted from Veolia Water (2011)

By combining both measures a broader view of water stress and scarcity is obtained as well as an appreciation about the pace with which exposure to these concerns has developed over the past century. With continued population growth since 2005, under both of the measures adopted by Kummu et al. (2010, 2016), a majority of the world’s population is now exposed to some degree of water supply constraint and this proportion is set to grow. The areas where economic development is growing the fastest are also those which are becoming the most water stressed. Here is the summary of research carried out by Veolia Water looking at the need for water efficiency by comparing the share of global water and economic activity (Table 1.18). While 32% of people living in OECD countries had no or low water stress in 2005 against 37% for the BRIC countries, 30% of those in the OECD are forecast to experience low or no stress by 2030 against 20% for the BRICS (OECD 2008). In contrast, severe stress in the OECD is forecast to rise slightly from 35% to 38%, while advancing in the BRICS from 56% to 62% during this period. Indeed, none of the developed/ OECD countries have more than 100% consumption.

1.12 The Impact of Climate Change The impact of climate change is likely to be felt through extra infrastructure being needed to manage a greater degree in variation of water demand and resources as well as greater flood resilience. A forecast two to

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

31

seven billion people are facing absolute water scarcity by 2075, according to a series of climate scenarios (Falkenmark et al. 2007). Willett (2007) notes that between 1973 and 1999 a significant global increase of humidity in the atmosphere was primarily due to human activity. Such a trend is set to influence where and how heavily rain falls. Warmer rivers and streams hold less dissolved oxygen and are more vulnerable to nutrient loadings. In the uplands of Northern England, the past two decades have seen a shift towards heavy winter rainfall and an “almost complete absence of heavy summer rainfall”, which was “in marked contrast to the patterns seen in lowland areas” (Burt and Ferranti 2011). Globally, daily rainfall extremes have risen by 1–2% a decade since the 1950s (Donat et al. 2016) reflecting the increased amount of water vapour in the atmosphere because of rising temperatures. Projections point to more rainfall and river runoff in high latitudes and the tropics and less rainfall and river runoff in sub-tropical and other regions, increasing the dry areas. Globally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that by 2050 twice the land area will be subject to reduced precipitation than increased precipitation as a consequence of climate change. The shift towards more varied and extreme rainfall seen over the last century will increase and rising water temperatures will continue. Forecasts for water stress in high latitudes are ‘very likely’ to be reduced by climate change (IPCC 2008).

1.12.1 O  bserved and Predicted Impacts of Climate Change on Water Management The chief impact is the exacerbation of pressures on water resources and their management due to an increasing variability in the amount, intensity and frequency of rainfall, in particular more frequent and intense rainfall patterns. Dry areas are experiencing less rainfall while wet areas are experiencing more rainfall. In wetter areas, greater variability in rainfall patterns can result in short-term shortages.

32 

D. Lloyd Owen

Higher frequency of extreme drought events is already being experienced in dry regions. In addition, the increase in water demand has exacerbated the impact of droughts. More rainfall is expected at higher latitudes. Higher rainfall in East Africa, South and Central Asia, northern and western China, and the coast of Latin America. Most of the Americas, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, along with parts of north and central China, will have less rainfall. Water and wastewater treatment plants will need to be adapted to deal with a greater variation of input rates. This is especially the case for smaller plants. Inland waters are more vulnerable to over-abstraction and pollutant build-up where overall rainfall decreases. In contrast, heavier rainfall increases runoff into inland waterways, which raises turbidity, pollutant and nutrient loading. These can also in turn flush out build-ups of nutrients and sediment. Inland waters will be warmer and therefore less able to absorb oxygen and less able to tolerate nutrient build-ups. This may in part be ameliorated where rainfall rises. Also, biological treatment is more effective when water is warmer. Increase in forestry productivity and agricultural productivity in certain areas, with increased irrigation water demand as a result. Decreased food security in Africa and Asia. For each degree of global warming, some 7% of the population will have 20% less renewable water resources. Increased need for storm sewerage systems and separate storm and foul water systems to deal with extreme rainfall. Snowmelt discharge is occurring earlier in the spring and discharges from glaciers will rise for the next few decades and will peak earlier in the year. In the longer term, runoff will decrease. The current and future increase in frequency and magnitude of floods is in part due to climate change, although evidence of the linkage is limited due to poor historic data. Adapted from IPCC (2008) and (2014)

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

33

Table 1.19   The impact of climate change by 2050–85 1 °C 2 °C

3 °C

4 °C 5 °C

50 million affected by loss of Andean glaciers 20–30% decrease in rainfall in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean 10–20% increase in rainfall in Northern Europe and South Asia Southern Europe has serious droughts every 10 years 1–4 billion people exposed to water shortages (ME and Africa) 1–5 billion people face greater flood risk (S and E Asia) 30–50% decrease in rainfall in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean 750 million affected by loss of Himalayan glaciers

Adapted from Stern (2007)

Increasing temperatures intensify water demand, especially for irrigation agriculture and through human activities such as watering gardens and using swimming pools, and the need for cooling water for electric power and industrial plants. Changing seasonal patterns of precipitation also modify demands for irrigation, particularly in regions with soils of low water storage capacity. Between 1994 and 2006, there has been an 18% rise in water discharge into oceans from rivers and glaciers, or a 1.5% per annum rise in runoff. This may be due to higher evaporation from the oceans, increasing the intensity of the water cycle (Syed et al. 2010). These indications of higher temperatures above the oceans mean faster evaporation (and more rain in general, but not necessarily on land) and more storms. Stern (2007) considers the forecast impact of climate change between 2050 and 2085  in terms of what happens at each degree Celsius rise (Table 1.18). Putting these into context, the Paris Agreement of 2015 seeks to limit the rise to 2 °C by 2050 (UN FCCC 2015) as shown in Table 1.19. In the UK, the core range of forecasts (on the low emissions scenario), summer rainfall is forecast to fall by 1–15% by 2025 and winter rainfall to rise by 3–13%, with somewhat larger changes for the higher emissions scenarios (DEFRA 2009).

34 

D. Lloyd Owen

Utilities need to be able to respond to climate change through adaptive measures that can be deployed on a consistent basis over several decades. This is best carried out alongside measures designed to restore natural ecosystem resilience and agricultural efficiency through an Integrated Water Resource Management plans (IPCC 2014).

1.13 Conclusions This chapter ought not to be needed. That it is necessary to restate the arguments above reflects the gap between good intentions at the multilateral level, ranging from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals to the WHO’s drinking water guidelines and the EU’s suite of public health and environmental directives and national and local political realities. It is evident that a sufficient case for universal access to safe and sustainable water and sanitation can be made on economic as well as moral, public health and environmental grounds. While it has been internationally accepted for some decades, there is an evident difference between the ambitions unveiled at global gatherings and the dirtier realities humanity endures.

References Alleman, J.  E. (2005) The Genesis and Evolution of Activate Sludge Technology. http://www.elmhurst.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=301, accessed 20th May 2011 Angelakis, A. N. & Rose, J. B. (2014) Evolution of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies through the Centuries. IWA Publishing, London, UK Armstrong, E.  L. ed. (1976) History of Public Works in the United States, 1776–1976. American Public Works Association, Chicago, USA Ashton, C. (2010) Declaration by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on behalf of the EU to commemorate the World Water Day, 22nd March 2010. EU doc 7810/10

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

35

Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010) Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water: Forgotten Foundations of Health. PLoS Med, 7(11), e1000367. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000367 Barty-King, H. (1992) Water; The Book. Quiller Press, London, UK Beder, S. (1997) Technological Paradigms: The Case of Sewerage Engineering. Technology Studies, 4 (2), 167–188 Bell, F. & Millward, R. (1998) Public Health Expenditures and Mortality in England and Wales, 1870–1914. Continuity and Change, 13 (2), 221–49. BIS (2012) Indian Standard, Drinking Water—Specification, Second Revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India Bleakley, H. (2007). Disease and Development: Evidence from Hookworm Eradication in the American South. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(1), 73–117 British Medical Journal (2007) Medical Milestones Supplement. British Medical Journal, 344 (1), 1–22. Bryer, H. (2006) England and France in the Nineteenth Century. Issue Note commissioned for HDR 2006. Burt, T. P. & Ferranti, E. J. S. (2011) Changing patterns of heavy rainfall in upland areas: a case study from northern England. International Journal of Climatology, 32: 518–532 https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2287 CAWAA—Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (2007) Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK and International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka Cook, G. C. (2001) Construction of London’s Victorian sewers: the vital role of Joseph Bazalgette. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 77, 802–904 Cosgrove, W.  J. & Rijsbnerman, F.  R. (2000). World Water Vision: Making Water Everybody’s Business. WWC, Earthscan, UK. In addition, 18 regional documents were published in 1999. Defra (2009) UK Climate Change Projections 2009—planning for our future climate. Defra, London, UK De Silva, S.  S. (1988) Reservoirs of Sri Lanka and their Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy Devoto, F. et al. (2009) Household Water Connections in Tangier, Morocco. Poverty Action Lab, MIT, USA. http://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/household-water-connections-tangier-morocco, accessed 2nd February 2011

36 

D. Lloyd Owen

Donat, M.  G., Lowry, A.  L., Alexander, L.  V., O’Gorman, P.  A. & Maher, N. (2016) More extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions. Nature Climate Change, 10.1038 /nclimate2941, 7th March. EA/NRW (2013) Water stressed areas, final classification. Environment Agency / Natural Resources Wales, Bristol, UK Environmental Resources Management (2003) The European Union Water Initiative: Final Report of the Financial Component, ERM, London, 2003 EU (2009) Resolution n° 1693/2009 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Falkenmark, M., Berntell, A., Jagerskog, A., Lundqvist, J., Matz, M. & Tropp, H. (2007) On the Verge of a New Water Scarcity: A Call for Good Governance and Human Ingenuity. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI, Stockholm, Sweden Falkenmark, M. & Lindh, G. (1976) Water for a starving world. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA Falkenmark, M. & Lindh, G. (1993) Water and economic development. In: Gleick P.  H. (ed.), Water in Crisis (80–91). Oxford University Press, New York, USA Galiani, S., Gertler, P. & Schargrodsky, E. (2005) Water for Life: The Impact of the Privatization of Water Services on Child Mortality. Journal of Political Economy, 113, 83–120 Gleick, P. H. ed. (1993) Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. Oxford University Press, New York, USA Gray, H.  F. (1940) Sewerage in ancient and mediaeval times. Sewage Works Journal, 12, 939–946 Halliday, S. (1999) The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the cleansing of the Victorian metropolis. Sutton Publishing Limited, London, UK Hassan, J. A. (1985) The Growth and Impact of the British Water Industry in the Nineteenth Century. The Economic History Review New Series, 38 (4), 531–47 Howard-Jones, N. (1984) Robert Koch and the cholera vibrio: a centenary. British Medical Journal, 288, 379–381 Howard, G. & Bartram, J. (2003) Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland Huismann, L. & Wood, E. (1974) Slow sand filtration. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

37

Human Development Report 2006 (2006) Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis. United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, New York, USA Hutton, G. (2012) Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to reach the MDG target and universal coverage. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland Hutton, G. & Haller, L. (2004) Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Investing Hutton, G, Rodriguez, U.  E., Napitupulu, L., Thang, P. & Kov, P. (2008) Economic impacts of sanitation in Southeast Asia. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA Hutton, G. & Varughese, M. (2016) The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. World Bank, Washington DC, USA IPCC (2008) Climate change and water: IPCC Technical Paper IV.  IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland IPCC (2014) Jiménez Cisneros, B.  E., Oki, T., Arnell, N.  W., Benito, G., Cogley, J.  G., Döll, P., Jiang, T., and Mwakalila, S.  S., (2014) Freshwater resources. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C. B., et al., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA Jewitt, S., Mahanta A. & Gaur, K. (2018) Sanitation sustainability, seasonality and stacking: Improved facilities for how long, where and whom? The Geographical Journal, 184, 255–268 JMP (2012) Progress on Drinking-water and Sanitation 2010 update. WHO/ UNICEF, Geneva, Switzerland JMP (2015) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. UNICEF/WHO, Geneva, Switzerland JMP (2017a) Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2015 Updated and SDG Baselines, Main Report. JMP UNICEF/WHO, Geneva, Switzerland JMP (2017b) Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2015 Updated and SDG Baselines. Annexes JMP UNICEF/WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

38 

D. Lloyd Owen

Jones, D. E. Jr. (1967) Urban hydrology—a redirection. Civil Engineering, 37 (8), 58–62. JP Morgan Chase & Co (2008) The History of JP Morgan Chase & Co. Koch, R. (1884) An address on cholera and its bacillus. Delivered before the Imperial Board of Health at Berlin. BMJ, 2, 403–407, 30th August Kov, P., Sok, H., Roth, S., Choeun, K. & Hutton, G. (2008) Economic impacts of sanitation in Cambodia, World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA Krupa, F. (1991) Paris: urban sanitation before the 20th century. www.op. net/~uarts/krupa/alltextparis.html Kummu, M. et al. (2010) Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environmental Research Letters, 5, 034006 Kummu, M. et al. (2016) The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability. Scientific Reports, 6, 1–16 LIXIL (2016) The true cost of poor sanitation. LIXIL, Tokyo, Japan Maner, A. W. (1966) Public works in ancient Mesopotamia. Civil Engineering, 36 (7), 50–51. Metcalfe, L. & Eddy, H. P. (1928) Design of Sewers. 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA Napitupulu, L. & Hutton, G. (2008) Economic impacts of sanitation in Indonesia, World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington DC, USA OECD (2008) OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. OECD, Paris, France Ofwat (2017) PN 13/17: Water companies must do more to address customer bad debt. Ofwat, Birmingham, UK Oleson, J. P. (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Onda, K., LoBuglio, J. & Bartram, J. (2012) Global Access to Safe Water: Accounting for Water Quality and the Resulting Impact on MDG Progress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 880–894 Postel, S. L., Gretchen, C. D. & Ehrlich, P. R. (1996) Human Appropriation of Renewable Fresh Water. Science, 271, 785–788, 9th February Prüss-Üstün, A., Bos, R., Gore, F. & Bartram, J. (2008) Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. World Health Organization, Geneva Switzerland

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

39

Prüss-Üstün, A., Wolf, J.  Corvalán, C.  F., Bos, R.  V. & Neira, M.  P. (2016) Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland Qu, W., et al, (2012) China’s new national standard for drinking water takes effect. The Lancet, 380, e8, 3rd November Reid, D. (1991) Paris sewers and sewermen. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA Rodriguez, U. E., Jamora, N. & Hutton, G. (2008) Economic impacts of sanitation in the Philippines. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington DC, USA RSOSD (1908) Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. Fifth Report, Methods of Treating and Disposing of Sewage. HMSO, London, UK RSOSD (1912) Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. Eighth Report, standards and tests for sewage and sewage effluents and discharging into rivers and streams. HMSO, London, UK Ruckart, P. Z. et al, (2019) The Flint Water Crisis: A Coordinated Public Health Emergency Response and Recovery Initiative. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 25 (1), S84–S90 Shapin, S. (2006) Sick City. The New Yorker, 6th November Sidwick, J. M. (1976) A Brief History of Sewage Treatment. Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, 16, 193–199. Simon, P. (2008) The big stench that saved London. 150 years ago, Victorian genius solved a stinker of a problem. Now the work needs to be finished. The Times, 17th June. Simpson, J. (1838) Filtration of Thames Water at the Chelsea Waterworks, The Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, 1838, 15, 392. Smets, H. (2008) De l’eau potable a un prix abordable: la pratique des Etats. Académie de l’Eau, Paris, France Solomon, S. (2010) Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization. Harper Collins, New York, USA Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cabinet Office—HM Treasury, London, UK Syed, T.  H., Famiglietti, J.  S., Chambers, D.  P., Willis, J.  K., & Hilburn, K. (2010) Satellite-based global-ocean mass balance estimates of interannual variability and emerging trends in continental freshwater discharge. www. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1003292107

40 

D. Lloyd Owen

Szreter, S. (1997) Economic Growth, Disruption, Deprivation, Disease, and Death: On the Importance of the Politics of Public Health for Development. Population and Development Review, 23 (4), 693–728. Thang, P., Tuan, H., Hang, N. & Hutton, G. (2008) Economic impacts of sanitation in Vietnam, World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program. World Bank, Washington DC, USA Tremolet, S. (2011) Is water connection the key to happiness? 19th January 2011 blog entry on Tremolet.com UN DESA—UN Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009) World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. UN, New York, USA UN FCCC (2015) Conference of the Parties, Twenty-first session, Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/L9 UN Human Rights Council (2010a) Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque. UN, General Assembly A/HRC/15/31, 29 June 2010, UN, New York, USA UN Human Rights Council (2010b) The Right to Water. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1, 21 October 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, 70/1. United Nations, New York, USA United Nations (2010) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. UN, New York Veolia Water (2011) Finding the Blue Path for A Sustainable Economy. A White paper by Veolia Water. Veolia Water, Chicago, USA Webster, C. (1962) The sewers of Mohenjo-Daro. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 34 (2), 116–123 WELL (1998). Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programmes. WEDC, Loughborough, UK World Health Organization (2003) Emerging Issues in Water and Infectious Disease. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization (2004) Domestic water quantity, service level and health. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization (2011) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Fourth Edition. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

1  The Case for Universal and Sustainable Access 

41

WHO/UN Water (2017) Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS): Financing universal water, sanitation and hygiene under the Sustainable Development Goals. Willett, K. M., et al, (2007) Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence. Nature, 449, 710–712, 11th October. Winpenny, J. (2003) Financing water for all. Report of the World Panel Financing Water Infrastructure, The Camdessus Report. Global Water Partnership/World Water Council/3rd World Water Forum, Marseille, France Winpenny, J., Trémolet, S. & Cardone, R. (2017) Aid Flows to the Water Sector: Overview and Recommendations. World Bank Group, Washington DC, USA Woods, R. I., Watterson, P. A. & Woodward, J. A. (1988) The Causes of Rapid Infant Mortality Decline in England and Wales, 1861–1921. Part I. Population Studies, 42 (3), 343–366. Woods, R. I., Watterson, P. A. & Woodward, J. A. (1989) The Causes of Rapid Infant Mortality Decline in England and Wales, 1861–1921. Part II. Population Studies, 43 (1), 113–132.

2 Where We Are

2.1 Introduction This chapter surveys the current state of water and wastewater service provision from developed and developing world perspectives. The developed world is defined as OECD and/or EU members and Singapore; four in the Americas, five in Asia and Oceania, 31  in Europe, two in the Middle East and North Africa (Israel and Turkey); 42 in total. A database (water and sewerage infrastructure database—WASID) has been developed to provide an overall view of infrastructure development and condition on a country, regional and global level. It will only be summarised in this chapter at the regional level as the entire database is somewhat substantial. A version will be made available to view on the author’s website (www.envisager.co.uk/WASID).

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Lloyd Owen, Global Water Funding, Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49454-4_2

43

44   D. Lloyd Owen

2.2 Data and Data Gaps All countries with a projected population of more than one million by 2050 have been included, along with Iceland and Malta, 169 countries in total. This covers 7374 million of the 2015 global estimate of 7383 million people (UN DESA 2017, 2018). The main database was originally developed by the author for the OECD in 2011 (Lloyd Owen 2011) along with updates in Lloyd Owen (2016). Most of the original country sources are cited in Lloyd Owen (2016). Country water and sanitation data for 2015 is covered to some extent in JMP (2017a, b). This has been supplemented by JMP individual country assessments as of August 2018, along with author estimates for La Reunion, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to disaggregate this data, based upon the most recent detailed survey data available. With one exception, the data uses surveys carried out between 2009 and 2016. Other global data sources included Global Water Markets 2015 (GWI 2015), IB-Net (IB-Net 2018; Danilenko et al. 2014), and the engagingly entitled Global Atlas of Excreta (LeBlanc et al. 2008). The Yale Environmental Performance Index (Hsu et al. 2016) was also used for sewage treatment and safe drinking water with the proviso that the author was in turn one of the lead providers for sewage treatment data. Additional data on NRW was obtained from Ardakanian and Martin-Bordes (2009) and OECD (2016). Regional overviews for Africa, including aggregated country reviews, have been published by AMCOW (2011), Banerjee and Morella (2011), WSP (2011a, b) and van den Berg and Danilenko (2017). World Bank (2018) covers the Middle East and North Africa. For Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the main data overviews are Danube Water Program (2015) country notes, EurEau (2009) and EurEau (2017), European Commission (2016) Fribourg-Blanc (2013) and Williams et al. (2012). Online water and sewage data for Europe and other OECD member states is provided by the OECD (2018) and Eurostat (2018). Population data is based on the UN DESA (2017, 2018) revisions for overall and urban populations respectively, and water shortage and scarcity data is adapted from the World Development Indicators (2017). In many developed countries (including all of the pre-2000 European Union [EU] member states) only household connection

2   Where We Are  Table 2.1   Data availability in the JMP 2015 survey

45

Urban (n = 169)

Yes

No

Water meters Distribution losses Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation At least secondary sewage treatment Rural (n = 167) Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

126 143 136 110 37 78

43 26 36 59 132 91

Yes 152 18 28 81

No 15 149 139 87

Source: Adapted from JMP (2017b)

data is included. In these cases, lack of access to improved services is concerned with poor internal plumbing. Table 2.1 summarises individual country disclosures to the JMP 2015 survey. Seeking to develop a comprehensive water and sewerage infrastructure database highlights the comparative lack of information available. For example, the JMP was not in a position to post data on all reporting countries based on the data provided to them. Where national, rather than segregated urban and rural, data was provided in the JMP process, this is included as non-reporting. Singapore and Hong Kong do not have a rural population. Hong Kong and Singapore have no designated rural inhabitants. Some countries have declined to participate in some aspects of the JMP reporting process. In particular, 19 of the 31 ‘developed’ European countries covered declined to provide urban household connection data. In these cases, household connection data was provided by the OECD and Eurostat. Given the SDG’s aims for universal access to safe water and sanitation, the current near absence of reporting for three out of the four categories has to be of some concern. In contrast, the misleading ‘basic’ access level is widely reported; noted in 158 countries for urban water and 153 for rural, and 151 countries reporting for urban sanitation and 153 for rural. ‘Household’ access to water as well as overall access to improved water needs to be appreciated in context. Household access covers both internal and yard connections and access includes standpipes and other public piped sources. In addition, people who depend on packaged drinking water

46   D. Lloyd Owen

(bottled or sachets) or water delivered in tankers and similar services are classified as enjoying access to ‘improved’ water, despite their having to pay a significant premium for this water while not having effective household access. In the more detailed country reports, house connections are split into (1) piped water into dwelling, (2) piped water into yard/plot, (3) public tap/standpipe and (4) other. In contrast, household sewerage means being used by a single household and can be inside the property or adjoining it.

2.3 A  Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Integrity Index This Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Integrity Index (WASII) was developed to provide an overview of the degree of infrastructure development in urban and rural areas. Overall, it is weighed by the urban–rural population mix. A score of 1.00 would indicate comprehensive and high-­ quality coverage, while a zero score would indicate no coverage. A perfect 1.00 score is in reality unlikely as this would require urban water leakage to be below the unavoidable level of loss (in effect an infrastructure leakage index [ILI] score of 0.0) as well as perfect coverage in all other aspects. Table 2.2 summarises the global WASII scores. For water, this covers access to water inside each household (0–100% access, not yard), access to safe water (0–100% coverage), municipal Table 2.2   WASII: Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Integrity Index Developed

Water

Sewerage

Overall

Urban Rural National

0.85 0.71 0.82

0.85 0.69 0.82

0.85 0.70 0.82

Developing

Water

Sewerage

Overall

Urban Rural National

0.60 0.25 0.42

0.42 0.26 0.34

0.51 0.26 0.38

Global total

Water

Sewerage

Overall

Urban Rural National

0.67 0.29 0.49

0.54 0.29 0.43

0.60 0.29 0.46

Source: WASID

2   Where We Are 

47

NRW (urban only with a zero score for an NRW above 50%) and municipal water metering (urban only, 0–100% coverage). Sanitation is concerned with household access and access to safe sanitation (0–100% coverage) and sewage treated to at least secondary level (urban, 0–100% coverage) or sewage being treated appropriately (rural, 0–100% coverage). There is an evident disparity between service provision in developed and developing economies. While urban scores for developed countries were similar, urban sanitation is noticeably weaker in developing countries, as is the gap between urban and rural provision.

2.4 Levels of Water Access Tables 2.3 and 2.4 and the regional tables that follow are based on the JMP (2018) country-level data for people having access to safe water. Those without access are not included, which, for example, accounts for 64% of rural dwellers living in developing economies. Packaged water includes bottled water, water in sachets and bulk containers. In this case, it is where it is the primary source of drinking water. The percentages do not add up to 100% as they exclude those classified as not having access. So, 54% of rural dwellers in developing countries are not even represented in Table 2.4. It is evident that different levels of household access are more marked in developing economies. This is also the case when comparing regions. A distinction also needs to be made between those who choose to drink bottled water and those who depend on it as a potable source. This will be reconsidered in Chap. 4. Table 2.3   Developed economy household water access Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

1004.2 95 191.9 71

16.9 2 15.5 6

0.6 0 1.5 1

1.5 0 0.8 0

8.6 1 1.3 1

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

48   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.4   Developing economy household water access Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

1807.8 62 586.3 19

201.7 7 163.5 5

137.7 5 255.3 8

96.3 3 46.5 2

157.3 5 65.7 2

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

2.5 Regional Overview: Europe—Developed This consists of the 27 current members of the EU, along with the UK, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland as OECD members. Europe is unique in that its infrastructure development has primarily been driven by compliance with a series of EU environmental and public health directives. These are summarised in Table 2.8. The impact of the EU since 1990 (the Urban Wastewater Treatment, Drinking Water and Bathing Water Directives in particular) has been felt most by the 11 countries that were formerly under Soviet rule or parts of Yugoslavia (Slovenia and Croatia). This region is covered in more detail than other regions because of the high quality of data available, at both the national and regional levels, in particular, due to data collected and made available by the European Environmental Agency and the OECD. This data is summarised in Table 2.5. Poland and Romania also highlight the different levels of access between post-2000 accession states such as Slovenia and Slovakia which have access levels broadly in line with western European countries and those where the effective development of universal services remains some way away. In Table 2.6 lack of access to urban piped water is primarily due to plumbing having been classified as inadequate. Relatively high distribution losses in some countries (Italy, the UK, Romania and Ireland, for instance) are the chief subduing factor for water integrity in Table 2.7. The impact of the accession in developing sewerage and rural services is notable here.

2   Where We Are  Table 2.5   Service summary for Europe—developed Urban Water meters Distribution losses People served Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

90% 22% (million) 390.0 389.7 369.6 370.1 52.0 4.5 67.9 54.7 208.0 330.6

(%) 100 100 95 95 13 1 18 14 44 86

126.8 128.0 94.7 81.1

98 98 73 62

Source: WASID

Table 2.6   Household water access—Europe—developed Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

377.6 96 116.1 89

0.7 0 2.9 2

0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

Table 2.7   Infrastructure Integrity Index—Europe—developed Urban Rural National Source: WASID

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.85 0.82 0.84

0.90 0.76 0.87

0.88 0.79 0.86

49

50   D. Lloyd Owen

Case Study: Succeeding Generations of Sewage Treatment Data on the development and deployment of sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure is outlined in Tables 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. It is provided by the EU (Eurostat) and the OECD. It offers an insight into the time needed to develop comprehensive coverage. Providing the data and reporting it is the individual country’s responsibility and can be variable. The date of joining the EU matters. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands founded it in 1953. Denmark, Ireland and the UK (1973–2020) joined it in 1973 along with Greece in 1981 and Portugal and Spain in 1986. The other members joined after the development of the pertinent Directives: Austria, Finland and Sweden (1995); Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004); Bulgaria and Romania (2007); and finally Croatia in 2013. Norway and Switzerland are formally committed to adopting EU environmental legislation. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) was adopted in 1991 and set various targets for all urban areas to have at least secondary treatment by 2000–2010 with extensions for the Accession States to 2015. Romania had a derogation until 2018 and Croatia has a 2023 compliance deadline. Compliance with the revised Bathing Waters Directive effectively requires at least secondary treatment for urban areas discharging into estuaries. The Water Framework Directive is placing an onus on nutrient removal (advanced tertiary treatment) by 2027.

Table 2.8   Sewage infrastructure development in Northern Europe The Netherlands

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 29 15 –

3 62 8 86

4 74 8 93

79 19 0 98

98 1 0 99

98 1 0 99

Austria

1980

1990

2000

2005

2010

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage only (%) Not connected (%)

3 25 10 27 35

7 60 5 0 28

77 9 0 0 15

83 6 1 1 11

93 1 0 1 6

94 1 0 0 5

Denmark

1970

1985

1990

2000

2010

2014

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%)

0 23

4 58

29 42

83 4

86 2

89 2 (continued)

51

2   Where We Are  Table 2.8 (continued) Denmark

1970

1985

1990

2000

2010

2014

Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

25 –

16 78

14 86

1 88

2 90

0 91

Sweden

1980

1990

2000

2005

2010

2014

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%) Independent (%)

61 20 1 82 8

75 9 0 84 8

81 5 0 84 8

81 5 0 86 8

82 4 0 87 8

83 4 0 86 8

Switzerland

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2013

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 35 0 –

41 32 0 –

62 28 0 91

74 22 0 97

78 20 0 99

87 11 0 98

Germany

1980

1990

2000

2004

2010

2013

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

5 65 10 80

48 32 7 86

83 6 1 90

91 3 0 95

93 3 0 96

93 3 0 96

Belgium

1970

1980

2000

2005

2010

2013

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 4 0 –

0 23 0 23

36 6 0 79

47 8 0 84

66 9 0 82

73 11 0 91

France

1993–1995

2001

2004

2010

2014

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

5 44 5 68

27 51 2 82

43 37 1 82

65 13 0 82

66 14 0 82

England and Wales

1980

1990

2000

2005

2009

2014

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%) Scotland Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

25 51 6 –

13 62 8 96 1990 2 41 23 94

27 64 4 97 2001 16 54 10 96

42 56 0 98 2005 45 44 2 92

47 52 1 98 2009 32 63 4 95

57 43 0 100

(continued)

52   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.8 (continued) England and Wales Northern Ireland Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

1980

1990

2000 2000 25 15 10 80

2005

2009

2014

2009 28 56 3 76

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

Table 2.8 shows some distinct trajectories in the development of sewerage and sewage treatment in Northern Europe. In Austria and the Netherlands, two generations of sewage treatment were developed, attaining broad secondary coverage by 1990 moving on to tertiary coverage by 2000 and near universal tertiary coverage over the next decade. A similar pattern is seen in Denmark, with a somewhat lower degree of sewerage coverage. Germany already has an extensive secondary coverage by 1980, with tertiary adopted by 1990. The sewerage network was basic in the former GDR, with 62.4% of the population receiving treatment compared with 91.3% in Western Germany and a 1991 connection rate to the sewerage system of 75% against 94%. Upgrading in Switzerland has focussed on the development of tertiary infrastructure while retaining secondary facilities until they were upgraded to tertiary. The outlier here is Sweden, where tertiary was already the norm in 1980, even though in 1965, 33% of urban wastewater was untreated and 34% received primary treatment, and 33% receiving secondary treatment. Sewerage infrastructure development in Belgium has been of a belated nature. This is ironic considering Europe’s environmental regulation is conducted in Brussels. It was the last of the northern European countries to attain broad compliance with the UWWTD. Historic data for the UK is poor. The England and Wales data for 1980 was used by the OECD (e.g. OECD 1987) until 2000, when it was removed from the databases. There is no reporting at the national level, as reporting has been devolved to the member countries. Northern Ireland, along with the Irish Republic, has a notably poorly developed infrastructure. Traditionally, England and Wales were among the leaders for infrastructure development, with at least 90% sewerage by 1970. Between 1975 and 1990, capital spending was restricted which is reflected in the fall in performance of sewage treatment works between 1980 and 1990. Tertiary treatment has been more slowly adopted than in other northern European countries.

53

2   Where We Are  Table 2.9   Sewage infrastructure development in Southern Europe Spain

1975

1980

1989

2000

2010

2014

Tertiary treatment (%) Secondary treatment (%) Primary treatment (%) Sewerage (%)

0 7 7 –

0 9 9 18

1 41 6 –

15 65 8 86

60 33 3 98

69 24 2 97

Italy

1970

1995

1999

2005

2008

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 6 8 14

5 34 17 61

31 16 2 –

36 18 2 –

38 19 3 –

41 19 3 –

Portugal

1980

1990

1998

2005

2009

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 2 0 35

0 11 9 54

2 26 14 65

15 27 11 74

16 39 4 81

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

Table 2.10   Sewage infrastructure development in the Accession States Czech Republic

1991

1999

2005

2010

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 46 2 72

0 62 0 75

56 17 0 77

68 9 0 83

74 7 0 85

Poland

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

4 30 8 52

20 30 3 54

37 21 2 59

50 15 0 65

59 14 0 73

Hungary

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

Tertiary (%) Secondary (%) Primary (%) Sewerage (%)

0 4 2 28

0 12 7 40

1 14 6 43

6 24 16 51

33 36 2 73

65 12 0 79

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

54   D. Lloyd Owen

Table 2.9 highlights the relatively poor historic development of sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure in Southern Europe. The dramatic development of assets in Spain since 1980 has resulted in two generations of treatment systems (secondary and tertiary) being deployed within 30 years. In contrast, Italy and Portugal have struggled to comply with the UWWTD. Up to 2010, Spain and Portugal (along with Ireland) were given Structural (Cohesion) Funding by the EU to support the development of these assets. Time series data is limited in the Accession States and only long-run examples are included in Table 2.10. The Czech Republic has a long tradition of sewage engineering and this was reflected by its infrastructure at the time of independence in 1991. Poland and Hungary reflect the more normal state of affairs in Central and Eastern Europe. Developing this infrastructure was a central part of the ‘Acquis’ process and supported by Structural (Cohesion) Funding from the EU.

2.5.1 Advanced Treatment: Nutrient Removal Advanced tertiary treatment is chiefly concerned with the removal of phosphorous and nitrogen to reduce the nutrition leading into the waters receiving the post-treatment effluents. It is also used where resource recovery is being carried out (nutrient, water and energy recovery). One of the current drivers for nutrient recovery is compliance with the Water Framework Directive by 2027. Table 2.11 summarises the state of advanced sewage treatment in Europe in 2013, including additional nutrient removal. As this is based on BOD5 loadings in tonnes it is not strictly comparable with the data in tables 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. Table 2.12 covers compliance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in 2014. Countries where tertiary treatment has recently been developed (e.g. Belgium) may opt to include advanced treatment at the outset. In countries such as Austria, where tertiary treatment has been widely used for some time, advanced treatment is typically retrofitted to existing systems. Data was also provided by Albania and Serbia, where their low development of tertiary treatment reflects the impact that the EU Directives have had on developing this infrastructure.

2   Where We Are 

55

Table 2.11   Advanced sewage treatment in Europe in 2013 EU, UK and Switzerland Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Spain Switzerland UK EU Accession States Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Non-EU Albania Serbia

Tertiary (%)

+ Phosphorous (%)

+ Nitrogen (%)

99 50 98 82 99 64 91 99 75 89 56

90 50 95 76 97 8 90 98 42 15 3

82 50 98 68 96 30 78 96 46 74 21

48 6 84 88 100 73 58 91 82 48 49 46

48 6 76 7 54 58 45 91 0 28 49 38

40 6 73 2 48 60 58 91 0 21 38 33

0 19

0 0

0 0

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pco de=ten00028&plugin=1 EEA

The EU has published nine technical assessments on progress towards compliance with the UWWTD on sewerage connection (Article 3), secondary treatment (Article 4) and tertiary treatment for designated sensitive areas (Article 5) with compliance against pending deadlines. Compliance with the Directive as of the end of 2014 is summarised in Table 2.12.

56   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.12   Compliance with the UWWTD, 2014 EU 15 Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK EU 13 Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia EU 15 EU 13 EU 28

Sewerage (%)

Secondary (%)

Tertiary (%)

100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 100 100 100 97 100 100

100 97 100 95 89 100 99 52 72 100 100 77 84 99 99

100 91 95 91 94 100 100 20 65 45 100 66 67 94 93

26 – 74 65 97 100 100 100 100 92 3 100 100 100 91 98

20 – 100 86 90 95 100 100 0 90 4 98 99 94 84 93

7 – 100 85 91 92 96 98 0 67 1 57 93 93 67 87

Source: Adapted from EU (2017)

The bathing quality data in Table 2.13 is for the third testing year after the revised directive entered into force. Eight of the 30 participating countries had more than 90% of bathing waters classified as ‘excellent’ 30, with a further eight countries getting at least 80% at this level. An ‘excellent’ score requires treatment of all potentially significant discharges,

2   Where We Are 

57

Table 2.13   Bathing quality in Europe in 2017 Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Spain Finland France Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Slovakia UK EU Albania Switzerland Europe

Excellent Number quality

Good quality

Sufficient quality

Poor quality/ No data

263 113 95 113 154

95.1 86.7 44.2 97.3 81.8

3.8 10.6 47.4 0.9 9.7

0.8 2.7 6.3 0.0 1.3

0.4 0.0 1.1 1.8 7.1

2287 1029 54 2219 299 3379 1598 976 257 142 5531 114 12 56 87 719 205 603 50 441 47 32 634 21,509 102 190 21,801

91.4 86.7 63.0 85.5 85.6 77.7 95.9 93.5 70.8 71.8 89.9 85.1 100.0 91.1 98.9 73.4 66.8 87.7 50.0 58.7 74.5 59.4 61.4 85.0 54.9 61.1 84.7

5.3 8.5 16.7 8.0 7.0 13.2 0.7 1.3 13.2 12.7 5.2 10.5 0.0 3.6 1.1 17.0 12.7 7.6 48.0 27.9 23.4 28.1 26.3 8.6 20.6 2.1 8.6

1.3 2.7 5.6 2.7 1.7 3.8 0.1 0.2 2.7 8.5 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 6.8 1.3 2.0 3.2 2.1 0.0 8.4 2.4 8.8 2.6 2.4

2.0 2.2 14.8 3.8 5.7 5.3 3.3 4.9 13.2 7.0 3.1 3.5 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.0 13.6 3.3 0.0 10.2 0.0 12.5 3.9 4.0 15.7 34.2 4.3

Source: Adapted from EEA (2018a)

suggesting a well-developed coastal infrastructure in many countries. Tables 2.13 and 2.14 provide a longer-term insight into compliance with this directive. The ‘no data’ includes bathing areas that have been closed due to previous poor test results.

58   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.14   Inland water quality in 2015

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU (25)

Bad (%)

Poor (%)

Moderate (%)

Good (%)

High (%)

No data (%)

0 8 2 1 0 2

3 24 3 4 2 21

39 22 29 7 28 25

33 27 32 3 34 35

24 10 11 0 10 2

1 9 23 85 26 15

2 0 0 0 10 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 2

4 1 1 2 23 16 4 10 20 0 26 3 4 0 3 4 3 0 3 4

26 8 4 8 32 32 11 43 35 0 53 29 9 7 7 27 21 2 13 17

33 11 7 9 23 28 14 22 31 0 17 43 24 38 5 48 22 3 31 21

9 16 11 16 1 4 9 12 10 0 0 2 4 43 5 18 24 2 44 13

26 64 77 65 11 18 61 12 4 100 3 22 58 12 80 2 28 93 7 43

Source: Adapted from EEA (2018b)

Member states are meant to comply (‘good’ or ‘high’ ecological quality) with the Water Framework Directive by 2027 following intermediate assessments in 2015 and 2021. Table 2.14 summarises the state of compliance at the end of the first management cycle in 2015. With 12 member states having not even having assessed more than 50% of their inland waterways (Greece, Ireland and Lithuania have yet to submit a report) this directive has been approached with a degree of circumspection by many member states. Progress to date reflects circumstances. The Netherlands, for example, is having to deal with a legacy of

2   Where We Are 

59

intense inland water modification and industrial pollution, while the UK’s results are skewed by the high quality of Scotland’s inland waterways.

2.5.2 Comments on Countries 2.5.2.1  Th  e Netherlands: The National Environmental Policy Plan Between 1975 and 1990, a national network of sewage treatment works was constructed, along with the connection of 97% of the population to the sewerage system by 1994. The 1989 first National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) was the driver behind the universal adoption of tertiary treatment. The current (fourth) NEPP runs to 2030 and aims for the comprehensive adoption of advanced wastewater treatment for nutrient recovery and compliance with the Water Framework Directive by 2027. With 98% of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal by 2000 (against 92% in 1990), the Netherlands exceeded the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment directive by 2000. The country had a treatment capacity of 26 million PE (population equivalents) by 2003, but was actually using 16–17 million PE at the time due to lower inputs from industry. Just 2% of rivers and surface water in the Netherlands is classified as natural under the Water Framework Directive criteria, 56% being seen as artificial and 42% as heavily modified.

2.5.2.2  Denmark: Policies for Lowering Water Consumption Municipal water abstraction fell from an annual peak of 610 billion m3 in 1990 to 360 billion m3 by 2015. In Copenhagen, per capita consumption at HOFOR, the city’s utility, has fallen from 171 litres per day in 1987 to 135 in 1995 to and 100 in 2015. In 2002, universal water metering was introduced (126 l/c/day at the time), followed by double flush lavatories in 2005 (121  l/c/day at the time) and rainwater reuse from 2008 (114 l/c/day at the time). High water and wastewater tariffs and water resource taxes have been implemented to encourage demand

60   D. Lloyd Owen

management (Skytte 2016). Demand management is also implemented with leakage management, with an NRW of 6% despite 76% of the city’s pipes being over 60 years old and the network has an ILI of 2.5 (Pedersen and Klee 2013). Nationally, just under 1% of distribution pipes are replaced each year. The next area of development is smart water metering. Fifteen per cent of households had a smart meter in 2013 against 38% by 2016 (DANVA 2017).

2.5.2.3  Bathing Water Quality in England The UK government (HMG) has a long and complex relationship with the 1976 Bathing Water Directive. Until it was taken to the European Court of Justice in 1993, HMG sought to argue that bathing waters affected by domestic sewage (most notably Blackpool) were resorts rather than beaches and not subject to the Directive. At the same time, more beaches in the UK were being tested; 446 beaches in 1990, rising to 545 by 2000 and 634 in 2017. The Environment Agency (EA) has backdated its testing data to include testing in England for the revised Directive since 1995. This allows a long-term consideration of how bathing water quality has evolved over three decades. Testing ran for the 1976 Directive between 1988 and 2014. Testing for the 2003 Directive has been formally in place since 2013 with reporting since 2015. Broad compliance with the 1976 Directive (all waters safe to bathe in) was not effectively achieved until 2000 or even 2005 (Table 2.15), while most beaches failed the guideline standard before 2005. Funding for meeting the directive, even in part, was only sanctioned in 1993 by Ofwat, the economic regulator after the UK Government lost a ruling at the European Court of Justice. Table 2.16 shows that in effect there have been two generations of compliance: effective compliance with the original Directive by 2014 and from broad compliance with the revised Directive from 2015. Effective compliance will take place as the ‘excellent’ standard becomes the norm.

2   Where We Are 

61

Table 2.15   England—compliance with the 1976 Bathing Waters Directive 1988 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014

Guideline (%)

Mandatory (%)

Failed (%)

– 28 41 46 64 72 80

65 79 89 94 98 98 99

35 21 11 6 2 2 1

Source: Adapted from EA (2018) Table 2.16   England—compliance with the 2003 Bathing Waters Directive 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017

Excellent (%)

Good (%)

Satisfactory (%)

Poor (%)

12 26 52 51 63 66

18 22 24 25 27 25

16 18 15 12 7 7

54 34 9 12 3 2

Source: Adapted from EA (2018)

2.5.2.4  Lead Pipes in France Lead pipes were still being installed in Paris as late as 1992. Lead piping was banned in 1995 and lead solder in 1996. In 1988 the EU Drinking Water Directive reduced the permissible level of lead in water from 25 μg per litre to 10 μg per litre. By 2013, 1.2 million service connections still needed to be replaced. Between 1998 and 2013, 2.7 million connections were replaced at a cost of €5 billion, with the percentage of connections using lead falling from 10.6% to 3.2% between 2006 and 2013 (BIPE 2015).

2.5.2.5  The Danube Countries: European Union Members The World Bank–supported Danube Water Programme with the International Association of Water Supply Companies in the Danube River Catchment Area provides a useful insight into the functionality of

62   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.17   Performance of utilities in the EU Danube

Country Austria Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Romania Slovakia Slovenia

Non-­ revenue water (m3/km/ day)

Metering level (%)

Continuity of supplies (hours per day)

Drinking water quality compliance (%)

7 22 14 5

100 100 100 100

24 – 24 24

100 97 85 100

6 26 9 7

100 89 100 95

24 – 24 24

95 93 99 92

Source: Adapted from IAWSCDRCA (2015)

water services in Southern and Eastern Europe. Non-EU or OECD countries are considered in Sect. 2.7. This provides a useful insight into the impact of EU membership and how this develops over time (Table 2.17). Putting these figures into context, water quality continues to be a concern. For example, the compliance rate in England and Wales was 98.9% in 1990 compared with 99.96% in 2017 (DWI 2001, 2018). Water loss in the Czech Republic fell from 11 m3 per km per day in 2001 to a range of 5–6 since 2008. Both water and sanitation are universally provided. Drinking water in Hungary is of concern due to over-­ abstraction in some systems causing elevated mineral levels. This can affect up to 25% of the population, although less at any one time. In Bulgaria, drinking water compliance has increased from 86% in 2002 to 97% by 2011. It is understood that intermittent water supplies continue to be a concern in Romania due to the poor quality of their water resources. Between 2002 and 2012, average domestic consumption fell from 115 litres per capita per day to 81, through the impact of comprehensive metering and a programme of tariff increases.

2   Where We Are 

63

2.5.2.6  Reduced Nutrient Loading in Germany The impact of first the UWWTD and then the Water Framework Directive can be seen from the effluent loading from Germany’s sewage treatment works. Chemical oxygen demand varied between 49 and 51 mg/l between 1988 and 1993, before falling to 31–33 mg/l between 1999 and 2006. Since 2007 it has ranged from 27 to 28 mg/l. Ammonia discharges fell from 12 mg/l in 1988 to 1 mg/l by 2012, also reaching the latter level in 2007. Total phosphorous fell from 1.7 mg/l in 1992–93 to 1.0 mg/l in 1995 and to 0.8 mg/l since 2006. Total nitrogen fell from 24 mg/l in 1992 to 11 mg/l by 2002 and to 9 mg/l since 2007. Germany was one of the first EU states to declare which inland waters were in ‘sensitive areas’ under the UWWTD and this is reflected in the decrease in nutrient loading from the early 1990s.

2.6 Regional Overview: The Americas—Developed This includes Canada and the USA, along with OECD members Chile and Mexico. There appears to have been a decline in both the quality and extent of data in the public domain over the past decade. This is most apparent in the USA. Data is summarised in Tables 2.18, 2.19, and 2.10. Compared with OECD member countries in Europe and Asia, it is notable that urban wastewater treatment appears to be at a comparatively undeveloped stage. This may reflect the paucity of more recent data. Mexico is the chief driver behind packaged and tankered water use. The USA is the largest market globally for packaged water in revenue terms, this being discretionary consumption.

2.6.1 Canada No data is available for after 2009. The decline in tertiary treatment since 2006 is primarily due to a stricter definition. Previously, any form of advanced treatment was classified as tertiary. It also appears that there has

64   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.18   Service summary for the Americas—developed Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

82% 20% Served (million) 395.1 348.0 363.4 329.2 159.5 13.7 109.8 96.7 26.1 232.7

Served (%) 97 86 90 81 39 3 27 24 6 57

84.8 87.0 35.2 26.9

91 93 38 29

Source: WASID Table 2.19   Household water access—the Americas—developed Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

368.9 91 45.5 49

16.2 4 12.3 13

0.1 0 0.1 0

1.5 0 0.7 1

7.3 2 0.0 0

Source: JMP adapted by WASID Table 2.20   Infrastructure Integrity Index—the Americas—developed Urban Rural National Source: WASID

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.80 0.50 0.75

0.76 0.54 0.72

0.78 0.52 0.73

65

2   Where We Are  Table 2.21   Development of Canada’s sewage treatment systems No treatment (%) Independent treatment (%) Public sewerage (%) Primary (%) Secondary (%) Tertiary (%)

1983

1986

1991

1996

2004

2009

20 – 72 11 20 20

20 – 72 11 19 22

11 – 73 15 21 27

4 – 74 17 23 31

3 9 90 21 48 19

4 12 87 16 53 15

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

been little in the way of developing tertiary facilities in recent years. In the mid-1990s, ‘two-thirds’ of municipal sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure was in poor condition. The 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card found 39% of municipal wastewater infrastructure to be in very good condition and 26% in good condition. Twenty-four per cent was in fair condition, 8% poor and 4% as very poor (OECD 2017).

2.6.2 Chile Chile, along with England and Wales, is the only country where all water and wastewater services are owned and operated by the private sector. Between 2004 and 2009, the proportion subject to primary treatment varies between 21% and 27%, suggesting partially built new facilities which were designed to operate at a higher standard. The remaining plants using primary treatment discharge the effluents into the sea via long-sea outfalls (OECD 2016). As Table  2.22 highlights, Chile has the best developed water and wastewater infrastructure in the Americas. It is of interest that sewage treatment was developed only once the sewerage network was more or less comprehensively deployed. One area of concern is distribution losses; 0.48 billion m3 pa out of 1.62 billion m3 pa of consumption (OECD 2016).

2.6.3 USA The 2011 assessment (US EPA 2013) does not provide a breakdown of pipe condition, but does indicate that spending needs on the distribution

66   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.22   Development of Chile’s sewage treatment systems Coverage Water (%) (%)

Sewerage (%)

Treatment (%)

Primary (%)

Secondary (%)

Tertiary (%)

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

25 31 44 67 75 82 89 93 95 96 100

0 0 0 0 0 8 14 31 73 87 100

– – – – – – – – 22 22 22

– – – – – – – – 2 4 4

– – – – – – – – 49 61 73

54 67 77 91 95 97 99 100 100 100 100

Based on SSIS data for 1965–2000 (Santander Investment 2006) and the OECD for 2005–2015

network are the highest rising element since the 2000 review. Even so the increase in anticipated spending needs would suggest that asset conditions have not significantly changed from those outlined in Table 2.23. This excludes pipes where their age is not known. This shows the impact of a mix of older cities in structural decline and new cities emerging. Where the population of a city (or major parts of it) falls, as in Detroit, there are still old water assets to manage. Sixty-eight per cent of Baltimore’s water system is over 65 years old. In contrast, 67% of San Antonio’s water pipes are less than 35 years old. Aggregated data for drinking water quality has not been updated since the report summarised in Table 2.25, although it is understood that coliforms violations have shown a marginal decline between 2000 and 2017, and a total of 63 million Americans are potentially exposed to unsafe drinking water (Allaire et al. 2018). The infrastructure scorecards in Table 2.26 indicate that there has been no overall change in the condition of water or wastewater infrastructure over the past 20 years. As ‘D’ is the second lowest rating possible, this remains a matter of concern. Putting these scores into context, they have been provided by an association lobbying for higher infrastructure spending.

67

2   Where We Are  Table 2.23   US drinking water pipe classification, 1980–2020 Condition (%)

1980

2000

2020

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Life elapsed

69 19 3 3 2 5

43 17 18 14 2 7

33 11 12 13 23 9

Source: Adapted from US EPA (2002) Table 2.24   Age of urban water pipes Pre-­ 1900 1900–20 1920–40 1940–60 1960–80 1980–2000 2000–16 Baltimore, MD (%) Milwaukee, WI (%) Phoenix, AZ () Philadelphia, PA () San Antonio, TX (%)

0

23

45

16

10

5

1

11

8

22

25

20

11

3

0 27

0 11

1 16

11 17

35 15

33 11

25 3

0

1

1

7

27

37

31

Source: Adapted from Walton (2016) Table 2.25   US non-compliant water supplies, 2008 Systems reporting violation Total microbial levels Arsenic VOCs Lead and copper Nitrate/nitrites All violations

Population affected (million) 19,624 1602 1840 8090 6806 20,797

18.0 4.1 7.2 20.8 8.9 83.4

Source: Adapted from US EPA (2008)

Table 2.26   Water and wastewater infrastructure condition, 1998–2017 ASCE

1998

2005

2009

2013

2017

Water Wastewater

D D+

DD-

DD-

D D

D D+

Sources: Aggregated from the American Society of Civil Engineer’s “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” for 1998, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017

68   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.27   US urban sewage treatment development, 1940–2012 None (%) Primary (%) Secondary (%) Tertiary (%)

1940

1950

1962

1972

1982

1992

2004

2012

46 26 28 0

38 27 35 0

12 36 52 0

3 37 54 6

1 21 41 37

0 11 46 43

0 1 43 55

0 2 38 60

Source: Adapted from US EPA (2016)

Wastewater policy in the USA is driven by the Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, as amended in 1977, became known as the Clean Water Act. The Act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the USA through setting wastewater standards and has funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants programme. Amendments in 1981 streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of treatment plants, while the 1987 amendments replaced construction grants with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (Clean Water State Revolving Fund). As seen in Table 2.27, the Clean Water Act has seen a shift away from primary treatment with tertiary treatment becoming widely adopted, although at a slower rate in the future. There were 134,918 miles of sewerage in 1940, rising to 191,180  in 1950 and 307,547  miles by 1960 (Kollar 1966). This has subsequently risen to 600,000 miles by 2012 (US EPA 2016).

2.7 R  egional Overview: South East, East Asia and Oceania—Developed This covers the OECD members Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea along with Singapore. This is covered in Tables 2.28, 2.29, and 2.30. Tables 2.28, 2.29, and 2.30 indicate that these countries have the highest degree of infrastructure development and service delivery of all the groupings in this survey. Singapore is unique in that water services have been seen as central to the city-state’s future since its inception in 1965 (see the case study in this section).

2   Where We Are 

69

Table 2.28   Service summary for South East, East Asia and Oceania—developed Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

97% 11% Served (million) 190.6 190.0 165.6 182.2 7.4 2.3 101.5 78.7 6.5 186.7

Served (%) 98 98 85 93 4 1 52 40 3 95

23.4 23.6 23.1 21.1

96 97 95 87

Source: WASID Table 2.29   Household water access—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developed Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

192.3 99 20.3 83

0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0

1.3 1 0.2 1

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

Table 2.30   Infrastructure Integrity Index Urban Rural National Source: WASID

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.94 0.89 0.92

0.94 0.86 0.93

0.94 0.88 0.93

70   D. Lloyd Owen

Again, these are high scores in comparison with other developed regions. As the country examples will show, much of this progress is comparatively recent.

2.7.1 Improvement of Asset Condition in Australia The principal need in Australia is to secure water supplies in the increasingly water-short urban parts of the country. This means the management of water distribution and storage systems, efficient usage and optimising wastewater recovery. In contrast to the USA (Table  2.26) Australia’s water infrastructure is perceived as having improved over an 11-year period as shown in Table 2.29. As with the USA, it is the surveyors’ interest to adopt a pessimistic outlook. This makes the improvement more significant. Table 2.31   Australia—condition of water infrastructure, 1999–2010 Water Wastewater Stormwater

1999

2001

2005

2010

CDNA

C CD

BC+ C-

BBC

Source: Adapted from Engineers Australia (1999, 2005, 2010)

Table 2.32   Sewage treatment development in Japan 1984 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Sewerage (%)

Primary (%)

Secondary (%)

Tertiary (%)

– 44 54 62 69 75 78

9 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 42 50 54 55 55 51

0 2 4 8 14 20 27

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

2   Where We Are 

71

Table 2.33   Development of sewerage, 1967–2007 Million people

1967

1980

1990

2000

2007

Total population Mains sewerage Local system Total with sewerage

100 9 10 19

118 25 28 53

124 38 33 71

128 73 32 105

128 83 30 113

Source: Japan Sewage Works Association (2011)

2.7.2 Japan’s Recent Adoption of Sewerage Since 1990, all sewage collected by the sewerage network has been subjected to at least secondary treatment. Nationally, 95.5% of people are connected to piped water supply. The low level of sewerage in Japan marks the country from the rest of the industrialised world. In the 13 major cities, 96% were connected to sewerage, compared with 42% for the rest of Japan. Septic tanks, for example, remained commonplace in Tokyo until the 1980s. This is summarised in Table 2.33. Indeed, flush lavatories were the exception until the 1980s. The 8th Five Year Plan for Sewerage Construction ran from 1996 to 2000, and aimed to lay the foundations for a modern sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure. Though much of the water and sewerage network has been developed since the 1960s, it is generally in good condition.

2.7.3 Infrastructure Development in South Korea South Korea’s infrastructure was affected by the Korean War and indeed access to piped water and water treatment capacity fell between 1950 and 1955. Network expansion started in the late 1960s with broad access achieved by 1990. Sewerage was developed relatively recently, only becoming the norm in the past two decades as seen in Table 2.35. The ‘two-generation’ move from secondary to tertiary treatment has taken place over a remarkably brief period of time. The move towards near universal tertiary treatment was a result of the 2007 National Sewage Master Plan’s 2015 targets. The principal regulatory driver at present is the adoption of the Total Water Pollution Load Management System (TPLMS) which sets targets for the

72   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.34   Urban water access in South Korea 1955 1970 1990 1995 2005 2010 2015

Treated water (L/cap/day)

Access (%)

16 33 399 398 351 333 335

16 33 79 83 91 94 97

Source: Adapted from Ministry of Environment (2017) Table 2.35   Sewerage and sewage treatment in South Korea 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Sewerage (%)

Primary (%)

Secondary (%)

Tertiary (%)

6 33 45 71 84 90 93

– – 5 1 1 0 0

– – 37 68 65 36 8

– – – 1 18 54 85

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database Table 2.36   PUB’s ‘Water For All’ projections Million m3 pa

2010 (%)

2010

2060 (%)

2060

Domestic demand Non-domestic demand NEWater Desalination

45 55 30 10

284 347 189 63

30 70 55 30

378 881 700 378

Source: Adapted from PUB (2010, 2017)

reduction of BOD5 (since 2002) and phosphorous (since 2011) for each catchment area. The four major river basins are covered along with smaller catchments. Where water quality objectives are not met, further load reduction measures are implemented. By 2015, water quality objectives had been met for 75% of rivers but only for 8% of lakes (OECD 2018). Table 2.36 summarises water resources in Singapore in 2010 and PUB’s plans for 2060.

2   Where We Are 

73

Case Study: Self-Sufficiency in Singapore Singapore seceded from Malaysia in 1965, relying on imported water from Malaysia. The second Water Agreement expires in 2061. Singapore’s Public Utilities Board (PUB) was founded in 1963 and water management has been a leading national priority from the outset. Universal household water and sewerage were attained by 1987 (Otaki 2004). Water comes from ‘Four National Taps’ water from its own catchment, water imported from Johor, desalinated water and wastewater recovery (NEWater). These are being developed with the aim of water self-sufficiency by 2060 despite 40% of water being imported in 2010 and demand forecast to rise from 631 million m3 per annum to 1259 million. The proportion of the island as an actively managed catchment will increase from 50% to 90% which will enable catchment water to maintain its proportion of overall water inputs (PUB 2010). The 2009 ABC Waters Programme optimises catchment water quality (‘Active, Beautiful, Clean’) through developing recreational sites designed to collect rainwater. There were 36 sites in operation by 2018 with more than 64 currently under consideration. Wastewater recovery (NEWater) started in 1999 with a pilot plant and the first operational facility in 2003 (Choong 2001). Sewage treatment is being rationalised into two major facilities (long-term capacity of 4.2 million m3 per day) linked by the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) by 2025. The Changi treatment plant currently handles 860,000 m3 per day. All sewerage on the island is being connected to the system and phase 2 of DTSS runs from 2017 to 2025. On completion, the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant and the NEA Integrated Waste Management Facility will take over all NEWater projects with a capacity of 800,000  m3 per day (PUB 2018). Indirect potable reuse arises where the reclaimed water is discharged into a reservoir and subsequently abstracted and treated. Direct non-potable water is supplied to industrial customers at a lower tariff than potable water supplied by PUB. A total of 725,000 m3 per day desalination capacity is available from three operational facilities and one being built. Further facilities are in planning. PUB aims for up to 85% of water needs being met through desalination and reuse if needed by 2060. The system is being developed with flexibility in mind, in anticipation of further climate change. This has improved the utility’s resilience, as seen by maintained supplies during the 2014 drought (PUB 2010, 2017).

2.8 R  egional Overview: Middle East and North Africa, Developed Both Israel and Turkey are members of the OECD. Their infrastructure development is summarised in Tables 2.37, 2.38, and 2.39. Israel and Turkey have adopted quite distinct approaches towards water and sewage infrastructure development.

74   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.37   Service summary for MENA, developed Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

78% 40% Served (million) 64.5 63.2 62.7 34.6 21.0 12.5 17.2 13.6 0.7 31.5

Served (%) 99 97 97 53 32 19 27 21 1 49

21.3 20.0 8.8 4.5

100 94 42 21

Source: WASID Table 2.38   Household water access—MENA, developed Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

64.5 99 45.4 43

0.1 0 11.8 11

0.5 1 6.9 7

0.0 0 3.5 3

0.0 0 0.5 1

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

Table 2.39   Infrastructure Integrity Index—MENA, developed Urban Rural National Source: WASID

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.73 0.45 0.66

0.58 0.51 0.56

0.65 0.48 0.61

2   Where We Are 

75

Table 2.40   Sewage infrastructure development in Turkey and Israel Turkey Tertiary Secondary Primary Sewerage Israel Tertiary Secondary Primary Sewerage

1985 (%)

1995 (%)

2000 (%)

2005 (%)

2010 (%)

2014 (%)

0 0 0 –

0 4 9 62

3 14 9 82

10 19 14 69

18 20 15 79

18 25 21 87

16 24 18 78

31 32 14 91

34 41 11 94

39 43 9 97

49 39 6 98

53 38 5 99

Source: Adapted from OECD environmental indicators database

As Table 2.40 shows, apart from sewerage, infrastructure development remains at a relatively early stage in Turkey. Infrastructure in Israel is more similar to a northern European country. Sewage treatment is being driven by water reuse, especially the use of treated wastewater for irrigation.

2.9 R  egional Overview: Eastern Europe and Central Asia This covers all other non-EU/OECD members and the Central Asian countries as identified by the European Investment Bank (EIB). Data is summarised in Tables 2.41, 2.42, and 2.43. Data for Russia is poor, with little of a quantitative nature. Various reports between 2010 and 2018 point to 40–60% of water failing to meet WHO standards and 30–70% water and sewerage network in need of rehabilitation. Much of this is a legacy of the Soviet era which ended in 1991. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that sewage treatment plants either are out of service or are operating at above capacity. Surface and groundwater contamination is the legacy of Soviet industrial policy and the lack of investment to address this since 1991 (Peterson 1993; Henry and Douhovnikoff 2008). When comparing with the EU and OECD economies, the contrast for rural access is greater than that for urban access.

76   D. Lloyd Owen Table 2.41   Service summary for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

67% 28% Served (million) 173.6 169.1 161.4 150.4 103.6 13.1 80.3 1.8 0.0 82.0

Served (%) 87 85 81 76 52 7 40 1 0 41

54.0 70.0 52.7 14.7

51 66 50 14

Source: WASID Table 2.42   Household water access—Eastern Europe and Central Asia Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

168.9 85 45.4 43

9.9 4 11.8 11

2.9 2 6.9 7

0.4 0 3.1 3

4.7 2 0.5 1

Source: WASID Table 2.43   Infrastructure Integrity Index—Eastern Europe and Central Asia Urban Rural National Source: WASID

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.72 0.52 0.65

0.68 0.50 0.62

0.70 0.51 0.63

2   Where We Are 

77

2.9.1 T  he Danube Countries: Outside the European Union Again, the contrast between the OECD (EU) countries in the Danube Basin and those who are not members is dramatic, as seen when comparing Tables 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, and 2.44. None of the countries disclosing water provision offered a broad continual water service. As intermittent water delivery is often associated with non-compliant water, it is likely that water supplies are typically intermittent in Bosnia and Serbia. Ukraine’s water infrastructure is in a poor condition. Forty-three per cent of customers were satisfied with their service in 2013. While continuity of supplies rose by 9% since 2005, non-revenue water rose by 24% between 2001 and 2013. Eighty-seven per cent of sewage treatment works need to be completely overhauled. A poor customer satisfaction score in Serbia (51%) is chiefly due to poor drinking water quality. In addition, out of 50 sewage treatment plants, just 32 are still in operation and most of these need to be overhauled. Constraints on funding mean that there has been little in the way of rehabilitation, let alone extending Bosnia’s infrastructure in the decade after the war. In Albania, high distribution losses are in part due to high distribution system pressure to compensate for the intermittent supplies. Water supplies in Moldova have improved from 10 hours a day in 2002 to 21 by 2012 but a third of Table 2.44   Performance data in the Danube Basin

Country

Non-­ revenue water Metering (m3/km/day) level (%)

Continuity of supplies (hours per day)

Drinking water quality compliance (%)

Albania Bosnia Kosovo Moldova Serbia Ukraine

68 30 59 26 16 62

12 – 22 21 – 17

98 79 98 86 73 87

59 82 91 80 84 70

Source: Adapted from IAWSCDRCA (2015)

78   D. Lloyd Owen

sewerage networks are not functioning. The high degree of non-revenue water in Kosovo is due to non-functioning meters and poor distribution infrastructure, although the latter is being upgraded.

2.10 Regional Overview: South Asia Data is summarised in Tables 2.45, 2.46, and 2.47. Table 2.45   Service summary for South Asia Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

16% 42% Served (million) 407.5 322.6 146.8 135.1 461.1 60.2 49.1 0.0 0.0 49.1

Served (%) 72 57 26 24 81 11 9 0 0 9

359.0 457.5 215.7 22.1

31 39 18 2

Source: WASID Table 2.46   Household water access—South Asia Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

196.2 34 82.6 7

98.8 17 99.2 9

67.2 12 142.5 12

2.3 0 2.6 0

23.0 2 15.9 1

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

2   Where We Are 

79

Table 2.47   Infrastructure Integrity Index—South Asia Urban Rural National

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.38 0.17 0.24

0.22 0.18 0.19

0.30 0.17 0.21

Source: WASID Table 2.48   Water utility performance, 2006–07 and 2012

Water coverage (%) Water availability (hours/day) Non-revenue water (%) Metered connections (%)

Dhaka 2006–2007

Dhaka 2012

National 2006–2007

National 2012

83 23 49 70

88 23 30 85

55 12 25 18

75 19 28 70

Source: Adapted from WSP (2009, 2014)

2.10.1 Bangladesh In 1998, 87% of people in Bangladesh were within 150 m of a tube well and 97% of the population officially had access to safe water for drinking. In fact, widespread arsenic contamination was identified in 1993. In 2000, 35–70 million were dependent on groundwater contaminated with arsenic contamination (Smith et al. 2000) and in 2007 (Rahman 2008), 30 million people used wells with more than 50  μg/l (the Bangladesh standard) and 70 million at more than 10 μg/L (the WHO standard). In 2013, at least 20 million people still used water which failed the Bangladesh standard (HRW 2016). Benchmarking utility performance in Bangladesh started in 2006, covering 11 cities. By 2012, the IB-Net-led project was covering 33 utilities (WSP 2014) as shown in Table 2.48. The Asian Development Bank is supporting NRW reduction at DWASA, Dhaka’s water and sewerage utility. This involves two loans totalling $488 million in two phases, 6 of the city’s 11 zones from 2007 to 2016 and the remaining 5 from 2017 to 2021. NRW in the first 47 DMAs to be developed (each with 5000 connections) was reduced from 40–50% to 10% and overall NRW is now 5% in the covered areas and 20–22% in the rest of the city (GWI 2018a). In contrast, 3% of wastewater was treated in 2017 (GWI 2018b).

80   D. Lloyd Owen

DWASA is planning to develop a number of major water treatment plants and to treat most of the city’s sewage. Seven water treatment plants are planned to enter service between 2018 and 2028 with a total treatment capacity of 2.65 million m3 per day involving $3.2 billion for developing the facilities. Ten new wastewater treatment works are to be developed along with rehabilitating and upgrading the only current facility at Pagla. These facilities have a combined treatment capacity of 1.8 million m3 per day and are intended to serve 17.4 million people. The projects anticipate capital spending of $740 million on the treatment works and $965 million for related sewerage works (GWI 2018b).

2.10.2 India India originally planned to have universal access to water by 1997, the 50th anniversary of its independence. According to WHO and UNICEF data, urban water coverage was 81% in 1991 and 89% in 2004, while the 2001 Census of India found 50% of households had a tap within their premises, 19% with a tap near their premises and 16% had access to a hand pump. The MUD water provision targets are 110 L/day for cities and 270 L/ day for Delhi. In 1992, it was found that the average per capita water supply for Class I towns (100,000 and above) was 147 L/day and 78 L/ day for Class II towns (50,000 to 100,000). The following tables (Tables 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, and 2.52) have been adapted from the 2011 Census of India. Treated water does not necessarily mean safe. This is highlighted by the disparity between access to safe water and access to treated water. Those who fall outside either category do not have access to tap water. The sewerage connection figure stated refers only to the 212 Class I cities (a population of 100,000+, covering 102.9 million people in 1988). In class 1 cities, 20% of effluents are treated (13% secondary and 7% primary). In Class II cities (50,000–100,000), covering a further 20.7 million people, 0.4% sewage is subject to primary treatment and 1.7% to secondary treatment. There are no other identified sewage treatment works in India. Overall, 8 out of 3119 towns and cities have complete sewerage and sewage treatment services. Twenty per cent of towns and cities have partial service coverage.

2   Where We Are 

81

Table 2.49   Treated tap water access, 2011 Tap water from treated source

Urban (%)

Rural (%)

Total (%)

Household Up to 500 meters Over 500 meters Total

49.4 10.1 2.5 62.0

8.9 7.1 1.9 17.9

21.9 8.0 2.1 32.0

Source: Adapted from Census of India (2011) Table 2.50   Untreated tap water access, 2011 Tap water from untreated source

Urban (%)

Rural (%)

Total (%)

Household Up to 500 meters Over 500 meters Total

4.7 3.1 0.8 8.6

5.1 6.3 1.6 13.0

5.0 5.3 1.3 11.6

Source: Adapted from Census of India (2011) Table 2.51   Sanitation access, 2011 Urban (%) Flush lavatory Pit latrine Other latrine No latrine

Rural (%)

Total (%)

Urban (%)

Rural (%)

Total (%)

2001

2001

2001

2011

2011

2011

46.1 14.6 13.0 26.3

7.1 10.3 4.5 78.1

18.0 11.5 6.9 63.6

72.6 7.1 1.7 18.6

19.4 10.5 0.8 69.3

36.4 9.4 1.1 53.1

Source: Adapted from Census of India (2011) Table 2.52   Sewerage, 2011 2011

Urban (%)

Rural (%)

Total (%)

Piped sewerage Septic tank Other Shared Open defecation

32.7 38.2 10.5 6.0 12.6

2.2 14.7 13.9 1.9 67.3

11.9 22.2 12.9 3.2 49.8

Source: Adapted from Census of India (2011)

In 2017 the Ministry of Urban Development adopted wastewater treatment standards which would in effect mean that tertiary treatment would have to be the norm at all permitted municipal wastewater treatment plants. The official compliance date is for 2022, but this is unlikely in reality, because of planning and funding challenges still to be faced.

82   D. Lloyd Owen

Fifteen potential tertiary treatment projects with a capacity of more than 50,000 m3 per day have been identified by 2017, with a total capacity of 5.07 million m3 per day (GWI 2015). In India, the average water supply in 20 utilities surveyed by the Asian Development Bank was 4.3 hours per day (ADB 2007a, b) and subsequent progress has been limited. Intermittent supplies affect meter reading and leakage control as well as water quality. Where households have individual water tankers to provide continual supplies, these are emptied every day prior to being refilled, which drives up water consumption. In Delhi, the average connected household spends Rs 2000 every year dealing with this intermittent supply, on point of use water treatment and tank cleaning services, 5.5 times as much as they spend on the actual supply (McIntosh 2009). With the exception of Jamshedpur, no Indian city has continual water supplies. Starting with Nagpur in 2012, 24/7 water provision trials have been under development in specific zones, and 11 projects were awarded in 2016–18 including city-wide projects in Pune (270,000) connections and Coimbatore (150,000 connections). Further project proposals were under development in 25 cities during 2018 (GWI 2018c).

2.10.3 Pakistan Operational figures for Pakistan are appreciably worse than those summarised by the JMP. Table 2.53 gives an overview for the three largest provinces. In total 369 water samples were tested in 2015, a low number by expected standards, with 25 samples for example for the whole of Islamabad. These were the first nationwide tests since 2005 (PCRWR Table 2.53   Provincial urban service delivery (2014–16) Access to piped water But less than six hours a day Water unsafe to drink—2005 Water unsafe to drink—2015 Sewerage Latrines Open drains

Punjab (%)

Sindh (%)

Balochistan (%)

46 57 78 44 59 26 15

65 93 93 81 63 2 35

68 90 75 81 23 22 55

Source: Adapted from Young et al. (2018), Mansuri et al. (2018) and PCRWR (2016)

2   Where We Are 

83

2016). In 2014–15, 18% of the national population has water for 19–24 hours per day and 29% have water for more than six hours each day, while 14% depended upon open defecation, 1% for urban households and 20% for rural households (Mansuri et al. 2018). Case Study: Open Defecation in India and Bangladesh India’s Swachh Bharat (Clean India) was launched in 2014 aiming to provide 111 million latrines at a cost of $31 billion by 2019 to eliminate open defecation at a cost of Rs 19,500 per latrine. By late 2018 rural access to sanitation had officially increased from 38% to 94%. What is in fact occurring appears to be different. Fifty-five per cent of villagers interviewed in Tamil Nadu in 2018 continued with open defecation even though they now owned a household latrine (Yogananth and Bhatnagar 2018). A World Bank survey in 2017 in Uttar Pradesh found that 40% of households with latrines did not use them (Gauri et  al. 2018). Interviews with 9812 people and 156 officials during 2014 and 2018 to examine progress since 2014 found 44% of people surveyed in four states in Northern India practised open defecation in 2018, including 23% of those with a household latrine, the same figure as in 2014 (Gupta et al. 2019). Water Aid (2017) found that 33% of the newly installed latrines inspected in 2017 were ‘sustainably safe’ for the long term, with 35% needing an overhaul. The rest were not fit for purpose. Twenty-two per cent were single leach pit latrines which would be abandoned when they filled up and the 21% that were septic tanks would be too expensive to empty. Gupta et al. (2019) found that contractor-built latrines were generally of a worse quality than those built by villagers, with 25% of latrines surveyed having twin pits. They also found an increase in use as the pit size grew as less frequent emptying meant less contact. Hindustan Zinc built 30,000 double leach pit latrines in Rajasthan for Rs 8500 each (Rs 4600 paid by the government, Rs 3000 by Hindustan Zinc and Rs 900 by the beneficiary) demonstrating economies of scale achievable by an experienced contractor. The cultural dimension appears to have been overlooked. Members of India’s four ‘superior’ castes avoid handling excreta, traditionally the job of the Dalit or untouchables. The Dalits have become reluctant to continue with their traditional roles. People surveyed had rarely been taught about sanitation and public health. Gupta et al. (2019) found that Hindus were twice as likely to continue with open defecation as Moslems. In Bangladesh, the use of open defecation fell from 42% in 2003 to 1% by 2015 (Delea et al. 2017). This required 25% of Bangladesh’s development budget, possibly the most serious water-related financial commitment by any government. These figures appear to have been broadly accepted. In Bangladesh, the emphasis on education and changing public attitudes has been appreciably higher.

84   D. Lloyd Owen

2.11 R  egional Overview: South East, East Asia and Oceania—Developing This includes all countries in the region excepting Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore Hong Kong and South Korea. Data is summarised in Tables 2.54, 2.55, and 2.56. The World Bank developed a review of excreta flows in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam for 2012, which is summarised in Table 2.57. Table 2.54   Service summary for South East, East Asia and Oceania—developing Urban Water meters Distribution losses

Piped water Safely managed water Household sewerage Safely managed sanitation No treatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Advanced treatment At least 2° sewage treatment Rural Piped water Safely managed water Safely managed sanitation Sewage treated

87% 21% Served (million) 880.0 921.3 611.6 722.4 713.4 132.0 257.6 3.1 0.0 257.6

Served (%) 80 83 55 65 65 12 23 0 0 23

468.1 817.0 408.0 88.7

48 83 42 9

Source: WASID Table 2.55  Household water access—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developing Urban (million) Urban (%) Rural (million) Rural (%)

House

Yard

Standpipe

Tanker

Packaged

819.6 74 294.1 30

9.6 1 9.6 1

6.7 1 17.0 2

64.2 6 21.1 2

69.9 6 38.3 4

Source: JMP adapted by WASID

Table 2.56  Infrastructure Integrity Index—South East, East Asia and Oceania—developing Urban Rural National

Water

Sewerage

Overall

0.74 0.36 0.56

0.54 0.38 0.46

0.64 0.37 0.51

Source: WASID Table 2.57   Excreta flows in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam Country

Indonesia

Philippines

Vietnam

Urban population (million) Flush lavatory sewerage (%) Septic tanks with sewerage (%) Septic tanks without sewerage (%) Other on site (%) Open defecation (%) Wastewater collected (%) Wastewater treated (%) Septage collected (%) Septage treated or disposed (%) Untreated wastewater (%)

110