You are on page 1of 9

Community managed DEWATS in Nepal

Freya Millsa,b, Yasoda Shresthab and Luna Kansakarb


a

GHD, 180 Lonsdale St, Melbourne, Australia, and ENPHO (Email: freya_mills@yahoo.com.au) b Environment and Public Health Organisation (ENPHO), P.O.Box - 4102 Kathmandu Nepal, (Email: yasoda.shrestha@enpho.org, luna.kansakar@enpho.org)

Abstract The cluster and peripheral communities in the Kathmandu Valley are well suited to the decentralised wastewater system (DEWATS) approach; however a lack of research or promotion of their performance and sustainability has limited their wider uptake and adoption. This study assessed four community managed DEWATS in Nepal to identify the treatment methods, management frameworks and funding mechanisms which can lead to sustainable operation and good performance. The assessment highlighted the benefits of setting up a strong community wastewater committee and involving residents in the construction phase, which led to ownership, understanding of operation and responsibility for maintenance. Additionally there are great benefits from biogas generation in creating financial stability and a demand for good performance. Challenges exist in maintaining motivation when there is no material incentive or funding, therefore promoting the use of by-products is important. Overall, most community committees were motivated for and proud of their systems, thus facilitating long term sustainability. Keywords Wastewater treatment; DEWATS; Community; Nepal;

INTRODUCTION The urban population in the Kathmandu Valley is growing rapidly. Although large numbers are moving into the densely populated cities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur, the number and size of cluster and peri-urban communities are also growing. These communities often lack basic services and are generally considered a lower priority for upgrading services compared with urban centres. The current state of wastewater treatment in the Valley is very poor with only one operational centralised treatment plant treating less than 5% of a population of approximately 2.6million (GHD 2010). The remainder connect illegally to stormwater drains, discharge directly into waterways or discharge into the ground via poorly operating septic tanks, all contributing to the poor health and quality of waterways and groundwater. Additionally, the wastewater master-plan indicates that widespread centralised sewage treatment is a long way off due to challenges in land availability, plant selection, operational capability and conveyance systems (GHD 2010). With the priority to treat the dense urban areas, the connection of peripheral communities to a centralised wastewater treatment scheme is many years off. Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) appear well suited to these periurban and cluster communities due to the low skills required to operate, use of local materials, no need for the limited available power, and potential demand for treatment byproducts near to the waste source. With a DEWATS it is also possible to decentralise responsibility of service delivery and management away from the government to the users, which is often more successful as they receive the service benefits and by-products, are impacted when the service fails and can more rapidly respond to problems than a large
1

government managed approach. However, as with any community managed system, there are the challenges of ownership, responsibility, maintenance and funding, and despite DEWATS being low maintenance, some ongoing work is required to achieve long term good performance. Determining which systems are best suited to the community-managed approach to improve ease and reduce cost of operation and maintenance is integral to ensuring high performing system over a long life span. The best approaches to community education on wastewater issues prior to installation and the management and funding structures set up post installation for operation, both need to be determined relevant to the community-managed situation. This study aims to assess the operation of four existing plants in Kathmandu Valley to gain confidence in the community management of DEWATS and understand the best approach to adopt. Since there is currently limited data or knowledge about these systems and their ongoing performance, there is hesitation by the government, private, and aid sectors to promote them further. Through understanding the current performance of the systems, investigating design and management issues and determining a suitable model for DWEATS in communities in Nepal, greater confidence will support wider scale adoption and implementation of sustainable systems.

METHOD There are currently four operational community managed decentralised wastewater treatment systems in Kathmandu initiated by the Nepali NGOs ENPHO and Lumanti, with assistance from ADB, Water Aid, UN Habitat and local municipalities. The community systems assessed were all treating greater than 30 households with shared responsibility within the community for the operation, maintenance, management and funding. The systems were constructed between 2006 and 2008 and have not been assessed as a whole, nor have additional community systems been built since then. This assessment included a survey of the implementing organisation, an assessment of the wastewater treatment system including performance if sufficiently operational, and a discussion with community members and caretakers about their perceptions of the system and any issues they are experiencing. Table 1 is a summary of the systems assessed.

Table 1 Summary of Community DEWATS in Nepal


Sunga Community, Thimi
Year Built: 2006 Funder: UN habitat, Water Aid, ADB Size: 200hh design current 85hh System: Biogas, ABR, 2xHFW, 2xVFW, SDB Cost: 22-32 lakhs (USD$30-44,000) Performance: very high BOD loading, high sludge build up in ABR, poor maintenance, blocked BOD In:1250mg/L COD In:4032mg/L BOD Out:70mg/L COD Out:272mg/L Operation/Maintenance: Employed maintenance staff, community committee Funding: Caretaker funded by municipality. Sunga WWTP Management Reuse: Biogas sometimes produced to school. Discharge to irrigation channel mixed with polluted water

Srikhandapur
Year Built: 2006 Funder: Dhulikhel Municipality, UNHabitat Size: Designed for 200 hh, currently 125hh System: 2x Biogas, 6xwetland, Cost: 53 lakhs (USD$72,000) Performance: very good performance, although stormwater infiltration high BOD In:90mg/L COD In:406mg/L BOD Out:15mg/L COD Out:210mg/L Operation/Maintenance: User committee manages the O&M. There is a part time caretaker Funding: Part time caretaker paid 1500/mth with proceeds from Biogas. Users Committee not paid. Reuse: Biogas reuse very good. No sludge or water reuse. More houses could to connect to Biogas.

Sano Khokana
Year Built: 2006 Funder: Lumanti, UN Habitat Size: 37 hh System: Biogas, Settler, Sludge pits, Wetland, Pond Cost: 27 lakhs (USD$37,000) Performance: Poor operation due to no maintenance staff but good biogas supply. Operation/Maintenance: Community owned and managed. Looking for new caretaker. Womens savings & credit group to take over management. Funding: Caretaker fee was 1500/mth funded from biogas (3/5 pay 250/mth), each house pays 30Rd/mth & any visitors (500/visit) Reuse: Biogas reuse by 4-5hh. Slurry and compost pits for fertilizer but not fully dried & re-used.

Kiritpur
Year Built: 2006 Funder: Lumanti, WaterAid, Size: 30hh System: Baffled settler, 2 HFW Cost: 9Lakhs, (USD1200) Performance: System is not performing well, blockage in pipes, broken inlet and no outflow Operation/Maintenance: Community are responsible for O&M but are generally not. Funding: Community meant to be saving 10Rs/mth towards O&M but are not; instead expect Lumanti to pay salary (3000/mth expected). Reuse: When operating the community reuse treated water for gardening but currently insufficient flow.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Project Need and Initiation The motivation and understanding of the communities need for a wastewater treatment system is integral to long term operation and the ongoing commitment of community members. The community project at Sunga was moved from a previously identified community in Sidhikali that could not achieve consensus on installation and location of a WWTP. The Sunga community approached ENPHO for the installation of the plant with the motivation of rehabilitating the dump site and subsiding cliff area of the WWTP site, and to protect the downstream river from contamination. At Sano Khokana the community was not using their pit latrines in favour of open defecation because the latrines were expected to fill up too quickly and the removal costs are too high. However, through WATSAN education campaigns they understood the need for sanitation and were eager for a solution and selected the biogas plant. The community members at Kiritpur were being charged by a downstream landowner for their wastewater discharge on his site, and therefore installed the DEWATS and no longer have to pay. At Srikhandapur the municipality identified three suitable sites based on existing infrastructure and layout, and fortunately, the chosen community was highly motivated once the plant was proposed. All projects included involvement of the community in selection of treatment option, participation and contribution to construction and some operation training which has assisted in ownership and understanding of the system. DEWATS Design and Suitability Although most DEWATS are simple to operate, the selection of which systems and the finer design details influence the ease of operation and long term performance. Table 2 is a summary of the different DEWATS components at each site and the advantages and disadvantages of the installed designs relevant to the site and the operational skills. Table 2. DEWATS Design Benefits & Disadvantages Benefits Sunga ABR, Multiple treatment systems Biogas, are beneficial for the high 2x HFW, concentration inflow. The 2x VFW, system makes good use of SDB stepped land allowing for VFW. Shrikhan 2x -dapur Biogas, 6x HFW Very good supply from biogas, however as it is very large there is potential for more houses to be connected. Well designed inlet channel. Good biogas supply, even to houses far away. Holistic waste management approach. High reuse potential of fertilizer and treated water. Simple system, reuse tank useful location for the agriculture land downstream.

Sano Biogas, Khokana ABR, SDB, HFW, Pond Kiritpur Settler, 2x HFW

Disadvantages Bar screen inlet is always blocked. Biogas wall is cracked due to poor construction. The ABR size is too small for the high concentration inflow requiring regular desludging. Wetland distribution pipes broken/ blocked in both HFW and VFW. Too many HFWs to maintain. Pipes from biogas to the HFWs not even causing uneven flow distribution. Wetlands are possibly leaking since discharge flow is very low. Waste separation is labour intensive and the chopping of kitchen waste for biogas is difficult due to broken grinders. The HFW is leaking into pond without treatment. Septic tanks at each property poorly designed or too small requiring frequent desludging. Manhole pits are not clearly located.
4

Note: ABRAnaerobic Baffle Reactor, HFWHorizontal Flow Wetland, VFWVertical Flow Wetland, SDB-Sludge Drying Bed

The long term success of a community DEWATS relies on suitable design and quality construction to make the most of the initial available funding and limit the ongoing costs to the community. Key design features that assist with sustainable operation in the systems assessed in Kathmandu include: Simple processes to reduce daily maintenance or skills required no grates, no tipping buckets, long desludging period (large initial chamber), no pumps; Channel rather than pipe distribution inlets to wetlands; Including allowance or diversion for stormwater inflows; Access for sludge removal trucks and access openings on all chambers (able to be lifted by one person); Good construction including water tight walls & floor, level pipes, sufficient thickness brick and concrete walls, properly jointed pipes, buried pipes, correct levels; Inclusion of community in construction phase to understand system for maintenance; Create an income generating by-product such as biogas and allow for use of treated water prior to discharge into channel. Operation & Maintenance Across the systems the operational ease of the plant was a main component in ensuring long term performance and operation. At Sano Khokana the hands-on work required for waste separation caused the previous caretaker to resign. The Sunga inlet has a bar screen which is too small for the high solid content of the flow and is often blocked causing flow to divert past the treatment system. Additionally, the multiple bypass options at Sunga are not used correctly, due to the lack of understanding of the caretaker and ease of changing them, causing frequent emptying of ABR and diversion of flows into open pit. At Kiritpur there has been no maintenance since construction and poor understanding of operation which resulted in the inlet pipe breaking; bed is covered in sludge, weeds and rubbish; and some walls have collapsed. However these are minor issues which could be rectified easily and, with community motivation, the plant could be operating well again. The potential issue of the twice-daily need to open the biogas valve is actually beneficial since it ensures site attendance daily and quick identification of problems. In general, regular cropping of the vegetation or replanting was not occurring and the need or method for desludging was not well understood. At Srikhandapur the sludge drying bed has not yet been used, at Sunga it is overused and not able to dry, and in Sano Khokana the alternating of beds had not occurred and rubbish was dumped in the pit. The involvement of the community in the construction and provision of detailed initial, then regular ongoing training, is the best opportunity to improve the communities understanding of the system and ability to maintain it. DEWATS Performance The wastewater quality of two systems was tested to determine the treatment efficiency and the discharge against the required discharge quality for treatment systems in Nepal (MOPE, 2003). The wastewater was collected using grab sampling at Sunga and Srikhandapur and tested in the ENPHO laboratory. These sites have also been tested in previous years and the results could be compared with prior performance. As well as improving understanding of current performance, the quality testing also aimed to determine an appropriate influent quality standard for community wastewater in Kathmandu and actual treatment effectiveness of each system. The other two sites did not have sufficient flow through the entire system to test the quality, however, there is testing planned for 2011 after maintenance is undertaken.
5

600 500 400

Srikhandapur Influent/Effluent
1304mg/L
Aug-09 Feb-10 Aug-10

Sunga Influent/Effluent Load


5000 4000 L3000 / g m 2000 1000 0 2006 2007 2008

mg/L

300 200 100 0 Inflow BOD Inflow COD Outflow BOD Outflow COD

BOD In

COD In

BOD Out

COD Out

Figure 1 Influent and Effluent Quality Srikhandapur

Figure 2 Influent and Effluent Quality Sunga

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Srikhandapur Treatment Across System


BOD COD TSS

Sunga Treatment Across System


4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Inflow Out ABR BOD COD TSS

Inflow

Biogas Out

Wetland Out

Out HFW Out VFW

Figure 3 Quality across system Srikhandapur (2010)

Figure 4 Quality across system Sunga (2010)


100 t 90 n a l P80 s s o r 70 c A l a60 v o m e50 R % 40 30

Srikhandapur Treatment Efficiency


100% 90%

Sunga Treatment Plant Removal

Aug-10 Feb-10 Aug-09

Ave % Removal

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

2006 2007 2010

BOD

COD

TSS

BOD

COD

TSS

Figure 5 Performance Srikhandapur

Figure 6 Performance Sunga

The influent loads of Srikhandapur and Sunga are very different with Sunga continually receiving influent BOD levels greater than 1000mg/L and Srikhandapur always below 100mg/L. Other old village sites have tested similar levels to Sunga with Shankamul discharge quality of 1650mg/L, however other mixed sewers like Srikhandapur have similar results of 410mg/L (Kirtipur Central Horticulture Centre). The very high concentration is likely due to very low water use in these older towns where wells are the main supply and water availability is low. The discharge effluent of Srikhandapur always meets the Nepali discharge guidelines of 50mg/L BOD and 250mg/L COD (MOPE 2003), however the Sunga site often discharges just above this level. The treatment efficiency at Sunga is very high, indicating that the good treatment is occurring but the very high influent load causes the discharge quality to not meet required level. The Srikhandapur treatment performance is generally high, however a high COD load causes low removal performance, this high load could be due to agricultural runoff entering the mixed sewer. It will be beneficial to compare these results with Sano Khokana and Kiritpur when tested in 2011 to determine a suitable influent loading to assume for community systems.
6

Management Frameworks In decentralising the wastewater treatment process, the ownership and management is also moved away from central government to community or partial municipal management. With the low priority of wastewater treatment in Nepal to date, the poor performance of existing plants and the long approval and construction process for new plants, there are many benefits of the decentralised management approach. By shifting the responsibility to those using and benefiting from the system, locating the plant in close proximity to its owners and having some dependence on good performance (ie. biogas supply, reuse water, no odour) has shown strong benefits in long term operation and response to issues. However, as with any shared facility there is difficulty in assigning responsibility to its upkeep or ensuring ongoing commitment from a group. It is the responsibility of the implementing organisation to determine and set up a suitable management framework to allow for the ongoing management and operation of they system. Community user management groups, municipality and other community organisations are key stakeholders in the operation of DEWATS, response to problems and gathering of funds. An important component for Srikhandapur, Sunga and Kiritpur systems is the strong support of the municipality in implementation and ongoing maintenance. At Srikhandapur the municipality paid for the land, at Sunga the municipality pays for the caretaker salary and at Kiritpur the municipality has subsidised septic tank pump out and provides waste management services. A water user committee often exists in many communities or one can be set up from the project outlay and has been successful in management of these systems. At Sunga the wastewater committee collected funds and organised for the fixing of a wall broken by landslide. At Srikhandapur the management committee, particularly the gas users, are responsible for the operation, fixing gas blockages, collection of funds and paying the caretaker. At Sano Khokana the user committee has collected funds, adds organic waste to the biogas and turns the gas on/off whilst there is no caretaker. However at Kiritpur there is no active group that takes responsibility for the DEWATS. This is highlighted in the fact that they feel little responsibility for the system and do not maintain it. Over time the management may need to change, particularly as water user committees dissolve and a more permanent structure or financial management is required. At Sano Khokana, and potentially Kiritpur, the Womens Savings and Credit group is taking over the management and collection of funds, with the benefit of having members from each household and already collecting savings payments. Funding Methods The funding of operation and maintenance is a major challenge for DEWATS in Nepal, with low priority to wastewater treatment, no charges for dumping waste without treatment and generally low income in many small communities. However, most of these sites show that good financing is possible when a method is set up at the project start. Both Srikhandapur and Sano Khokana provide a steady income to pay a caretakers salary through the proceeds of the biogas plant, with the Sano Khokana community also contributing 30 Rs per household per month and also charging visitors to the plant. The Sunga caretaker is funded by the municipality under an arrangement organised at the plant initiation as the municipalitys contribution to the project. The Kiritpur site management was initially funded by the contractor but, following completion, there was confusion regarding the responsibility for ongoing funding and maintenance. The community expected Lumanti to pay the caretaker salary as they were paying for the fines for discharging wastewater, whereas Lumanti intended for the community to contribute 10Rs per month on top of their existing loan repayments. However this is not occurring and motivation to pay for the wastewater is low
7

due to a general feeling that the system is not their responsibility, especially in households which are struggling to meet their loan repayments. This highlights the need to ensure community motivation and commitment, as well as setting up secure management and funding mechanisms that are agreed to by the community, prior to the project. Despite most systems sustaining the ongoing operational costs, there is generally no saving for major maintenance activities such as desludging, pipe replacement or major repairs. Therefore it is even more important to ensure that the initial construction and design is done to a high level and to minimise the maintenance requirements.

CONCLUSION The continued success of three of the four community treatment plants assessed gives confidence in DEWATS as a sustainable solution to wastewater treatment in cluster community and peri-urban areas of Nepal. Some important requirements of the project initiator are to determine the suitability and commitment of a community to owning a DEWATS; designing a suitable low operation treatment system; setting up a sustainable management and funding framework and providing ongoing maintenance training. The systems in which communities had a motivation for wastewater treatment, a proven ability to manage a project together, and financial capacity for some contribution to the project, were successful in operation and management. Additionally, a major opportunity for project initiators and designers to ensure long term success of a community managed DEWATS, is to select the most appropriate design, supervise quality construction and provide ongoing operation training. Most community projects have more funding available at the start of the project, therefore opportunities for the proposed design improvements that can increase the lifespan of components, reduce O&M activities and costs, should be included. Of the two systems assessed for wastewater quality, the Srikhandapur met the Nepal Discharge Guidelines however the Sunga system just failed despite over 93% removal in BOD5, COD and TSS levels. The ongoing removal performance of Sunga and Srikhandapur has remained high over the years, and with minor maintenance works to improve flow distribution at Srikhandapur and remove sludge at Sunga, they will continue to operate very well in the future. Assisting ongoing performance was a stable management body which was regularly undertook operation and maintenance activities, responded quickly to issues and independently fixed problems. Wastewater user groups set up at the start of the project have worked well, particularly when set up with a funding method and given training on operation requirements. However, over time as their other responsibilities reduce, there is an opportunity for the Womens Saving and Credit groups, or similar bodies, to take over management such as is proposed at Sano Khokana and in discussion at Kiritpur. The generation and use of biogas is a very suitable inclusion into DEWATS in communities as the payments for its use create a secure funding for the operation costs and a demand for good performance. Although not currently used, other by-products such as fertilizer and treated water also have good funding potential. Municipal support at the start of the project and commitment to some ongoing funding is also a sustainable approach to funding operation. Monthly payments by each household had lower long term success as wastewater treatment in Nepal is not yet valued to the level of paying for the service. Due to the shared nature of community systems, it is not expected or feasible for individuals to operate or maintain them without some financial incentive. From this assessment it is evident that a system should not be installed unless a suitable management and finance system is agreed within the community and there is confidence that operation and maintenance will occur.
8

There will always be difficulty in motivating groups to install wastewater treatment systems and manage or fund their operation whilst there is no regulation for wastewater discharge in Nepal. However, with an increasing promotion of the impacts of poor sanitation and the long time before any major centralised system will occur, there is great potential to encourage more communities to adopt this approach. Community motivation is the main driver in getting a project initiated, ensuring operation and ongoing maintenance and contributing funds. Through the promotion of these treatment systems and other DEWATS in Nepal, it is expected the interest from both communities and donors to implement these systems will increase. As ENPHO and other organisations undertake wide scale sanitation projects, it is recommended to include an assessment of the potential and benefits of DEWATS in comparison with individual on site options (ie. eco-san toilets). Additionally further regulation and education against untreated wastewater discharge would assist in communities understanding the need for DEWATS or desire to make a difference. Within a sound management framework and with a well designed system, there is strong evidence that community managed DEWATS can be sustainable and are a suitable method for wastewater treatment in Nepal. REFERENCE GHD, (2010) Conceptual Wastewater Master Plan, Final Report, report prepared for Asia Development Bank as part of Kathmandu Valley Water Supply and Wastewater System Improvement TA4893-NEP by GHD, in association with ICON Consultants Ltd, February 2010 Lumanti (2008), Cleaner Communities Newsletter, Nepal, viewed 9 January 2011, < http://www.lumanti.com.np/downloads/Newsletter.pdf Nepal Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), (2003), Wastewater Discharge Guideline, June 2003. Rajbhandari, K (2009) Kirtipur Housing Project Report, WaterAid Nepal. Sasse, L (1998) Decentralised Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries, BORDA, Delhi Tuladhar, B., Shrestha, P. and Shrestha, R. (2008) Decentralised wastewater management using constructed wetlands, Proceedings of Beyond construction: Use by all workshop, Water Aid and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Rajendrapur, Bangladesh, pp 86-94 Water Aid, (2008) Decentralised wastewater management using constructed wetlands in Nepal, WaterAid Nepal

You might also like