Sanitation Final 2013 - MNS BluePrintmnsblueprint.org/pdf/Sanitation.pdf · 2019-05-06 ·...

Rupali Ghate – GreenEarth Social Development Consulting Pvt. Ltd. March 2013 l Version 1 - Thought for Approval © Maharashtra NavNirman Sena

Sustainable Environmental Sanitation Sanitation Blueprint

Sanitation 1

Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 3

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 3

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5

History of Sanitation Infrastructure Facilities in India ........................................................... 9

Indus Valley Civilization ..................................................................................................... 9

Pre –Colonial Era................................................................................................................ 9

Post‐Independence Era ................................................................................................... 10

Sanitation Facilities in India ................................................................................................. 14

Sanitation Facilities in Maharashtra .................................................................................... 15

Toilet Facilities ................................................................................................................. 15

Drainage facilities ............................................................................................................ 18

Efforts taken by the state to improve sanitation in Maharashtra .................................. 19

Problem Definition .............................................................................................................. 21

Clean and Healthy Maharashtra .......................................................................................... 26

Policy Statement .................................................................................................................. 27

Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 29

Agenda 1: Use water sensibly .......................................................................................... 29

Agenda 2: Treat wastewater to the appropriate level of reuse and recycle .................. 29

Agenda 3: Wastewater as a valuable resource ............................................................... 29

Agenda 4: Redesign toilets .............................................................................................. 29

Agenda 5: Separate collection of industrial and domestic wastewater ......................... 30

Agenda 6: Decentralize wastewater management and treatment systems .................. 30

Agenda 7: Use dual or triple water distribution systems ................................................ 30

Sanitation 2

Agenda 8: Harvesting Rainwater for single homes and buildings ................................... 30

Agenda 9: Restoring natural drainage system ................................................................ 31

Agenda 10: Restoring water bodies ................................................................................ 31

Agenda 11: Monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................... 31

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 32

Case studies ......................................................................................................................... 33

References ........................................................................................................................... 36

Sanitation 3

List of Tables

Table 1‐Deaths due to Diarrheal Diseases – Top 5 countries for the year 2008 ................. 14

Table 2‐Availability of Latrines for households – 1991, 2001, 2011 (% of Households) ..... 16

Table 3 ‐ Toilet facility in Maharashtra and Open defecation percentage ......................... 17

Table 4: Drainage facilities in Maharashtra households ..................................................... 18

Table 5‐ Bathroom facilities in Maharashtra households ................................................... 18

Table 6‐Open defecation in regions of Maharashtra .......................................................... 20

List of Figures

Figure 1‐ Routes of faecal disease transmission and protective barriers ............................. 7

Figure 2 ‐Corbelled drain ‐ Indus Valley Civilization .............................................................. 9

Figure 3 ‐ % of open defeacation in rural areas in South Asian Countries (2008) .............. 14

Figure 4‐Availabilty of latrines by households‐1991, 2001, 2011 (% of households) ......... 15

Figure 5‐Distribution of households with and without latrines .......................................... 16

Figure 6‐Households by availability of latrine facility in Maharashtra ‐ 2011 census ........ 17

Figure 7‐Water used in a household in India ...................................................................... 21

Figure 8‐District‐wise physical achievement of household toilets...................................... 22

Figure 9‐Template for the decentralized mixed sewage system in Kolhapur, India. A combination of decentralized combined sewers, wastewater treatment and reuse of nutrient rich water in peri‐urban agriculture is applied. .................................................... 33

Figure 10‐ Decentralized mixed sewage system in Lübeck Flintenbreite, Germany. A combination of decentralized separated sewers, grey water treatment in a constructed wetland and anaerobic digestion of black water in a biogas reactor is applied. ................ 34

Figure 11‐ Template for the dry excreta and grey water system implemented in Hamburg, Germany. A combination of decentralized compost toilets, separate sewers, grey water treatment as well as the reuse of products, such as composted feces and organic wastes are applied. .......................................................................................................................... 35

Sanitation 4

Abbreviations

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization

CRSP Central Rural Sanitation Program

GLAAS Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water

GoAL WaSH Governance, Advocacy and Leadership for Water Sanitation and Hygiene

GoI Government of India

GP Gram Panchayat

IDRC International Development Research Centre’s

ILCS Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Program

JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MDWS Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation

MJP Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran

MoUD Ministry of Urban Development

NBA Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan

NGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar

NRTC Nasik Research and Training Centre

NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy

ODF Open Defecation Free

PRI Panchayati Raj Institutions

RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

SLWM Solid and Liquid Waste Management

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

TSC Total Sanitation Campaign

TTI Think Tank Initiative

ULB Urban Local Bodies

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

WHO World Health Organization

Sanitation 5

Introduction

“Sanitation is more important than independence” – Mahatma Gandhi

Sanitation is the foundation of human health, dignity and development. It generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces. Inadequate sanitation is a major cause of disease world‐wide and improving sanitation is known to have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across communities. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal1.

Sanitation is application of measures to improve and protect health and well‐being of people, dispose human waste properly, use toilets and avoid open defecation, and treat water used for these purposes before it is left to the river or put to use again.

India’s National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP, 2008) defines sanitation as “safe management of human excreta, including its safe confined treatment, disposal and associated hygiene‐related practices.”

World Health Organization (WHO) defines sanitation as the safe management of human waste (excreta) – which includes urine and feces ‐ through provision of latrines and the promotion of personal hygiene. Environmental sanitation is a broader term, which includes issues ranging from safeguarding water quality; disposal of human excreta, waste water and garbage; insect and rodent control; food handling practices and drainage.

A good sanitation system minimizes negative impact on environment. The components of sanitation & hygiene are discussed below2

• Safe collection, storage, treatment and disposal/re‐use/ recycling of human excreta (feces and urine);

• Hygienic behavior (including hand washing, household storage of water) • Management/ re‐use/ recycling of solid wastes (trash or rubbish); • Drainage and disposal/ re‐use/ recycling of household wastewater (often referred

to as sullage or grey water); • Drainage of storm water; • Treatment and disposal/ re‐use/ recycling of sewage effluents;

There is a direct relation between water, sanitation, and health. Unsafe drinking water causes temporary or even permanent health problems, open disposal of human excreta leads to bad hygiene. Today’s sanitation facilities require considerable amount of water. In deciding the need of water, drinking water has been given the first priority, with

1 http://www.who.int/topics/sanitation/en/ 2 Government of UK, Department of International Development (DFID) http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

Sanitation 6

agriculture and industry to follow. Water requirement may not be as important as that for drinking, but it is definitely just secondary to it.

Lack of sanitation facilities forces people to defecate in the open, in rivers or near areas where children play or food is prepared. This increases the risk of transmitting disease. The Ganga river in India has 1.1 million liters of raw sewage dumped into it every minute.

Absence of proper sanitation gets reflected into poor hygiene, and it manifests itself into a variety of disease like schistosomiasis, dysentery, Japanese encephalitis, malaria, dengue fever and trachoma.

The world over, four in ten people live in situations where they are surrounded by human excrement, because it is in the bushes outside the village, or left by children at the back door. The disease toll of this is striking.

40% of the world’s people do not have access to a basic level of sanitation; one in five of us practices open defecation3.

A sanitation specialist has estimated that people who live in areas with inadequate sanitation ingest 10 grams of fecal matter every day. Poor sanitation, bad hygiene and unsafe water – usually unsafe because it has fecal particles in it – cause one in ten of the world’s illnesses. Diarrhea ‐ almost 90% of which is caused by food or water contaminated with feces, kills a child every 15 seconds4. According to reports from the Disease Control Priorities Project, about 90% of the cases of diarrhea worldwide can be prevented by adequate sanitation, hygiene and water supply.

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and WHO are actively working together on Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation. Both these organizations are working towards achieving the MDG of halving the number of people without access to sanitation set by the United Nations.

The United Nations‐World Health Organization Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation defines ‘improved’ sanitation as: the means that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact and hence reduces health risks to humans.

3 World Bank, Water & Sanitation Program, “Financing On‐Site Sanitation for the Poor: A Six Country Comparative Review & Analysis”, January 2010 4 Rose George, “The Big Necessity‐Adventures in the world of human waste”, pp. 2‐3

Inadequate sanitation causes diseases and environmental pollution. About 1.8 million people die every year from diarrheal diseases; 90% of these are children under 5, most are in developing countries.

One gram of faeces can contain: 10,000,000 viruses, 1,000,000 bacteria,

1000 parasite cysts and 100 parasite eggs

World Health Organisation

Sanitation 7

Inadequate sanitation is thus the lack of improved facilities (toilets, conveyance, and treatment systems), and hygienic practices (for example, hand washing, proper water handling, personal hygiene, and so on) that exposes people to human excreta and thus to disease‐causing fecal‐oral pathogens through different transmission pathways5. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) also works in the arena of water sanitation and hygiene through its programs GoAL WaSH – Governance, Advocacy and Leadership for Water Sanitation and Hygiene.

Figure 1‐ Routes of faecal disease transmission and protective barriers6

An estimated 55% of all Indians, or close to 600 million people, still do not have access to any kind of toilet.

Indians who live in urban slums and rural environments are most affected due to inadequate sanitation7. 69% of rural population still defecates in the open8. The country has around 700,000 scavengers who make their living by collecting excreta from house to house. Even if sewerage system is available it is poorly maintained which leads to overflow of raw sewage. In most of the cities this system cannot handle increased load. Existing sewers in cities like Pune and Mumbai cannot manage the wastewater produced daily. The current practice of sanitation poses a threat to fresh water supplies with poor suffering the most. It also incurs an additional cost to the economy by adding cost to treat river water before use for agriculture or drinking. In a study by the Canada based International Development Research Centre’s (IDRC) Think Tank Initiative (TTI), in terms

5 World Bank, “The economic Impacts of inadequate sanitation in India”, 2010 6 http://water.worldbank.org/node/83310/ 7 Asian Development Bank, “India’s sanitation for all ‐How to Make It Happen” 8 World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), Joint Monitoring Program, 2008

Sanitation 8

of coverage of city with sewerage, Chennai was found to have the best coverage at 99% of total households, followed by Kolkata at 83%, Delhi at 52% and Mumbai at only 42%9.

World Bank has implemented various projects in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh to name a few. In these projects, Non‐Governmental Organizations have been consciously responsible as an intermediary agency between World Bank and the community.

9 Business Standard, “From the Indus Valley Civilization to SEZs”, Kala Seetharam Sridhar & Samar Verma, October 25, 2012

Sanitation 9

History of Sanitation Infrastructure Facilities in India

History has seen a practice of defecating in the open in India. Sewerage systems existed in the ancient civilizations, but the system of defecating in predetermined reserved places in the open was prevalent. Low population and low density made it possible to demarcate open spaces for defecation; it served as manure for the land as well. With the increased and ever increasing population, this method does not fit into the development cycle and we have to look for alternatives for sanitation that would fit the contemporary needs while making optimum and efficient use of available resources.

Indus Valley Civilization

A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture is evident in the Indus Valley Civilization. The quality of municipal town planning suggests knowledge of urban planning and efficient municipal governments, which placed a high priority on hygiene evident by constructing complex drainage and sanitations systems. All the houses, small and large had access to water and drainage facilities. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. The drainage system was very advanced. Drains started from the bathrooms of houses and joined the main sewer in the street, which was covered by brick slabs or corbelled brick arches, depending on its width. The covered drains were connected to larger sewer outlets, which led the dirty water in soak pits outside the populated areas.

Figure 2 ‐Corbelled drain ‐ Indus Valley Civilization

Pre –Colonial Era

British troops suffered from frequent outbreaks of fevers and cholera during the British rule. The reason for these out breaks was poor sanitary conditions. A scheme was

Sanitation 10

proposed whereby all medical officers would be required to send reports of the sanitary statistics of districts, stations and cantonments.

In 1857, a Royal Commission was appointed to examine the regulations affecting sanitary conditions of the army with other medical aspects. 3 presidency commissions were set up in 1984, to assist all matter relating to improvements of sanitary conditions in barracks, hospitals and stations. After 2 years, the sanitary commissions were wound up and sanitary commissioners were appointed in each province.

The British Government introduced the first Sanitation Bill in India in 1878, which made construction of toilets compulsory and also proposed the construction of public toilets. But the efforts on sanitary reforms concerning the general population were not enforced fearing that any element of compulsion might offend "the people's customs and religious sensibilities".

The sanitation systems (bucket latrine) in India used sweepers from the downtrodden communities to empty buckets, which undermined their social position in the society for centuries. As part of the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi established the Harijan Sevak Sangh for the liberation of scavengers and laid the foundation for a rural sanitation movement in India.

PostIndependence Era

The Environmental Hygiene Committee (1948‐49) appointed by Government of India carried out an overall assessment and planning of environmental sanitation and recommended a forty year plan to cover 90% of the population. The suggestions of this committee were never operationalized and no serious attempt was made to improve the sanitation both in rural and urban areas.

The responsibility for provision of sanitation facilities in India is decentralized and primarily rests with local government bodies i.e. Gram Panchayat in rural areas and municipalities or corporations in urban areas. The state and central governments have a facilitating role that takes the form of framing enabling policies/guidelines, providing financial and capacity‐building support and monitoring progress. In the central government, the Planning Commission, through Five Year Plans, guides investment in the sector by allocating funding for strategic priorities.

The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation has been separated from the Ministry of Rural Development from 13th July 2011 and been renamed as Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (MDWS). The MDWS looks after the proper supply of drinking water, its treatment after use, and providing water and other resources like toilets for the essential service of sanitation, at the national level. The 11th Schedule of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 sets out a list of critical issues for the rural local bodies.

Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) takes the responsibility of sanitation in urban areas through Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization

Sanitation 11

(CPHEEO). A centrally sponsored scheme Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme has been into operation from 1994. 50% cost is provided by MoUD while 50% is provided by the state government10.

Responsibility for planning and delivery of urban services, including sanitation, lies with urban local bodies under local municipal laws and the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. The 12th Schedule of the Act sets out a list of critical issues for the urban local bodies including, amongst other things:

• Urban planning, • Regulation of land‐use and construction of buildings, • Water supply for domestic, industrial, and commercial purposes, • Public health, sanitation, conservancy, and solid waste management, • Protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects, and • Slum improvement and upgrading

Five Year Plans and Programs Launched

In 1954 rural sanitation program was introduced in the First Five‐Year Plan as part of the health sector. However, the efforts did not succeed until 1980s. A baseline was provided by reports of Bhore Committee (1946) and Environmental Hygiene Committee (1948) and these services were included in the national agenda during First Five Year Plan. Bhore Committee stated in its final report “If it were possible to evaluate the loss, which this country annually suffers through the avoidable waste of valuable human material and the lowering of human efficiency through malnutrition and preventable morbidity, we feel that the result would be so startling that the whole country would be aroused and would not rest until a radical change had been brought about"

While the first five plan periods were characterized by relatively negligible investments in sanitation, it received a major fillip from the Sixth Plan (1980‐85) onwards and the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980.

First five plan periods had negligible investments in water supply and sanitation. Since beginning of Sixth Five Year Plan (1980‐85) and with the launch of International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation decade in 1980s, India started strengthening its effort towards rural water supply and sanitation. During the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation decade in 1980s, the target was to cover 80% urban population through sanitation facilities and do away with manual scavenging.

In the Seventh Five‐Year Plan (1988‐92), a new program of sanitation was introduced at village level for health centers, schools, anganwadis, etc. Construction of household latrines was taken up under various government programs. Tasks like planning, implementing, supervising and coordinating for Central Rural Sanitation Program (CRSP)

10 Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme Report, September 1994

Sanitation 12

were delegated to Ministry of Rural Development in 1986. Subsidies were provided for construction of latrines.

Eighth Five‐Year Plan (1992‐97), focused on improving human health through provision of safe drinking water supply and basic sanitation. This Plan aimed to cover 5% rural population with sanitation services by the end of the period.

Government of India (GoI) launched Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) sector reforms. The reform program has a decentralized approach focusing on improvement of sanitation through local elected bodies.

The 73rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution has given power to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Gram Panchayat (GP) has been authorized to provide potable water and sanitary services. In many villages Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) co‐exist with the GP, as sub committees or independently.

The 12th Schedule of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of India, defines 18 new tasks in the functional domain of the Urban Local Bodies, as follows to the Indian Constitution has given power to the Municipal bodies and Municipalities

Ninth Five Year Plan envisages provision of potable drinking water to every settlement in the country and all possible measures for rapid expansion and improvement of sanitation facilities in urban as well as rural areas. It had to be achieved through central and state investments, institutional finance, strengthening of operation and maintenance system and involvement of communities at various stages of planning and implementation.

Tenth Five Year Plan envisages possible measures for rapid expansion and improvement of sanitation facilities in urban areas with local participation. It also envisages total eradication of manual scavenging.

Eleventh Five Year Plan promotes low cost technologies for toilet construction and decentralized solid and liquid waste management models in rural areas. It also encourages reuse and recycle of sewage as well as a comprehensive storm water drainage system in all the cities and towns based on need, in order to avoid water logging in residential areas/flooding of streets during monsoon.

The Central Rural Sanitation Program (CRSP) was the first program on rural sanitation initiated in 1986 by the Rural Development Department to provide sanitation facilities in rural areas. It was a supply driven, highly subsidy and infrastructure oriented program. As a result of deficiencies and low financial allocations, the CRSP had very little impact. It was transformed into Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999 for ensuring community participation. Its target was to eradicate open defecation in rural areas by 2012. TSC is operational in 578 out of 600 rural districts with an outlay of Rs.13423.97 crore (US$ 3.35 billion). The central share in this is 60% whereas state share and community contributions are around 20% each. This was further strengthened with the introduction of Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) in 2003. NGP is an innovative program that offers fiscal incentives in the form of a cash prize to local governments that achieve 100% sanitation i.e. 100% open defecation free (ODF) and have tackled issues of solid and liquid waste management

Sanitation 13

(SLWM). The amount of incentive is based on population. NGP helps to raise the status of the winning Panchayat, and create peer pressure among neighboring Panchayats as well as tough competition at all tiers of the administration.

In 2012, the TSC was revamped as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) to accelerate the sanitation coverage in the rural areas so as to comprehensively cover the rural community through renewed strategies.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) was launched in 2005‐06 to encourage cities to initiate steps to bring about improvement in existing civic services levels in a sustainable manner. The components under the sub‐mission, namely, Urban Infrastructure and Governance include urban renewal, water supply (including desalination plants), sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management, urban transport, development of heritage areas, preservation of water bodies, etc. It targets 100% sanitation coverage in urban areas.

Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water (GLAAS) has been undertaken in association with the United Nations to monitor the inputs required to provide and sustain water, hygiene and sanitation in all the developing parts of the world.

In October 2008, the government came out with NUSP. According to NUSP, 7.87% of urban households defecate in the open, 8.13% use community latrines, 19.49% share latrines, 18.5% have no access to drainage and 39.8% are connected to open drains.

Sanit

India lareas makeshealthsuffer individ11th in

This thygien

C(pInNEDP

A comopen d

11 GoveCampai12 http:/13 Zee Nhttp://z14 Worl15 http:/

tation Fac

lags behind lack sanitats disposal ofh of people,from wate

dual and alsn the world f

ExpenditRs.2,000

able below ne. This indic

Tab

Country population randia Nigeria Ethiopia Democratic RePakistan

mparative andefecation in

Figu

ernment of Indign), Annual Re//www.worldlNews, “Sanitatizeenews.india.d Health Organ//www.prb.org

cilities in

in providingion facilitiesf waste diffic especially er related ilo an unhealfor deaths du

ture on wat0 crore on sa

lists five wcates the ne

ble 1‐Deaths due

ank)

epublic of th

alysis of Soun the rural a

ure 3 ‐ % of ope

ia, Ministry of eport 2012 ifeexpectancy.ion disastrous .com/news/nanization, Depag/pdf08/08wp

India

g basic servs. Shortage ocult. Human infants – chllnesses in lthy and unhue to diarrhe

er supply wanitation in I

worst counted for all‐inc

e to Diarrheal D

e Congo

uth Asian coareas.

n defeacation in

Drinking Wate

.com/country‐in India”, Ramtion/sanitationrtment of Meapds_eng.pdf

vice of sanitaor non‐provwaste contahildren undeIndia11. Thihygienic liveea12.

as Rs.20,000ndia13

tries with wclusive and s

iseases – Top 5

Population15

(2011) 1,149,300,00148,100,0079,100,0066,500,00

172,800,00

untries in th

n rural areas in S

er and Sanitatio

health‐profile/esh; Nov 2, 20n‐disastrous‐inasurement and

ation to rurision of watains bacteriaer the age os results inelihood for t

0 crore annu

worst sanitatsustainable s

countries for th

5 Deathsdiarrhea

0000000000

he year 2008

South Asian Cou

on, Nirmal Bha

/india 011 ‐ n‐india‐rameshd Health Inform

San

ral areas. 65ter and absea which direof five. 30 mn stunted ghe family. In

ually, it was

tion facilitiesanitation fa

he year 200814

s due to al diseases

1085700 173500 124000 120500 111700

8 shows that

untries (2008)

arat Abhiyan (T

h_739447.htmlmation

itation 14

5% of its rurence of toilectly affect thmillion peoprowth of thndia is ranke

just

es and pubacilities.

Deaths per lakh

9010414717362

t India tops

Total Sanitation

l

4

ral ets he ple he ed

lic

in

n

Sanit

The relocal sthe urpolicie

Safe cand uwater

Toile

At thecame disparattachincreacase f38% in

tation Fac

esponsibilityself‐governmrban areas. Tes, budgetar

ollection, storine); housedrainage fa

et Facilitie

e national ledown marg

rities betweehed to their se in toilet for rural Man 2011. (Tab

Figur

cilities in

y for provisioment bodies The State anry support an

orage, treatehold wastecilities form

s

evel, 76% hoginally to 6en rural anddwellings, ifacilities in aharashtra, wle 2)

re 4‐Availabilty o

Maharas

on of sanita– Gram Pannd Central Gnd capacity d

ment and diewater (wasthe compon

ouseholds d64% in 2001d urban areit is only 31rural India fwhere toilet

of latrines by ho

shtra

tion facilitienchayats in Governmentsdevelopmen

isposal/re‐usshing clothenents of san

did not have1 and 53.1eas. Though % in rural afrom 9.5% int facilities h

ouseholds‐1991,

es in the courural areas as act as facint.

se/ recyclinges and utenitation infra

e toilet facil% in 2011. 81% urban

areas (2011)n 1991 to 31ave increase

, 2001, 2011 (%

San

untry primarand urban lolitators, thro

g of human ensils, bathinstructure.

lities in 199There are households). There is a1% in 2011. ed from 6.7

of households)

itation 15

rily rests witocal bodies ough enablin

excreta (feceg) and stor

91. This figuconsiderabs have toile considerabSimilar is th

7% in 1991 t

5

th in ng

es rm

re ble ets ble he to

Toilet whereagain facilitirural a

Table 2

facilities foeas for urbanincreased toes has reducand urban ho

2‐Availability of

199

200

201

199200201

or urban Indn Maharashto 71% in 201ced consideouseholds is

Figure 5‐D

f Latrines for ho

1 TotalRuralUrban

1 TotalRuralUrban

1 TotalRuralUrban

1 No

latrine1 1

dia have inctra it has de11. In Maharably from 7s still signific

istribution of ho

ouseholds – 1991

India 23.70 9.48

63.8536.4121.9273.7246.9030.70

81.40

e

76.3063.5953.10

creased fromecreased frorashtra, per70% in 1991 ant.

ouseholds with

1, 2001, 2011 (%

Maharashtr29.56.664.435.018.258.053.238.171.370.464.946.9

m 63.85% im 64.5% in centage of hto 47% in 20

and without lat

San

% of Households

ra56 644509210820100449190

n 1991 to 81991 to 58%households 011, yet the

trines

itation 16

s)

81% in 201% in 2001 anwithout toil gap betwee

6

11, nd et en

In the availabcommpremi

While househouse

Despittoiletstheir p

urban areasble and defe

munity toiletses.

in the ruraholds have tholds in rura

Figure

te progress, s within prepremises, in

Table 3 ‐ Toilet

Household Latrine faciPour – flushPit Latrine Other latrinLatrine notPublic LatriOpen defec

s of Maharaecate in thets. 72% hou

al areas, 12toilet withinal areas lack

e 6‐Households

significant demises. Whilrural areas 5

facility in Maha

with ility availableh latrine (sew

ne t available wine cation

shtra, 8% hoe open, whiluseholds ha

2.9% househ premises. Hk toilet facilit

by availability o

disparity exile in urban 56% have to

arashtra and Op

e within premwer/septic tan

thin premise

ouseholds dle nearly 21ave some t

holds use pHowever 55.ties and defe

of latrine facility

ists betweenareas 72%

o defecate in

en defecation p

Percemises 5nk) 4

80

es 413

o not have a% of the hotype of latr

public toilets.8% househoecate in the

y in Maharashtr

n urban andhouseholds

n the open.

San

percentage

entage 3.143.58.8 0.8 46.9 2.934

any type of ouseholds harine facility

s while onlyolds that is nopen.

ra ‐ 2011 census

d rural houses have latrin

itation 17

latrine faciliave to rely within the

y 38% of thnearly half th

eholds havinne facilities

7

ty of eir

he he

ng in

Drain

In Mahdraina(Censudrainawhich contrideclinto 201

85.4%have ifacility

Closedhygienare bonot onare thand hy

nage facili

harashtra, 6age facility. Aus 2011). Oages. No drahas the potbute to spre by 6.7 per11.

% householdsincreased byy in India, wh

d drainage fne, as well aoth the critenly and indive pillars of sygiene in a r

ities

67.4% houseAround 3.7 cOf the housinage leads tential to diead of disercentage po

Table 4

Table 5‐

BathrooBathrooBathrooNo bath

s have bathiy a huge 23hile in Maha

facility for s the wellbeeria and indvidual subjesanitation thegion.

holds have dcrore peopleseholds havto accumulasturb the hyase and disints in the h

4: Drainage facil

Type of draClosed draiOpen drainNo drainag

‐ Bathroom faci

om facility om available om with enclohroom

ng facility in3.4% from 2arashtra only

all househoeing of the picators of a ect, but a puat determin

drainage face in the statving drainagation of polluygiene and sscomfort in households h

ities in Maharas

ainageinage nage ge

lities in Mahara

osure withou

n Maharasht2001 to 201y 14.6 house

olds is extrepopulation liclean and aublic one. Bane the degre

cility while 3e remain dege facility, huted waste wspread disealiving condhaving no dr

shtra household

%33.2 34.2 32.5

ashtra househol

%64

ut roof 2114

tra. Househo11. 41.6% hoeholds lack it

emely imporving by. Bata decent staathing, draine of prevale

San

2.6% househevoid of draihalf of themwater in thease. Even opitions. Therrainage facil

ds

ds

4.31.1 4.6

olds with drouseholds lat.

rtant for ththing and drandard of livnage and lance of good

itation 18

holds have nnage facilitiem have ope surroundingpen drainagee has been ity from 200

ainage faciliack bathroo

he health anainage faciliving. Health trine facilitie public healt

8

no es en gs es a

01

ty m

nd ty is es th

Sanitation 19

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP): Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board was constituted on the January 1st, 1977 under the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976 for rapid development and proper regulation of Water Supply and Sewerage service in the Maharashtra. The name of the Board was changed as MJP with effect from March 10th, 199716. The primary objective of MJP is to promote potable water supply and satisfactory sanitation facilities to create and maintain a clean environment. MJP looks after planning, investigation, design, execution and maintenance of water supply and sewerage schemes.

Nasik Research and Training Centre (NRTC): MJP established a research and training centre in Nasik – NRTC – with an objective to contribute towards improving performance by increasing sustainability of water supply and sanitation projects. This centre has been keen on the introduction of technology and computers into the water supply and sanitation sector. Technical and information courses for engineers and operators have resulted in 1794 trainees reaping the benefits in the year 2007‐08.

Efforts taken by the state to improve sanitation in Maharashtra

Maharashtra Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan: Due to consistent demand for augmentation of the existing schemes or for new schemes, the Government of Maharashtra adopted a policy of reforms led capital investment in water supply sector and this led to the institution of Maharashtra Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan during the year of Golden Jubilee Celebrations of the State in 2010‐2011. Maharashtra Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan focuses on reforms in urban water and sanitation sectors, and envisages augmenting access to adequate and safe drinking water, and adequate sanitation facilities. It also attempts to upgrade and maintain existing service delivery through Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI), Urban Local Bodies (ULB) and MJP.

Under this new policy, it has been decided to give sufficient financial help to the ULB which are ready to improve the Urban Water Supply Schemes and Urban Sanitation following prescribed approach. Guiding principles of Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan are as follows17:

• Reforms in existing schemes o Review of unauthorized water connections & convert into regular

connection. o Effective water billing & recovery o Appointment of consultant for water audit, energy audit

• Drainage and Sewerage Management o Action plan for drainage & sewerage, effective use of existing schemes &

reuse of treated water o Drainage & sewerage tax to consumer

• Total sanitation

16 Government of Maharashtra, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradikaran (MJP), Annual Report 2007‐08 17 http://aurangabad.nic.in/htmldocs/vision2020/13_groupnomjp.pdf

Sanitation 20

o Repairing of existing public toilet blocks o On the basis survey, to make action plan for increase in facilities of

individual / Public toilets o Appointment of contractor for day to day maintenance of public toilet

blocks • Solid Waste Management

o Effective system for collecting all solid waste o Construction of Biogas unit, fertilizer unit for disposal of solid waste o Assessment of solid water tax

The town of Malkapur in Satara district and the Amravati city in Amravati district have been the beneficiaries of excellent planning and execution of Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan.

Jal‐swarajaya: Maharashtra Water Supply and Sanitation Department has launched the biggest rural water and sanitation project in the country funded by World Bank. The project is currently being implemented in 27 of the 33 districts in the State. Out of the 2105 sanitation projects planned under Jal‐swarajya, 2075 have been completed18.

Table 6‐Open defecation in regions of Maharashtra19

Region Sanitation

completion (%)

% of open defecation Gram

Panchayat Pada/Wadi/

Wasti Household Village

Amravati 100 39 82 76 40Aurangabad 97 47 43 68 49Konkan 100 95 95 98 94Nagpur 100 68 81 90 65Nashik 99 73 9 76 64Pune 100 95 89 92 94

Sant Gadge Baba Gram Swachhata Abhiyan: This is a village level campaign launched by Water Supply and Sanitation Department. It is being implemented in rural areas of the State from the year 2000‐01 to gear up the programme of rural sanitation through community participation20. This has been extraordinarily successful in the State which has prompted Gol to take the decision to implement it throughout the country as ‘Swachhata Utsav’ in 2011.

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) Programme: Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation21 offered monetary help to state governments to supplement their efforts. The schemes shall be funded with Central Subsidy of 75%, State Subsidy of 15% and beneficiary share (public contribution) of 10%.

18 http://www.mahawssd.gov.in/dataentry/MPR_State.asp 19 Government of Maharashtra, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Performance of regions in curbing open defecation; district‐wise Open Defecation Free Status 20 http://www.mahawssd.gov.in/Innovationbank/gadge_baba.htm 21 Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme, Revised Guidelines, 2008

Prob

In Mahurban Sanitadignity

In urbpremiprobleare no(mornefflueonly kdowns

Thus wflow wexcrethas befate. Sbodiesways. but pr

At houhouseh(16.3%househleaves househ

22 Wate

blem Defin

harashtra thareas. Withtion facilitiey especially t

an areas eveses and geem lies at thot able to tings) and is nts (the liqukills the watestream that

we take in wwith water ta and induseen reducedSo before ws meant soleWe need torotect our dy

usehold levelhold level. C%) follow the hold is used fas waste in

hold applianc

er Consumptio

nition

here is a starhin urban arees and hygieto woman.

en if the hignerated sewhe receiving treat the eleft untreatuid waste ther bodies evdepend on t

water from tthese days. strial effluen merely to a

we lose all oely to carry lo shift from ying rivers. W

, bathing conConsumption consumptionfor drinking anto the sewerces and use m

Fi

n Patterns in D

rk distinctioneas the poorenic behavio

h and middlwage collecend of sewntire sewaged into the rhat is generaventually buthe river for

the river andMost of th

nts. The Mita drain. Soonur rivers anliquid wasteour traditio

We also need

nsumes highein toilets (20

n in bathing. and cooking22

rs. As standamore water.

igure 7‐Water u

Domestic Hous

n among sanr (slum dweor provide in

le income poction facilitiwage i.e. sewge generaterivers. Similaated) into tht also affect drinking, w

d give back he rivers hahi drain hasn all the rived the gener (sewage anonal thinkingd to change

est amount o0.0%), washinOn an averag

2. Nearly 80%ards of living

sed in a househ

eholds in Majo

nitation facilillers) do notncentives by

opulations hes (closed wage treatmd especiallyarly several he rivers witts the healthashing or ag

waste. The ave now becs lost its iders in Mahararation next nd effluents)g to a rationthe way we

of water i.e.ng clothes (1ge, less than

% of the waterise househ

hold in India

or Cities

San

ities providet have adequy way health

have toilet fapipe drainaent plant (Sy during theindustries althout treatmh of the popgriculture wa

rivers in ourcome drainsntity of beinashtra will mperceives ri, it is time wnal one and use water.

28% of the 8.6%) and w10% of the t

er that reacheolds switch t

itation 21

ed in rural anuate facilitieh benefits an

acilities withage line), thSTP). The STPe peak houlso leave thement. This npulation livinater supply.

r state do ns which carng a river anmeet the samvers as watwe change onot only sav

total water ashing utenstotal water ines a househoto gadgets an

1

nd es. nd

hin he Ps urs eir ot ng

ot rry nd me er ur ve

atils n a old nd

Sanitation 22

The polluted rivers and water bodies have started putting huge pressure on utilities, in terms of treating water to make it fit before drinking. At the same time groundwater levels are falling in urban areas as people bore deeper because municipalities are unable to supply water.

Water and waste water are interconnected however there is a disconnect between water supply and sewage management, which has resulted in pollution. There is a hue and cry about the water that is needed to supply to the citizens, but the other side of the coin largely remains ignored. Funds are allocated for water supply and sanitation, but a large chunk is spent on providing water. How much waste this water will generate in seldom looked at.

The Citizens’ Seventh Report on State of India’s Environment published by Centre for Science and Environment has several findings one of which states that the city’s planners do not know how much water is used in their territories and so how much waste is generated and how much needs treatment. They also do not know the full cost of building, repairing and maintaining a sewage drainage system that can connect one and all.

The conventional sanitation programs focus on construction of toilets thereby making the place free of open defecation. They are believed to be successful simply because they reach their coverage targets. It is necessary to check if these facilities are actually in use, or were never used or were abandoned sometime after completion. So though the figures seem impressive the reality of sanitation coverage is depressing. Moreover the toilets need to be connected to an underground sewage systems and drainage facilities as well.

87‐100% 75‐87% 49‐75% 34‐49%

Figure 8‐District‐wise physical achievement of household toilets

Sanitation 23

20% of the toilets are not used or used for other purposes like storage23

Thus it is assumed that once a toilet is built, it will improve the health and hygiene, but if the drains outside the house remain open and clogged, public health will not benefit24.

The waste water disposal system we rely on is a piped, centralized sewerage system which mostly serves the high and middle income groups of population. This system has its limitations in terms of being energy and water intensive. Moreover where sewerage lines exist, they are broken or choked and nobody knows the state of disrepair.

There is also inequity in the reach of the sewerage network. In large cities like Mumbai an underground sewerage system exists only in certain parts ‐ the affluent and/or the older parts of the city. In such large cities where most of the people live in unauthorized colonies, slums, or in newer developments, underground sewerage does not exist. The excreta of these areas flows into open drains and often mix with the collected or even treated sewage of the connected areas. The end result is the same: pollution25.

Eutrophication is the enrichment of freshwater and marine systems with nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. In freshwater systems, phosphorus is normally limited, so when excessive amounts are released from agricultural runoff and municipal sewage sources it causes serious water quality problems. Algal blooms result and alter aquatic eco systems eliminating species of fish and vegetation by clouding the surface of the water and decreasing oxygen levels in deeper waters and sediment.

Where sewerage system is not available, sewage is drained into the nullahs which drain directly into the water bodies. In monsoon, nullahs overflow and pollute the surroundings as rain water and sewage water from the nearby households mixes exceeding its capacity. Moreover construction debris and garbage is also dumped into the nullahs. The natural drainage of a city (nullahs) are important as they carry the storm water but if they are already choked with sewage, construction debris, encroachment and garbage they will drown the surroundings and spread havoc as was witnessed in Mumbai during the devastating flood of 2005. Encroachments and illegal constructions on nullahs pose a big threat to the residents as it becomes quite prone to flooding and blockages during rains. Most of the cities have lost their natural drainage system today, what we need to do is identify these drains and restore them and protect them.

As cities are growing rapidly the municipal bodies need to work at twice the pace on repairing the existing network and also build new ones to meet the needs. The conveyance system needs to be connected to a treatment facility, to treat the sewage

23 Government of India, Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007‐12) 24 Centre for Science and Environment, Citizens’ Seventh Report on State of India’s Environment, pp. 91 25 Centre for Science and Environment, Citizens’ Seventh Report on State of India’s Environment, pp. 93

Sanitation 24

before it is disposed off in to a water body. Though treatment facilities exist they are not in sync with the quantum of sewage generated. In many cities the treatment capacity falls short of the total sewage generated. Most of the STPs do not function because of high recurring costs for electricity and chemicals. Those that function do not have enough sewage to treat. So even though STPs exist they have to be able to cater to the peak load and must be in sync with the drainage network and the quantum of sewage generated. The sewage generated is measured in a crude way by simply assuming that 80% of the water officially supplied by the municipalities is returned as sewage. But in many regions people rely not only on the municipal supply but also on ground water or tanker, this is not taken into consideration when calculating.

Aurangabad is located in dry Deccan plateau, surrounded by pockets of irrigated agriculture and industries. The city is a fast growing mega‐polis, but its sewage treatment is practically nonexistent. Only a tiny part of the city is connected to underground sewage. In the rest there are open drains or no drains at all. The sewage falls into the open drains and is discharged into the Kham river, which flows into the Nath Sagar, the main drinking water source of the city. Its two STPs have the capacity to treat roughly 10% of the city’s wastewater. The rivers Kham and Sukhna, tributaries of the Godavari are severely polluted by the city’s sewage and the waste from the industries in its backyard.

The rich agricultural region is home to paper and pulp industries, sugar mills and distilleries, all units that use water and discharge pollution. All the untreated effluent ends up in the ground water or surface water systems. This only make the already water scarce region even more water stressed and desperate26.

Poor sanitation not only adversely affects the availability and quality of water, but also has the same harmful effects on education, on welfare, on tourism, and on people’s time‐use and life opportunities in general. The economic impacts of inadequate sanitation are cited below27:

• Health related impacts o Loss of life especially children due to diarrheal and other diseases caused

due to poor sanitation. o Cost incurred on health care in treating diseases caused due to poor

sanitation. o Loss of work productivity due to people falling ill and also productive time

lost in looking after the ill. • Domestic Water supply

o Water is contaminated in the upper reaches (city) by release of sewage and effluents rendering the water unfit for consumption. So people in the areas downstream have to walk longer distances in search of potable water, leading to loss of time

26 Centre for Science and Environment, Citizens’ Seventh Report on State of India’s Environment, pp. 107 27 World Bank, “The economic Impacts of inadequate sanitation in India”, 2010

Sanitation 25

o Additional cost incurred for households to filter water or for buying bottled water.

• Access time related impacts o Cost of additional time needed for accessing shared toilets and open‐

defecation sites compared to using a private toilet within the household. o Cost of school absence time due to inadequate toilets for girls and work‐

absence time due to inadequate toilets for working women. • Tourism related impacts

o Loss of tourism revenues o Economic impacts of gastrointestinal illnesses among foreign tourists.

It is often seen that fitting sewage lines is an afterthought – much after the city has grown into already – built, congested, overcrowded and haphazardly constructed spaces. Most of the existing network is choked and broken and needs to be repaired and new network needs to be built at a faster pace. But rather than focusing on a centralized approach we need to treat wastewater (domestic and industrial) as far as possible locally. No household is bothered or even knows about what happens to the wastewater, where does it go from the toilets. The industries have to treat their wastewater and then release it into the environment, but yet many have failed to do so. Moreover, there is a large floating population that indulges in agricultural or construction activities which needs public sanitation services. The sanitation model put into operation should be such that it handles these challenges. In Maharashtra there is disparity from region to region. There are many rural centers which are in a transition phase towards urbanization while there are urban centers that are getting more and more urbanized.

The type of sanitation system to be implemented would vary from region to region depending on the existing sewerage system and so would the technology options. Sanitation facilities, services and technological options would be based on the guiding principles and would cater to the various groups based on the population, type of industries.

• Rural sanitation • Urban sanitation • Institutional sanitation

o Rural Schools o Anganwadis o Rural Colleges o Health centres o Railways o Bus‐stands o Airports o Industries

The ultimate challenge lies in finding sustainable methods of sanitation increasing sanitation coverage to reach those without services and also accommodate the population increases.

Sanitation 26

Clean and Healthy Maharashtra

To improve quality of life, ensure safety and health of the citizens by providing adequate sanitation infrastructure.

To protect our environment by ensuring that wastewater is properly collected, treated and managed in a way that it does not pollute water bodies or the surroundings.

Sanitation 27

Policy Statement

A policy is effective only when it is effectively disseminated, implemented and practiced. It should not just remain on paper as is the case too often and should be understood by all relevant stakeholders and implementation must be monitored. Change should happen at the policy, planning and most importantly the implementation level. It is well known that inadequate sanitation, poor hygiene and lack of safe water supply result in sickness and death, higher health costs and lower worker productivity, lower school enrollment and the most important being denial of rights of all people to live in dignity.

Fresh water resources are being polluted rampantly and people are already struggling to get clean potable water. So it is important to use water judiciously and minimize waste water generation. If the rivers are taken care of in the upper reaches the downstream population will not face adverse consequences. None of the sanitation systems have been successful at controlling the discharge of organic waste into the environment. So we need to change the way we think.

We should encourage sanitation systems that are based on the 3R principle ‐ Reduce, reuse, recycle. Reduction of waste at the point of usage/consumption of products, reuse of potentially useful products/material and recycling of unwanted but hazardous material like plastic, paper and metal would bring revolutionizing positive change in environmental sanitation in Maharashtra.

We should take adequate care to see that sanitation facilities are totally safe from the perspective of health. For example, sewage treatment plants should preferably be situated as far as possible from residential areas. Maintenance of sewer lines should be on top of the priority list as a slight crack in the line can have serious consequences in the form of spread of disease.

We should use technologies to treat sewage as locally as possible thus promoting decentralized systems. Centralized facilities consisting of a handful of high capacity sewage treatment plants will work less effectively than small capacity STPs at local WARD level of a municipality. In this way, the ward office will retain the responsibility of sewage treatment, and it will be more participatory.

Decentralized sanitation will open new avenues and options for local job creation. Installation and maintenance of decentralized sanitation systems in remote areas or in hotels and residential buildings can stimulate creation of green jobs, particularly in remote rural areas which have little job prospects.

We should reduce dependency on energy and transport costs. Sanitation facilities should be operated locally which will save the transportation of sewage from far off places in the city, making the system inherently efficient due to less transport. Sewage treatment technologies should be such that much of the ‘nutrients’ from sewage should be natural utilized and least amount of energy should be spent on treating it.

We should ensure that we cause no damage to environment (water bodies). Utmost care must be taken to see that untreated water never leaves the sewage treatment

Sanitation 28

plants. It is quite difficult to store huge volumes of water in a treatment plant. Setting up of sewage treatment plants along with public toilets at a ward level is necessary. It is not the bulk of sewage but the flow of sewage based on time of the day that needs to be managed. Time‐based treatment of sewage and availability of water in public toilets is vitally necessary. This would ensure no damage to environment (water bodies).

The efficiency of water usage and treatment must also be increased. There is no need to use treated and purified water for drinking purpose for gardening and washing.

Sanitation 29

Strategy

Agenda 1: Use water sensibly

A vast quantity of wastewater is generated due to inefficiencies and poor management. Nearly 80% water is used for domestic purposes other than drinking. By judicious use of water we can minimize the quantum of wastewater from each household and save the expenditure for water treatment. Water efficient appliances can be used. As there are appliances with labels for energy efficiency similarly appliances labeled for water efficiency can be introduced and promoted. Thus the primary step would be to reduce generation of wastewater which will be possible only if we learn to use water wisely.

Agenda 2: Treat wastewater to the appropriate level of reuse and recycle

Domestic wastewater can be collected, treated to remove pathogens and other contaminants and can be reused for potable or non‐potable purposes. Wastewater generated should be treated to the intended level of reuse option such as for gardening or agriculture or for toilet flushing or reuse in industries or for groundwater recharge. In each case the treatment will be different, but the treated wastewater will add to the hydrological cycle. It will return water not waste to the environment.

Agenda 3: Wastewater as a valuable resource

Wastewater is a valuable resource and it can be reused after appropriate treatment. It can be reused purposefully and effectively to generate renewable energy, fertilizer and clean water. Feces and urine contain valuable nutrient and organics with soil enriching properties. It can be used to fertilize crops.

The wastewater systems mix large volumes of water with relatively small amounts of waste. The potential of resource reuse diminishes due to excessive dilution. In addition the mixing of waste streams results in contamination of the ‘valuable’ components of wastewater with more persistent pollutants which increases costs and complicates the process of recovery of resources.

Agenda 4: Redesign toilets

Utilize toilets not just to collect human waste, but also to treat it. We need new toilets if we want to recover nutrients from human feces (excreta) and urine. So it is necessary to have toilets that can convert urine and feces into fertilizer. The flush toilets are wasteful. They use clean drinking water to carry away urine and feces, creating wastewater that has to be cleaned with expensive energy intensive technologies. Such flush toilets would never fit in the severely water stressed, drought affected regions. Moreover the wasteful use of water due to such toilets in prosperous regions indirectly increases starvation in water stressed regions.

Sanitation 30

There are toilets that separate urine and feces; this separation is beneficial because urine contains less pathogen than feces and so needs less intensive treatment to disinfect it. The fecal matter needs to be composted to destroy the bacteria and pathogens then used as fertilizer. Innovations in toilet designing are the need of the hour so that the valuable resource that we have been wasting for years can be reused in a manner such that public health and hygiene would be maintained.

Agenda 5: Separate collection of industrial and domestic wastewater

Wastewater from households and industries should be collected separately to enable easier reuse. This will reduce the cost for treatment.

Agenda 6: Decentralize wastewater management and treatment systems

The sanitation system in place today in the urban centres is centralized. Though this conventional system of sewage collection, treatment and disposal is an effective one it is highly wasteful. Sewage should be treated as locally as possible. This will contribute to the quality of living environment and to better micro‐climate. It will also contribute to reduction in costs.

The size of the plant will also matter. If big STPs are constructed they would reduce the cost of operation but the transportation of sewage to the plant and the treated effluent from the plant has a cost. However if the plant is designed to be fitted to size – for a group of houses or an institution or even colonies, the cost of operation may increase, but there would be substantial savings in piping and pumping costs. Leakages and operation and maintenance costs will also reduce.

Agenda 7: Use dual or triple water distribution systems

In the coastal areas a dual or triple water system can be put into operation and in the rest of the regions a dual water system can be put into operation. Hong Kong’s dual water system is in place for over 50 years.

Honk Kong supplies sea water for toilet flushing to 80% of its 7 million residents, cutting municipal water use in the city by 20%. A triple water distribution system at Hong Kong’s International Airport, consisting of fresh water, sea water and gray water from sinks, air craft wash‐down, cuts municipal water use by over 50%28.

Agenda 8: Harvesting Rainwater for single homes and buildings

Rather than relying on ground water and depleting the resource this is a enhanced environment friendly way. This system can be implemented at single‐homes and

28 Science Magazine, Special Edition – “Taking the ‘waste’ out of ‘wastewater’ for human water security and ecosystem sustainability”, p681‐682

Sanitation 31

buildings. Rainwater from roofs can be used in place of drinking water for a variety of activities.

In Australia in a home, the use of rainwater tanks to supply water for laundry, dishwashing, toilets and an outside garden reduced household municipal water use by 40%.

Agenda 9: Restoring natural drainage system

Storm water drain and sewage drain must be separated. The courts have also ordered municipalities to separate storm water and sewer lines so as to prevent groundwater contamination through percolation.

Storm water drainage systems should be restored and complete concretization of all existent storm water drainages should be carried out. Also, the small sized waste like packages and wrappers that mix into storm water must be tackled with. Encroachments alter the drainage and nullah system in a gruesome way, sometimes blocking the system and sometimes flooding it. So encroachments should be removed.

Agenda 10: Restoring water bodies

Water treatment in the STPs is not adequate, which has resulted in excessive contamination in many of the rivers of the state. The first measure to restore water bodies is to ensure hundred percent treatment of sewage before letting it into flowing water streams.

Natural water bodies like rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands should be taken up for restoration. Acceleration in industrial development, agriculture and urban development at the same time has resulted in haphazard progress, and the environment has been overlooked in this lucrative progress. Conscious efforts are needed to clean natural water bodies.

With all the concrete and construction based urban development, we have to take special care of natural water bodies, so that the higher aim of balance between environment and development will be maintained.

Agenda 11: Monitoring and evaluation

A monitoring and evaluation authority should be set up by the local government for quality assurance checks. Mere building of toilets and wastewater treatment plants is not enough; putting them to efficient use is the need. Managing the flow of sewage at STPs, maintaining the cleanliness of toilets through awareness and cleanliness campaigns, evaluating the performance of sanitation services qualitatively and quantitatively, and monitoring natural water bodies for their preservation should be the final agenda for sanitation, after the fulfillment of all the prior agenda.

Sanitation 32

Conclusion

The current practices of sanitation have failed the society and threatened the integrity of water resources. Poor suffer the most. Sanitation should be looked at from the point of view of environment and health. Providing toilets to households or connecting households to drainage system does not improve sanitation. Instead of looking at waste water treatment systems as pipes that transport waste into the water cycle by misusing potable fresh water, it is important to look at alternative approaches, which we will adopt.

We will shift the focus from the conventional wastewater treatment systems to decentralized waste water treatment systems. We will not implement a specific technology for all but will provide waste water treatment systems that would be tailor made to suit local needs. These systems would also provide an array of income generation opportunities for the local population and maintain the natural balance.

Sanitation 33

Case studies

Kolhapur India

Wet mixed black water and grey water system with decentralized treatment

This system, like the previous one, is characterized by flush toilets (full, low, vacuum or pour flush toilets) at the user interface. Here however, the treatment technology is located close to the source of waste generation. Depending on the plot size, the treatment technology will be appropriate for one house, one compound or a small cluster of homes. Accordingly, transport before treatment is limited to short distances mostly by gravity sewers. There are various low‐cost technology options for on‐site wastewater treatment, which differ from those typically used as centralized, off‐site technologies. Examples include septic tanks, filters, constructed wetlands, anaerobic baffled reactors, and biogas plants, among others. Although it is commonly practiced, pits should not be used as disposal sites for mixed wastewater systems.

Figure 9‐Template for the decentralized mixed sewage system in Kolhapur, India. A combination of decentralized combined sewers, wastewater treatment and reuse of nutrient rich water in peri‐urban agriculture is applied.

The Municipal Corporation in the city of Kolhapur, India, has introduced a master plan that incorporates decentralized sanitation technology options for its residents. It recommends decentralized technology options for residential areas for biogas generation, which can be used for cooking, heating and lighting. The applied technologies include biogas settlers, anaerobic baffled reactors, anaerobic filters, planted gravel filters and polishing ponds. The treated wastewater is used for irrigation of gardens. The treated sludge will be reused in agriculture. The figure above shows the various flow streams of the proposed system in relation to the functional groups.

Sanitation 34

Lübeck Flintenbreite, Germany

Wet black water system

In this system, urine, feces and flushing water (black water) are collected, transported and treated together. However, grey water is kept separate. Since grey water accounts for approximately 60% of the wastewater produced in homes, this separation simplifies black water management. A very common and frequently practiced example of this system is the double‐pit pour flush toilet. This technology allows users to have the comfort of a pour‐flush toilet and water seal, without the trouble of having to pump out the sludge, since it is removed only once it has matured into a solid, humic‐like substance. Other technologies can involve anaerobic treatment for black water with biogas production. To avoid malfunctioning of the black water treatment technologies, a separate system for grey water management must be implemented. Since separated grey water contains few if any pathogens, and usually low concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, it does not require the same level of treatment as black water or mixed wastewater. Grey water can be recycled for irrigation, toilet flushing, exterior washing, and other water‐conservation measures.

Figure 10‐ Decentralized mixed sewage system in Lübeck Flintenbreite, Germany. A combination of decentralized separated sewers, grey water treatment in a constructed wetland and anaerobic digestion of black water in a biogas reactor is applied.

In the Flintenbreite neighborhood of Lübeck, Germany, a housing estate for up to 380 residents was designed, with the focus on energy and water efficiency as well as the reuse of organic wastes and nutrients. The housing estate is not connected to the city’s centralized sewer network and consists of a decentralized sanitation system. All houses feature vacuum toilets that collect the black water separately. The households’ organic waste is processed together with gardening waste and with the black water in an anaerobic digester and a biogas plant. The biogas is used in a combined heat and power generator for the production of electricity and heat. The slurry consists of digested residues and is used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner in farming. The gray water is treated separately in constructed wetlands. The purified effluent is discharged into a nearby creek

Sanitation 35

Hamburg Allermöhe, Germany

Dry excreta and grey water system

Here excreta ‐ a mix of urine and feces ‐ are discharged at the user interface without using any flushing water. In this system the grey water is collected separately. Although the mixture of urine and feces may be slightly wet, the system is referred to as “dry” simply because there is no flushing water. Depending on the cultural habits, anal cleansing water may or may not be included although smells and flies are minimized if the mixture is kept as dry as possible. Generally, the system is typically characterized by “drop and store” latrines or composting toilets popular in northern Europe. The separated grey water should be treated as close to where it is generated (on‐site‐treatment) as possible. The excreta may be further treated off‐site. Generally, off‐site treatment is only performed to improve hygienisation (especially in the case of single pits that are emptied before the contents can be completely digested). Proper operation and maintenance significantly influence the performance of these facilities.

Figure 11‐ Template for the dry excreta and grey water system implemented in Hamburg, Germany. A combination of decentralized compost toilets, separate sewers, grey water treatment as well as the reuse of products, such as composted feces and organic wastes are applied.

The eco‐settlement Allermöhe in the city of Hamburg, Germany, features a decentralized sanitation system for 36 single family row‐houses. Each household is equipped with an own composting toilet (Clivus Multrum) and an integrated composting chamber in the basement of the buildings. Urine, feces, toilet paper and organic kitchen waste are composted together with oak bark in a well‐ventilated unit. The compost from the composting chamber is emptied every 2 years and used as a fertilizer and soil‐conditioner in the gardens. The grey water is treated in a constructed wetland and the treated wastewater is discharged into an open surface water body.

Sanitation 36

References

1. Asian Development Bank, “India’s sanitation for all ‐How to Make It Happen” 2. Business Standard, “From the Indus Valley Civilization to SEZs”, Kala Seetharam

Sridhar & Samar Verma, October 25, 2012 3. Centre for Science and Environment, Citizens’ Seventh Report on State of India’s

Environment 4. Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Integrated

Low Cost Sanitation Scheme, Revised Guidelines, 2008 5. Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Accelerated Urban Water

Supply Programme Report, September 1994 6. Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Urban Water Supply and

Sanitation, Guidelines for Decentralized wastewater management 7. Government of India, Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007‐12) 8. Government of Maharashtra, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation,

“Performance of regions in curbing open defecation”; “District‐wise Open Defecation Free Status”

9. Government of Maharashtra, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradikaran (MJP), Annual Report 2007‐08

10. http://aurangabad.nic.in/htmldocs/vision2020/13_groupnomjp.pdf 11. http://www.mahawssd.gov.in/dataentry/MPR_State.asp 12. http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08wpds_eng.pdf 13. http://www.who.int/topics/sanitation/en/ 14. http://www.mahawssd.gov.in/Innovationbank/gadge_baba.htm

15. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country‐health‐profile/india 16. Pune Municipal Corporation, Environment Status Report 2011‐12 17. Rose George, “The Big Necessity‐Adventures in the world of human waste”, pp. 2‐3 18. Science Magazine, Special Edition – “Taking the ‘waste’ out of ‘wastewater’ for human

water security and ecosystem sustainability”, p681‐682 19. Water Consumption Patterns in Domestic Households in Major Cities 20. World Bank, “The economic Impacts of inadequate sanitation in India”, 2010 21. World Bank, Water & Sanitation Program, “Financing On‐Site Sanitation for the Poor:

A Six Country Comparative Review & Analysis”, January 2010 22. World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), Joint

Monitoring Program, 2008 23. Zee News, “Sanitation disastrous in India”, Ramesh; Nov 2, 2011

Sanitation Final 2013 - MNS BluePrintmnsblueprint.org/pdf/Sanitation.pdf · 2019-05-06 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Sanitation Final 2013 - MNS BluePrintmnsblueprint.org/pdf/Sanitation.pdf · 2019-05-06 ·...