INTOSAI WGEA Work Plan 2017-2019

Project 2.1 (d)

Research Project on
Wastewater

Further information contact: [email protected]

Website: www.wgea.org

Twitter ID: @WGEASecre

Foreword and acknowledgment

Since its start, WGEA has always attached particular interest in water issues. Thus, the theme of
water was adopted as the central theme of its work plan for 1996-2001 and the first document was
carried out in 2004 on "Auditing water issues", the same document was updated in 2013.
The relevance of the theme remains appropriate, particularly because of the challenges faced by
water resources, challenges of scarcity and pollution and abuse in its utilization/consumption. In this
context, the WGEA decided, within its current work plan (2017-2019), to carry out a study focusing
on certain water related area, that of wastewater and water sanitation.

The issue of wastewater management has become a very interesting field for many SAIs around the
world. By auditing wastewater management, the SAIs aim to assist national and local governments to
optimize efforts and policies engaged for improve the performance of wastewater treatment and use
systems.
In order to be of use to all INTOSAI members, this research paper aims to provide information on
wastewater and wastewater management worldwide in a sustainable perspective; identifies
opportunities and potential efforts in designing, implementing government policies and developing
government programs that provide adequate and effective responses to waste water issues; and
provides, based on SAIs experiences, a comprehensive and possible audit topics on wastewater
issues and examples of how SAIs have addressed these issues in their audits.
The work on this document was led by the SAI of Morocco. In particular, we would like to
acknowledge the efforts of the authors, Mohammed DIYER, Hassan NAMRANI and Abdelkarim
JRHILIFA. Many thanks go also to experts from Moroccan water and electricity Office (ONEE) for their
excellent support in preparing the paper. Similarly, we would like to acknowledge the contributions
made by the SAIs worldwide, especially the project sub-committee members: Chad, China, Czech
Republic, Iraq, Lesotho, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines, Sri Lanka and United States of America. A
special thanks also to the INTOSAI WGEA and its Steering Committee members for their valuable help
in various stages of the project.
We hope you will find this research paper useful.

Driss Jettou Prof. Dr. Moermahadi Soerja Djanegara, CA, CPA

First President Chairman
Court of Accounts of Morocco The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia
Project Leader Chair of INTOSAI WGEA

2
 Table of Contents
Foreword and acknowledgment .................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Chapter I: Background on wastewater ...................................................................................................... 11
1. Wastewater definition.................................................................................................................... 11
2. Wastewater origins......................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Domestic wastewater: Blackwater and Greywater ..................................................................... 12
2.2 Industrial Wastewater .................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................... 12
3. Associated risks of wastewater and their impact.......................................................................... 12
3.1 Health risks.................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Environmental risks ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Risks on economic activities ......................................................................................................... 12
4. Wastewater management and treatment ..................................................................................... 13
4.1. Centralized wastewater management ................................................................................... 13
4.2. Decentralized wastewater management ............................................................................... 14
4.3. Combined wastewater management ..................................................................................... 14
4.4. The wastewater treatment cycle ........................................................................................... 15
5. Wastewater as a resource .............................................................................................................. 15
5.1. Agriculture uses: irrigation and fertilization .......................................................................... 16
5.2. Industry uses ........................................................................................................................... 16
5.3. Urban uses .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.4. Energy uses ............................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter II: Government’s responses to wastewater ................................................................................. 18
1. Wastewater as a component of of the Sustainable Development Goals ..................................... 18
1.1. SDG 6 and wastewater ........................................................................................................... 18
1.2. The relationship between wastewater and others SDGs ...................................................... 19
2. Setting up and / or strengthening national legislation and regulatory framework ......................... 20
3. Institutional aspects (role of national bodies, local government, private sector …) ....................... 21
4. Key Policies and/or programs taken by governments worldwide to address wastewater issues .. 22
4.1 Designing and implementing wastewater policies and/or programs......................................... 22

3
 4.2. Financial mechanisms and instruments ...................................................................................... 23
4.3. Support to R&D ............................................................................................................................ 24
Chapter III: Role of International Cooperation in the development of wastewater technologies .......... 25
1. International conventions related to wastewater ............................................................................ 25
2. Funds to support wastewater projects .............................................................................................. 25
3. Transfer of knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 26
Chapter IV. Auditing Wastewater .............................................................................................................. 27
1. Overview about wastewater auditing practices................................................................................ 27
1.1 Wastewater is a progressive priority for SAIs ............................................................................. 27
1.2 Type of audit: The relevance of performance auditing ............................................................... 28
2. Wastewater audit topics .................................................................................................................... 28
2.1. Auditing wastewater management and treatment ................................................................... 28
2.2 Auditing specific wastewater programs and projects ................................................................. 32
2.3 Linking wastewater to water resources management and safety drinking ............................... 36
2.4 Wastewater as component of the sanitation services ................................................................ 39
2.5 Wastewater Environmental impact ............................................................................................. 41
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix n°1: Institutional aspects (role of national bodies, local government, private sector …),
based on the mini-survey results ............................................................................................................... 45
Appendix n°2: Key policies, programs or measures adopted, based on the mini-survey results............ 48
Appendix n°3: Financial mechanisms and instruments, based on the mini-survey results ..................... 50
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 51

4
List of Tables:
Table n°1: Examples of potential negative impacts of wastewater on human health, the
environment and productive activities
Table n°2: Comparison between centralized, decentralized and combined wastewater
management
Table n°3: Audit Reports on Wastewater Published by SAIs from WGEA Community

List of figures:
Figure n°1: Wastewater management approaches among WGEA community
Figure n°2: Wastewater to Energy System
Figure n°3: Percentage of untreated wastewater in 2015 in countries with different income
levels and aspirations for 2030 (50% reduction over 2015 baseline)
Figure n°4: Are the government policies and programs in line with target 6.3 of SDGs?
Figure n°5: Has your SAI carry out audits on wastewater issues?

List of Boxes:
Box n°1: Wastewater in numbers
Box n°2: The Tamuda-Bay WWTP (Morocco)
Box n°3: In Morocco: a multi-stakeholder institutional framework to manage
wastewater
Box n°4: Successful Wastewater Management Policy
Box n°5: The Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater Management (CReW)

5
Abbreviations and acronyms
AECID Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation
AUWSSC Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DOST Department of Science and Technology
EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GLAAS Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water
INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWMI International Water Management Institute
LINAW Local Initiatives for Affordable Wastewater Treatment
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NAO National Audit Office
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
ONEE Moroccan water and electricity Office
PAB Pollution Adjudication Board
QMP Quality Management Plant
R&D Research and development
SAIs Supreme Audit Institutions
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCWA United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and Research
WHO World Health Organization
WGEA Working Group on Environmental Auditing
WWDR World Water Development Report
WWTP Waste water Treatment Plant

6
Executive Summary

The objectives of this research paper are: (1) to provide information on wastewater and wastewater
management worldwide in a sustainable perspective; (2) to identify opportunities and potential
efforts in designing, implementing government policies and developing government programs that
provide adequate and effective responses to waste water issues; and (3) to provide, based on SAIs
experiences, a comprehensive and possible audit topics on wastewater issues and examples of how
SAIs have addressed these issues in their audits.
Based on literature review, it is easy to notice that wastewater has a large number of definitions.
However, there is no universally recognized definition between the different actors interested in this
concept: (engineers, town planners, researchers, United Nations organizations ...).

It is commonly accepted that wastewater comes from three main sources namely domestic activities,
industrial activities and stormwater sources. However, to manage wastewater, there are generally
three approaches that are most common. This is about centralized, decentralized and combined
management. The choice between these approaches depend upon a number of factors: the nature of
the area (urban or rural), the size and density of the population, level of economic development,
technical capacity and system of governance in place. Approaches may also vary depending on the
services quality required by end-users or required for safe disposal. The mini-survey conducted by
the research shows that combined process has become by far the favorite way. Thus 58% among
Countries who responded to the questionnaire use this process.
There are a number of opportunities for reusing wastewater as a resource. Properly treated,
wastewater can act as a: source of irrigation and fertilization for agriculture, source of affordable
water for urban and industry uses and source of energy.
However, the issue of wastewater poses numerous constraints and challenges for public decision-
makers. The discharge of untreated wastewater into the natural environment could have negatives,
sometimes irreparable, effects on the ecological system, human health and economic activities. For
these reasons, public decision-makers have to carry out policies and measures that allowed, on the
one hand, the mitigation of the risks generated by wastewater, and on the other hand, the creation
of an enabling environment for maximizing the potential of wastewater as a valuable and sustainable
resource. These measures have several dimensions, including appropriate legal and regulatory
frameworks, effective institutional bodies, policies and programs adapted to the socio-economic
context of the country, appropriate funding mechanisms, and the encouragement of research and
development in this area.
In this regard, At the national level, many legal and regulatory provisions and policies directly
addressing wastewater issue were set up. In this context, it is important to note that the majority of
countries have put in place regulatory, and institutional frameworks, programs and or policies. These
policies reflect the awareness of public authorities.
At the institutional level, for example, based on the responses to the questionnaire submitted to the
WGEA community, it should be noted that, commonly, wastewater governance is split between two
levels of institutions: central / federal institutions and local institutions.
At international level, Wastewater issues are gaining increasing importance. Many agreements,
whether at global level or regional level, that have been made and ratified could provide an
appropriate framework to help countries to promote policy development and the implementation of
the necessary measures, regarding wastewater management processes, which should benefit from
technology transfer mechanisms, capacity building, and other means of implementation.

7
In addition, through the responses to the mini-survey conducted among the INTOSAI community, it
appears that governments consider UN SDGs Agenda as a good opportunity to give more attention to
wastewater issues. Therefore, based on mini-survey results, almost 62% of the SAIs who responded
to the questionnaire (31 countries) consider that they are undertaking measures to meet the target
6.3 of Goal 6 about wastewater.

With regards to audit practices, based on responses to the mini-survey submitted to the WGEA
community, wastewater appears like an emerging topic for most of SAIs. Indeed, 21 SAIs (almost 42%
of the 50 respondents) indicated that they had conducted audits on this field, and 4% of respondents
mentioned that they have ongoing audit work on this topic. On another side, several SAIs have
indicated that they intend to schedule wastewater audits in the future as part of their annual audit
programs.

Therefore, the analysis of the various audit reports of the SAIs (which responded to the
questionnaire) and the summary of the reports extracted from the WGEA website made it possible to
highlight that the aspects audited touch a wide variety of heterogeneous topics. These topics can be
broadly categorized into five major topics: (i) wastewater management and treatment; (ii)
wastewater specific programs and projects; (iii) Linking wastewater to water resources management
and safety drinking; (iv) wastewater as component of the sanitation services and (v) wastewater
environmental impact.

8
Methodology
To achieve this research project, the adopted methodology is based on the following steps:

1. Literature Review : this includes academic literatures, papers and publication from
international organization such as United Nations, World Bank, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), FAO, UNEP, etc., and any reports
recommended by the SAIs;
2. Mini-survey: a questionnaire on wastewater management has been sent, in cooperation with
the INTOSAI WGEA secretariat, to WGEA community. 50 SAIs from responded to the
questionnaire; a response rate of 64%;
3. Study of Different Countries’ Audit Reports: The source of these reports from the INTOSAI
WGEA database as well as requesting from SAIs to provide a summary of audit report that
had not been inputted in on the database;
4. Discussion Panels with Related Experts manly from Moroccan water and electricity Office
(ONEE);
5. Information and case of practices collected by mini-survey to the WGEA members;
6. Information exchange, by email, and by other means of communications, with the members
of the subgroup;
7. Workshops and work sessions programmed during the meetings of the WGEA.

9
Introduction

The UN General Assembly has adopted in 2015 the “2030 agenda”, on Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), and among them, goal 6 is dedicated to water and sanitation. Target 6.2 provides that
"by 2030, provide adequate and equitable access to sanitation and hygiene for all and end open
defecation, paying particular attention to the needs of women, girls and vulnerable people ".
Similarly, target 6.3 states that "By 2030, improving water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating
waste deposits and reducing emissions of chemicals and hazardous materials, by halving the
proportion of untreated wastewater and significantly increasing the recycling and reuse of these
waters safely, globally ".This emphasis on wastewater in the SDGs is inherent to the fact that global
indicators at this level are still low in spite of the efforts made in the implementation of the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals (UN MDGs). Thus, the evaluation report of the WHO /
UNICEF Joint Program (UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water
(GLAAS 2015 and GLASS 2017 Reports)) show that only 68% of the world's population has access to
sanitation but 2.4 billion people still lack basic sanitation facilities, such as toilets or latrines. Of these,
946 million people defecate in the open air. The proportion of people practicing open defecation
globally has fallen almost by half, from 24%to 13%.

In addition, wastewater has become more and more a real worrying source of pollution. This is due in
particular to the negative effects resulting, among other factors, from the urbanization, the rapid
growth of cities and the unsustainable industrialization. According to the United Nations World
Water Development Report (2017), up to 80 % of the global wastewater is being discharged
untreated into the world’s waterways. This percentage could be largely exceeded in the case of low-
income countries, which have only 8% of the required capacity to treat wastewater effectively. The
risks and impacts related to the infiltration of the wastewater in waterways are very significant for
both human health, biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems and economics opportunities. It is for
this reason that policies makers around the world are more aware than ever of the economic, social,
health, and environment losses caused by an untreated wastewater. Several countries have started
in recent decades to implement national measures and policies specifically dedicated to wastewater
management in order to make wastewater a real strategic resource that could be a potential source
of water, energy, fertilizer and other valuable materials and services. This trend requires the
mobilization of huge funds to finance investment projects that are generally sustainable. As a result,
the issue of wastewater management has become a very interesting field for many SAIs around the
world. By auditing wastewater management, the SAIs aim to assist national and local governments to
optimize efforts and policies engaged for improve the performance of wastewater treatment and use
systems.
This paper is structured in four chapters. Foremost, the first chapter is dedicated to background on
wastewater, associated risks and wastewater management; the second chapter identifies best
practices on wastewater management worldwide and the opportunities and potential efforts in
designing and implementing development policies that provide adequate and effective responses to
wastewater issues and explore about what types of instruments used at the national and
international level in this field. The third chapter discusses the role of international cooperation in
the promotion and development of solutions and technologies for optimizing the management and
use of wastewater through three mechanisms, namely, international conventions and treaties,
mobilization of funding and knowledge transfer. Finally, in the fourth chapter, based on SAIs
experiences, relevant audit topics on wastewater issues are identified. SAIs experiences give
emphasis how they effectively play their roles to ensure that instruments and government programs
and policies work through the use of case studies.

10
Chapter I: Background on wastewater

In a world where the demand for freshwater is constantly increasing, and where limited water
resources are under constant pressure and constraints, it has become unthinkable to neglect the
opportunities offered by wastewater reuse. As such, wastewater will not be managed as "waste". It
needs to be seen as a resource, rather than a burden to be disposed of. They are potentially a
sustainable and affordable source of water, energy, nutrients, organic materials and other valuable
by-products throughout the year. According to The United Nations WWRD (2017), for successful
wastewater reuse, it is important to move from the "treatment and disposal" wastewater
management paradigm to one based on "reuse, recycling and resource recovery". The objective of
this chapter is to clarify the concept of wastewater, its origins and its potential risks. It also aims to
address the various opportunities made possible through the reuse of wastewater.
1. Wastewater definition
From the literature review on the topic of wastewater, it is easy to notice that wastewater has a large
number of definitions. But, there is no universally recognized definition between the different actors
interested in this concept: (engineers, town planners, researchers, United Nations organizations ...).
Each actor approaches this concept with a perspective and vocabulary specific to him. In addition, it
must be recognized that wastewater is sometimes confused with other neighboring terms such as
'reused water', 'recycled water' and 'reclaimed water’. In general, wastewater can be defined as the
byproduct of many uses of water. For USA EPA, wastewater is “water that has been used and
contains dissolved or suspended waste materials”. In the same vein Culp and Culp (1971) equate
wastewater as water that has been adversely affected in quality by anthropogenic activity.

In a broader perspective, Corcoran et al (2010) proposes to define wastewater as “a combination of

one or more of: domestic effluent consisting of blackwater (excreta, urine and faecal sludge) and
greywater (kitchen and bathing wastewater); water from commercial establishments and
institutions, including hospitals; industrial effluent, stormwater and other urban run-off; agricultural,
horticultural and aquaculture effluent, either dissolved or as suspended matter”. Given its broader
and more inclusive character, this definition remains by the most answered in the reports of many
international and UN organizations.

Box n°1: Wastewater in numbers

1. The Wastewater is roughly composed of 99% water and 1% suspended, colloidal and dissolved solids.
(WWRD; 2017)
2. Globally, over 80% of the wastewater generated by society flows back into the ecosystem without being
treated or reused. (WWRD; 2017).
3. 1.8 billion people use a source of drinking water contaminated with faeces, putting them at risk of contracting
cholera, dysentery, typhoid and polio. Unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene cause around 842,000
deaths each year. (WHO/UNICEF; Progress on drinking water and sanitation: 2014 update).
4. Worldwide, the annual capital expenditures on wastewater infrastructure by utilities have been estimated at
US$104 billion (Heymann and al., 2010).
5. For every US$1 spent on sanitation, the estimated return to society is US$5.5. (WWRD; 2017).
6. In 2010, the FAO estimated that 10% of the world's population consume crops produced with sewage. This
figure up to 80% in Vietnam. (Winpenny and al; 2010).

11
 2. Wastewater origins
In general, wastewater comes from three main sources namely domestic activities, industrial
activities and stormwater sources.
2.1 Domestic wastewater: Blackwater and Greywater
Domestic wastewater includes two main types: greywater and blackwater. Greywater is wastewater
from the hand basin, shower, spa bath, washing machine, laundry tub, kitchen sink and dishwasher.
Blackwater is wastewater containing, or likely to be contaminated by, human waste matter (e.g.
toilet wastewater or waters contaminated by toilet wastewater).
2.2 Industrial Wastewater
All discharges resulting from non-domestic water use are classified as industrial releases. This
definition concerns the discharges of factories, that is to say, water discharged after being used in, or
produced by, industrial production processes. It also concerns the discharges of artisanal,
commercial and institutional activities. These waters have a wide variety and can be toxic to aquatic
life, or to humans.
2.3 Stormwater
Stormwater is water from rain and other sources that drains into a street drainage system where it
flows to streams and creeks. It is, in fact, runoff water (rainwater, irrigation water, runoff from roads,
washwater gutters, markets …).
3. Associated risks of wastewater and their impact
Around the world, most of the wastewater is directly discharged into the environment without any
treatment or proper treatment. Since the wastewater contains a number of pollutants and
contaminants (e.g. nutrients, hazardous substances and pathogenic microorganisms: viruses,
bacteria, protozoa and helminths), the consequences of the emission of untreated or poorly treated
wastewater are alarming. According to UNEP, these consequences can be classified into three
categories: (i) adverse effects on human health; ii) negative impact on the environment; and (iii)
adverse effects on economic activities.
3.1 Health risks
Untreated wastewater can cause many diseases including cholera and some neglected tropical
diseases, such as dengue fever, dracunculiasis and schistosomiasis. These diseases result from poor
containment, leakage during emptying and transport, and inefficient treatment of wastewater. The
risk affects not only workers who have direct contact with wastewater, but people who come into
direct contact with water through drinking, bathing, or recreation. Also, consumers of food products
from areas irrigated by wastewater can have indirect effects of poor or no wastewater treatment
(WHO, 2006).
3.2 Environmental risks
Water safety is the most vulnerable aspect to the risks associated with the non-treatment of
wastewater. The latter further promotes the degradation of the quality of surface water and
groundwater worldwide, which in turn affects the amount of water resources available for direct use.
In addition, the infiltration of contaminants and wastewater-borne pollutants into the natural
environment causes disastrous damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. For example, the release of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium can accelerate the eutrophication of freshwater resources and
coastal marine ecosystems. Most large lakes in Latin America and Africa have increased
anthropogenic phosphorus loads, which can accelerate eutrophication processes.
3.3 Risks on economic activities
The negative effects of wastewater do not only concern aspects of human health and the
environment, but can also extend to negatively impact on economic activities. Poor water quality
hinders agricultural productivity in rural and peri-urban areas. Pollutants (heavy metals, pesticides)

12
contained in wastewater promote phytotoxicity, which sometimes has a toxic effect on plant growth.
Worse, contaminated water can directly affect water-consuming economic activities, such as
industrial production, fisheries, aquaculture and tourism (UNEP, 2015), and may indirectly limit the
export of certain commodities because of restrictions (or even prohibitions) on contaminated
products. Water can indirectly affect the economy by lowering worker productivity through illness,
hospitalization, or time taken to care for those who are ill from water borne diseases. In the seas and
oceans, deoxygenated dead zones caused by untreated sewage discharge are increasing at a
sustained rate, affecting approximately 245,000 km² of marine ecosystems, impacting marine fishing
activities (Corcoran et al., 2010). In short, untreated sewage is a further obstacle to the economic
development of countries. The table n°1 below summarizes all the risks mentioned above.
Table 1: Examples of potential negative impacts of wastewater on human health, the environment and
productive activities (UNEP, 2015)
Impacts on: Examples of Impacts
Increased burden of disease due to reduced drinking water quality
Increased burden of disease due to reduced bathing water quality
Increased burden of disease due to unsafe food (contaminated fish, vegetables and other farm
Health
produce)

Increased risk of diseases when working or playing in wastewater-irrigated area

Increased financial burden on health care

Decreased biodiversity
Degraded ecosystems (e.g. eutrophication and dead zones)
Environment Bad odors
Diminished recreational opportunities
Increased GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions
Reduced industrial productivity
Reduced agricultural productivity
Economics
Reduced market value of harvested crops, if unsafe wastewater irrigation
activities
Reduced number of tourists, or reduced willingness to pay for recreational services
Reduced fish and shellfish catches, or reduced market value of fish and shellfish

4. Wastewater management and treatment

According to UN-Water (2015), wastewater management is the process of taking wastewater and
treating/managing it in order to reduce the contaminants to acceptable levels so as to be safe for
discharge into the environment. There are many wastewater management approaches available.
However, there are generally three approaches that are most common. This is about centralized,
decentralized and combined management. The choice between these approaches depend upon a
number of factors: the nature of the area (urban or rural), the size and density of the population,
level of economic development, technical capacity and system of governance in place. Approaches
may also vary depending on the services quality required by end-users or required for safe disposal.
4.1. Centralized wastewater management
The Centralized wastewater approach is the traditional solution of the problems associated with
wastewater. Most of the wastewater management in in well-developed urban environments has
relied on centralized systems. It is a collective system that collects wastewater from a large number
of users using a relatively large diameter collector, and then transports the wastewater over long
distances through a pipe system to one (or more) centralized treatment plant. The treated effluent is
typically discharged to a surface stream at one location. The treated is disposed in different ways,

13
most often discharged into natural water bodies. The treated effluent may also be used for useful
purposes and in this case, it is referred as reclaimed water.

Centralized management benefits from economies of scale, but it may no longer be the most viable
solution for wastewater management in many countries. It is expensive and difficult to adapt to
different socio-economic situations. To keep the collection and treatment system operating properly,
a large capital investment in infrastructure (large areas of land, large treatment plants, large
diameter sewer lines, pump stations, etc.) is needed. Collection costs alone account for more than
60% of the total wastewater management budget in a centralized system, especially in low
population density communities (Massoud and al., 2009). In addition, collection and processing
systems require yearly a significant operation and maintenance requirements (trained full-time
operators, power costs, equipment/infrastructure repair, solids handling, etc.).

4.2. Decentralized wastewater management

According to Tchobanoglous (1995), the decentralized wastewater management is defined as the
collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater at or near the point of wastewater
generation. The use of wastewater at its source, or as close as possible to its source, generally
improves the cost-effectiveness ratio due to the low cost of transportation. They also help recover
nutrients and energy, save fresh water, and help make water access safer in times of scarcity.
Decentralized systems often serve small estates, scattered and low-density communities and rural
areas.

Decentralized wastewater management can be a reliable alternative to centralized wastewater

management. It helps to offset some logistical and financial problems caused by centralized
networks. According to WWRD (2017), it is estimated that investments in these processing facilities
cost only 20-50% of those of conventional treatment plants, and their operating and maintenance
costs are even lower (around 5 to 25% of conventional sludge treatment plants). However, it should
be mentioned that decentralized systems have some limitations that make it difficult to optimize the
exploitation of their benefits. On the one hand, to cover the main points of the city, decentralized
systems remain a difficult solution to support financially (both for infrastructure and for
maintenance) by the state / municipal budgets. On the other hand, because they are located near
communities, this increases the risk that they become a potential pollution point in urban areas
(especially in vulnerable areas).

4.3. Combined wastewater management

The combined wastewater management is a third way that aims to combine in a complementary way
the advantages of both the centralized approach and the decentralized approach. Currently, many
towns and cities, especially in developing countries, have begun to combine wastewater
management systems (Hawkins and al; 2013). This can be at the initiative of householders or
developers as it can be done by the municipality or utility. The combined approach is to link different
centralized and decentralized systems as part of a group of interconnected systems. The ultimate
goal is to cover large areas at an appropriate scale (as is the case in the centralized system), while
benefiting from the advantages of decentralization, such as limited investment, reduced operating,
maintenance costs, and a possibility of adaptation to local conditions. The table n°2 below illustrates
the points of convergences and divergences between the approaches mentioned above.
Table n°2: Comparison between centralized, decentralized and combined wastewater management

Centralized System Decentralized System Combined System

Discharge system Can be a non-discharge system Individual on- site

14
 located far from wastewater at or near the point of wastewater at the point of wastewater
source generation generation
Capital intensive required Less capital required limited capital required
Higher costs of maintenance less maintenance costs lower costs of maintenance.
Ability and access to potential water Ability and access to potential
Sufficient volume for reuse
reuse options water reuse options

The mini-survey results show that combined process has become by far the favorite way. Thus 58%
among Countries who responded to the questionnaire use this process. This trend is due mainly to
the advantages Offred by this process in terms of time, energy and costs, while producing positive
externalities for the end user and the environment.
Figure n°1: Wastewater management approaches among WGEA community

4.4. The wastewater treatment cycle

Treating wastewater means removing pollutants and contaminants from the water before it is
returned to the natural environment or reused. Four to five major steps are needed:
 Pre-treatment (or preliminary treatment): aims to remove from the water floating
materials, such as rags, sticks ..., which can damage the technical installations during the
treatment process;
 The primary treatment: allows to remove the materials (solid or organic) suspended in the
wastewater;
 Secondary treatment: aims to remove biodegradable organic matter, suspended solids
and nutrients (nitrogen and / or phosphorus), as well as bacteria;
 Tertiary treatment: aims to remove residual suspended solids after secondary treatment.
This is the case of phosphorus and certain pathogens;
 Quaternary treatment: allows to disinfect the water of micropollutants whose
conventional treatment processes (primary, secondary and tertiary treatment) can not
eliminate them, such as, for example, drug residues, hormones, pesticides ...
5. Wastewater as a resource

There are a number of opportunities for reusing wastewater as a resource. Properly treated,
wastewater can act as a: source of irrigation and fertilization for agriculture, source of affordable
water for urban and industry uses and source of energy. However, untreated or poorly treated
wastewater can contain heavy metals, bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants that need to be
removed in order for reuse to be appropriate.

15
 5.1. Agriculture uses: irrigation and fertilization
Irrigation is the major form of reuse of treated, untreated or partially treated wastewater throughout
the world. It has been practiced for centuries. It is able to provide a reliable source of irrigation water
for farmers. This practice is highly successful in urban and peri-urban areas, where wastewater is
readily available, generally free, and where there is a nearby market for agricultural products.
Similarly, wastewater irrigation can in most cases provide all the nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus ...)
required for crop fertilization. The value of these substances has long been recognized by farmers
around the world, which will help reduce (or eliminate) additional fertilizer requirements for some
crops, resulting in increased income for farmers. In addition, the use of nutrients in the water
reduces the environmental impacts associated with phosphorus mining and the production of
artificial fertilizers.
5.2. Industry uses
Industrial reuse of wastewater is currently a technical and economic reality. It consists of recycling
industrial wastewater for industrial purposes (as manufacturing water) and non-industrial
wastewater (watering, non-drinking urban uses, etc.). In some countries, the industrial sector may
also use treated municipal wastewater.
The largest consumers of wastewater are thermal and nuclear plants (cooling water), the textile
industry, the paper industry, petroleum refineries, steel mills, as well as heating and air conditioning.
Recently, new applications are also emerging for the reuse of industrial water, such as the use of
treated wastewater as cooling water in large data centers. This is the case of Google, which has
equipped its sites in Belgium and Georgia, in the United States, with cooling facilities based on the
reuse of wastewater (WWDR, 2017).
5.3. Urban uses
The reuse of treated wastewater for urban purposes is developing rapidly and is becoming a
cornerstone of integrated water management in large cities. In urban areas, reclaimed wastewater
has been used mainly for non-potable applications.
The expected benefits are enormous. Urban uses of wastewater promote the reduction of the
demand for drinking water that can reach 10-15% or even 40% in residential areas equipped with
large areas of green space (Miller, 1990). The most common uses are the irrigation of green spaces
(parks, golf courses, sports fields, recreation centers), landscaping (waterfalls, fountains, water
bodies), washing of streets or vehicles and protection against fire. Another important application is
building recycling with, for example, the use of treated household water for sanitary washing. The
following box n°2, which deals with Tamuda-Bay in Morocco, illustrates the benefits of reusing
wastewater for urban purposes.

16
 BOX 2: THE TAMUDA-BAY WWTP (MOROCCO)
The Tamuda Bay wastewater Treatment Plants is part of the National Water Plan, which includes the
installation of 300 WWTP in the 2025 Horizon. It is an average activated sludge type WWTP and treats
wastewater, sludge and odors. It has been operational since July 2016. It has a pumping station with a
capacity of 130 liters / s, a water storage tank with a capacity of 2,500 m3 and 20 km of pipes of delivery
and distribution of various diameters. With a treatment capacity of up to 9 million m3 / year, the main
purpose of this WWTP is to irrigate the green areas of the Mdiq-Fnideq zone, which will ensure a
conservation saving of 2 million m3 of water per year.
The volumes currently consumed between the two towns of M'diq and Fnideq are of the order of 30,000
m3 / month, particularly during the summer period, which represents about 10% of treated wastewater.
The volume of sludge discharged from this WWTP is estimated at 4,230 m3 in 2016. As part of the
sustainable development efforts, the Tamuda Bay WWTP has been equipped with a cogeneration unit to
reduce 2,000 tons / year of greenhouse gases and to cover the equivalent of 35% of the needs of this
WWTP in terms of electricity, to this is added the sludge recovery unit fertilizer product that will generate
9.5 tons / day of digested sludge.
Finally, it should be noted that the notable success of this station will encourage the transition to the
extension phase to water the golf courses and green spaces in the cities of Tetouan, Martil and Cabo Negro
with treated wastewater.
Sources: Water department, Amendis and ONEEP

5.4. Energy uses

Wastewater has become a significant source of energy. Thanks to the treatment processes of
sludge/biosolids of wastewater by anaerobic digestion, it has become possible to recover the
chemical, thermal and hydraulic energy of wastewater in the form of biogas. Chemical energy
consists of producing electricity through the biogas generated from the organic substances of
wastewater. For thermal energy, it is based on the extraction of heat contained in wastewater for
space heating or cooling. While hydropower is made possible by the production of electricity by
installing turbines in wastewater flows. Due to this technology, several factories around the world
have been successful in recovering the energy offered by wastewater. Some others have been able
to transition to energy neutrality, or even become net energy producers. This is the case of the
Terneuzen factory in the Netherlands (World Water, 2013).
Figure n°2: Wastewater to Energy

System
Source: World Resources Institute

17
Chapter II: Government’s responses to wastewater
The issue of wastewater poses numerous constraints and challenges for public decision-makers. The
discharge of untreated wastewater into the natural environment could have negative, sometimes
irreparable, effects on the ecological system, human health and economic activities. For these
reasons, public decision-makers have to carry out policies and measures that allowed, on the one
hand, the mitigation of the risks generated by wastewater, and on the other hand, the creation of an
enabling environment for maximizing the potential of wastewater as a valuable and sustainable
resource. These measures have several dimensions, including appropriate legal and regulatory
frameworks, effective institutional bodies, policies and programs adapted to the socio-economic
context of the country, appropriate funding mechanisms, and the encouragement of research and
development in this area.
1. Wastewater as a component of of the Sustainable Development Goals
On 25 September 2015, 193 leaders of the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly
met in New York to adopt the 2015-2030 Sustainable Development Program. It is based on a set of
17 goals to be achieved in order to eradicate poverty, protect the environment and ensure prosperity
for all. With respect to water, the experience of previous UN program on the MDGs has shown that
beyond the issues of supply and sanitation, a broader, more detailed and context-specific goal is
needed for wastewater. This answer was provided by the Target 6.3 of Goal 6 of the SDGs; that
invites policy makers to take full advantage of the benefits and opportunities offered by wastewater
management.
1.1. SDG 6 and wastewater
The target 6.3. requires that by 2030 to “improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating
dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of
untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.” Figure n°2
below shows the expectations to be met for each category of countries.
Figure n°3: Percentage of untreated wastewater in 2015 in countries with different income levels and
aspirations for 2030 (50% reduction over 2015 baseline)

Source: WWRD 2017

18
To facilitate monitoring of progress towards SDG 6; Target 6.3, two global level indicators have been
proposed:
- 6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated: Safely treated wastewater generated by
households (sewage and faecal sludge) and economic activities (e.g. industries) in
proportion to total wastewater generated by households and economic activities;
- 6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality: Proportion of water
bodies (area) in a country with good ambient water quality compared to all water bodies in
the country. ‘Good’ indicates an ambient water quality that does not damage ecosystem
functions and human health according to core ambient water quality indicators.
Therefore, the completion of target 6.3 will largely contribute at the 2030 horizon to advanced
pollution source reduction, the removing contaminants from water flows wastewater, the reuse of
reclaimed water and the recovery of useful by-products. These entail social, environmental and
economic benefits for society as a whole, and contribute to overall well-being and health, as well as
to sustainable development.
1.2. The relationship between wastewater and others SDGs
According to the United Nations WWDR 20171, the achievement of Target 6.3 is a precondition to the
achievement of other SDGs and the overarching goal of eradicating poverty. Appropriate wastewater
collection and treatment helps also to protect the water quality in river basins and the goods and
services that these provide, while significantly reducing the number of people exposed to water-
related diseases (SDG 3; Targets 3.3 and 3.9), providing related health and economic benefits and
contributing to poverty alleviation (SDG 1; Targets 1.1 and 1.2).
Investing in wastewater management would provide particularly high returns by breaking the link
between unsafe water and diseases that causes healthy problems, particularly in developing
countries. Therefore, improved sanitary conditions and wastewater management contribute to the
success of nutrition enhancement strategies (SDG 2; Target 2.2), reduces preventable deaths among
children (SDG 3; Target 3.2) and enhances children’s attendance and performance in school (SDG 4;
Target 4.7). Reducing the burden of disease also reduces the time spent taking care of sick family
members, leaving more time to participate in the formal economy (SDG 8) and in social and political
decision-making. Women, who are often the main caregivers and who are responsible for the water
supply within households, would also benefit from improved sanitation conditions and wastewater
management, as they are frequently responsible for the management and use of greywater or
wastewater in agriculture. Inclusive and gender sensitive water management policies also support
the achievement of gender equality (SDG 5).
Improved wastewater treatment and the increase in water reuse, as called for in SDG Target 6.3, will
support the transition to a circular economy by helping reduce water withdrawals and the loss of
resources in production systems and economic activities. The exchanges of energy, water and
material flows in wastewater by-products can allow businesses to enhance their environmental
performance and competitive capacity. These exchanges are often mutually beneficial, favoring a
reduction in production costs, water consumption and/or wastewater treatment costs (SDG 8;
Targets 8.2 and 8.4). Building climate-resilient wastewater infrastructure networks can decrease the
direct economic losses caused by disasters (SDG 11; Target 11.5), while increasing the capacity of
human settlements to recover from natural hazards such as floods and droughts (SDG 13; Target
13.1). Improved wastewater management also has great potential for reducing GHG emissions (SDG
13; Target 13.2). Wastewater can be considered a reliable source of water in the planning and
development of new settlements and water resource projects (SDG 11; Target 11.6). Globally, the
achievement of SDG 6; Target 6.3 also contributes to the reduction of land-based pollution in
terrestrial and marine ecosystems (SDGs 14 and 15).

1
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002471/247153e.pdf

19
Finally, through the responses to the mini-survey conducted among the INTOSAI community, it
appears that governments consider UN SDGs Agenda as a good opportunity to give more attention to
wastewater issues. Therefore, based on mini-survey results, almost 62% of the SAIs who responded
to the questionnaire (31 countries) consider that they are undertaking measures to meet the target
6.3 of Goal 6 about wastewater.

2. Setting up and / or strengthening national legislation and regulatory framework

The introduction of legal and regulatory provisions directly addressing wastewater issue is one of the
main measures that help to reflect the level of political commitment to promote and regulate
activities related to wastewater management. It is, in fact, a framework that generally relates to the
use of permits and licenses, the application of emission and quality standards for wastewater, or
zoning for the use of land (Sterner, 2003). The regulations also govern the establishment of collection
systems and treatment facilities by setting appropriate standards for treatment and reuse for
different purposes. In some cases, the regulation may also be "economic", that is used in urban
services, which includes the supply of drinking water and the management of municipal wastewater.
Because the issue of wastewater is inseparable from the water issue, the majority of countries,
according to the results of the mini-survey, prefer to address the legal aspects governing wastewater
under the national laws of water. This is the case, for example, of Morocco where the entire water
sector, including wastewater, is governed by Law 10-95 of the 20th of September 1995, commonly
referred to as the “Water Act” which provides the framework for managing and creating the
necessary tools for its implementation. Other countries have decided to adopt specific laws for
wastewater. In this context, Russia passed in 2011 Federal Law No. 416-FZ, which regulates the issue
of "water supply and wastewater disposal". In Australia, several States have set targets for
wastewater use, and the Australian government provides detailed guidelines for water reuse
(NRMMC / EPHC / NHMRC, 2009). For its part, New Zealand has a statutory / regulatory framework
governing wastewater management, with several Acts of Parliament in place to regulate
environmental and health effects of waste disposal and the Local Government Act 2002 their
territories (cities and districts). At the Arab country level, at least 11 out of 22 Arab states have
enacted legislation allowing for the use of treated wastewater developed by national bodies
responsible for the use and disposal of wastewater (WHO, 2006). Some studies suggest that
regulation of wastewater management could have a positive ripple effect in promoting private
investment in wastewater. Spiller and al. (2012) looked at how the European Water Framework
Directive is stimulating change in water and wastewater management by water and sewerage
companies in England and Wales.

20
3. Institutional aspects (role of national bodies, local government, private sector …)
National regulations and legislation alone are no longer sufficient to address the challenges posed by
wastewater. It is also necessary to build an institutional framework that is homogeneous, effective
and capable of transforming the measures taken by the public authorities into real actions in
practice. Based on the responses to the questionnaire submitted to the WGEA community, it should
be noted that, commonly, wastewater governance is split between two levels of institutions: central
/ federal institutions and local institutions.

Box n°3: In Morocco: a multi-stakeholder institutional framework to manage wastewater

The institutional framework governing the wastewater issue is made up of several heterogeneous actors.
The Ministry of Equipment, Transport, Logistics and Water, responsible for the management, protection as
well as for the quantitative and qualitative monitoring of water resources, happens to be a major factor in
the water sector. As for the Ministry of Agriculture, it has reserved for itself the upper hand on irrigation.
The Ministry of the Interior (MI), is the custodian of local communities and on the relevant modules the
latter are managing, with respect to DWS and sanitation services, besides the ONEE. In addition, the
Ministry of Interior oversees the implementation of the NAP (National Water Sanitation and Cleansing
Plan). The Ministry of Economy and Finance has also an important role to play, as it finances investments
through the state budget. Other ministries are involved according to their specificity: The Ministry of
Health, through its mission of protecting public health; the Ministry of Trade and Industry, as the custodian
of the Moroccan Department of Industrial Standardization (SNIMA), in charge of standardization.
In addition, there have been created over the years several organizations, placed under the supervision of
the ministries, meant to become the tools of implementation of policies on the ground: the Water Basin
Agencies ( ABH ), the National Agency for Energy and the Water (ONEE), ORMVA (Regional Office for the
Agricultural Development, dealing with irrigation), the National Agency for Sanitary Safety of food products
( ONSSA ) (which ensures the quality of products of Wastewater Reuse (REU), the Superior Council for
Water and Climate (CSEC) (advisory volume for the planning of water resources management) , etc.
Although the state is highly centralized, part of the water management is delegated to the Water Users
Associations (WUA) – as far as water used for agricultural applications is concerned - or to the Local
Government Units (Communes) – as far as AEP and sanitation applications are concerned; decentralization
at the provincial level (Provincial or Prefectural Water Committees) has been provided for, for planning at
the level of river basins ( ABH ) as well as for the management and protection of the resource.

Sources: adapted from “Review and analysis of the status of the implementation of strategies and / or
action plans for wastewater- National report for morocco executive summary” (2013).

In the first level, wastewater management is assigned to one or more institutions that can be either a
water authority or an environmental entity. Among the countries that embrace this perspective is
Afghanistan, which has entrusted wastewater management to AUWSSC, which is responsible for
managing the wastewater. In the case of FIJI, the Water Authority of Fiji has the responsibility for
efficient and effective water supply and sanitation. As for Costa Rica, responsibility is shared between
The Ministry of Health and the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers. For Peru, Philippines and Thailand,
the responsibility is spread over several ministerial departments and organization. This is also the
case in Morocco as shown in Box 3 above.
Other countries have chosen to entrust the governance of wastewater at the local level, such as in
the case of Brazil, Estonia and New Zealand. Concerning Brazil, for example, the local government
(municipality) is responsible for formulating and implementing the local sanitation policy, which
includes: the drafting of the basic sanitation plan; the provision (or delegation) of the service; the
definition of the regulatory entity; the adoption of water quality standards that are protective of
human health; the establishment of rights and duties of users; the establishment of social control
mechanisms; and the establishment of an information system, which must be articulated with the
federal system. For the case of Estonia, the local governments are responsible on collecting and

21
treating domestic wastewater; industrial companies have to treat their wastewater; National
authorities give and control permits for wastewater treatment.

Lastly, it should also be noted that some countries adopt an hybrid institutional framework that
combines central and local levels. That is the case of France, Greece and Pakistan. Appendix n°1
presents in detail the different models of wastewater governance based on the mini-survey.

4. Key Policies and/or programs taken by governments worldwide to address

wastewater issues
4.1 Designing and implementing wastewater policies and/or programs

Certainly, wastewater management is expensive and capital-intensive, but all available evidence
suggests that the costs of inadequate investment are far greater in terms of actual money spent and
also both direct and indirect damages to health and socioeconomic development. In order to create a
sustainable system, policies are needed to support more effective waste-water-pricing systems that
permit sufficient cost recovery, ensure adequate investments and support long- term operation and
maintenance (UN-Water, 2011).
With regard to the mini-survey results, in Jordan, for example, the issue of wastewater is addressed
in national water policies and plans. it is also the same model that was adopted by Tunisia (WWDR,
2017). Jordan adopted the "Water Substitution and Reuse Policy" in February 2016, a formal policy
that formalizes the use of treated wastewater and provides tariff plans for the use of treated
wastewater and mixed treated wastewater. It was accompanied by another policy on decentralized
wastewater management to serve small communities, an important step given that wastewater
accounts for nearly 15% of available water resources in Jordan (UNESCWA, 2015). For Bahrain,
wastewater management schemes are included in both the national water plan and the national
environment strategy. In the case of Morocco, national priorities for wastewater are set by The
National Plan for Water -based strategy with a 2030 perspective. According to this plan, Morocco
aspires to the reuse of 325 million m3 of wastewater by 2030 which will contribute to the relief of
the water deficit which will reach 5 billion m3 / year in 2030. Also, besides The National Plan for
Water, Morocco has other plans and programs related to wastewater, the most important of which
are: The National Water Sanitation and Cleansing Plan, currently under revision, providing, among
other, for actions aiming at reaching 300 Wastewater Treatment Plants (STEP) by 2025; The National
Household Waste Plan (PNDM), embarking on a 15-year horizon (but as yet not accounting for the
STEP-generated sludge); The “Green Morocco” Project, embarking on objectives spanning through to
the year 2020 and comprising a significant component for irrigation and water conservation; The
Water Resources Integrated Development Master Plans (PDAIRE), prepared by each ABH for its
respective basin, harboring a long-term vision, subject to reviews on a five-year basis; Communal
Development Plans, resulting from the obligation of each municipality to develop such plans every
three years, in particular as regards investments for the ASP and Sanitation.

Costa Rica has recently adopted a national strategy based on three pillars: the National Wastewater
Treatment Policy 2016-2045, the National Program for the Management of Wastewater, and the
Framework Cooperation Agreement between Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health and the
AyA, which regulates matters to allow compliance with wastewater regulations. For some countries
of Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia), the measures taken are based
on the Program for the implementation of Directive 91/271/ EEC on urban wastewater treatment.
The Philippines has launched a national policy based on “The Local Initiatives for Affordable
Wastewater Treatment” (LINAW) project promoted installation of decentralized wastewater systems

22
that apply innovative, low-cost technologies tailored to a community’s resources and needs. Based
on results of the mini-survey, detailed examples, about countries experiences, are provided in the
Appendix n°2.

Box n°4: Successful Wastewater Management Policy

To successfully align wastewater management policy in support of sustainable development and the SDGs,
the following strategies and practices are recommended:
- Passage and/or establishment of legislation, norms, standards (effluents, Standard Operating
Procedures; SOP, Quality Management Plant; QMP) and subsidiary regulations (including a legislation in
compliance with relevant obligations under international law), along with implementation, compliance,
and enforcement actions to ensure their effectiveness;
- Clear delineation of roles, responsibilities and mandates among supporting actors (e.g. national and
local authorities, operators, producers, importers) and adequate allocation of resources, authority, and
power to fulfill these responsibilities (including sub-national or regional cooperation mechanisms);
- Monitoring of progress and gathering and publication of data and information;
- Providing appropriate support for all cooperating institutions and ensuring effective coordination among
them all;
- Establishing protocols for the equitable sharing of technologies and best practices, and where
appropriate, facilitating regional cooperation;
- Coordination with other relevant sustainable development policy areas, e.g. trade policy;
- Link to supporting frameworks for wastewater reduction, and for materials recovery and recycling
operations (e.g. extended producer responsibility agreements or regulations);
- Creating systems of tariffs, fees, taxes and financial incentives that support the sector, such as providing
necessary investments, or avoiding perverse subsidies;
- Creating pilot programmes and technical support/exchange initiatives to assist local implementation;
- Passage of appropriate regulation and control of private sector and household behavior;
- Building of inclusive community participation mechanisms;
- Education and publicity programs to change public attitudes and behavior;
- Maintaining programs to develop and maintain a body of skilled and committed waste management
workers, not only in the waste management industry itself but also in government (at all levels) and in
those organizations that are major generators of waste;
- Ensuring institutional mechanisms for review and reform of any of the above actions.
Source: UNEP and UNITAR, 2013

4.2. Financial mechanisms and instruments

Governments can mobilize mechanisms that are part of the so-called market-based environmental
policy instruments (MBIs). This approach offers to government the choice between several
alternative tools based on market power and competition to achieve environmental objectives. In
other words, MBIs allow the government to orient producers and consumers with incentives to
change their behaviors and look for more effective ways of making environmental progress, while
giving them flexibility in how they do so. According to WGEA study on “Market Based Instruments
for Environmental Protection and Management” (2016), the most commonly used MBIs are:
environmental taxes and charges, tradable permits, deposit refund systems, environmental subsidies
and incentives and other market-based instruments, such as liability schemes, green public
procurement and labelling schemes.2

However, for the UN-WATER (2017) traditional financing sources still commonly categorized as the
3Ts, namely: taxes, tariffs and transfers. For taxes, it is a question of applying special taxes on the
polluter (in accordance with the polluter-pays principle). Regarding mini-survey results, France,

2
For more details about MBIs, see the WGEA study in the link below: https://www.environmental-auditing.org/media/5370/wgea-
instrument-protection-and-management_isbn-ok.pdf

23
Kuwait and Russia are among the countries that have implemented such taxes, in particular, for
discharges of pollutants into water bodies, as well as adjustment of the amount of the fee (deducting
the cost of implementing measures to reduce the negative impact on the environment). With regard
to financing via tariffs, they consist in charging the wastewater treatment charges and invoices to the
user himself. This is the case of New Zealand, Jordan and Thailand where local authorities fund such
systems by user charges (rates).
As for the mode of transfer, it refers to the transfer of responsibility for funding wastewater
programs and projects to others entities: local government/ entities, private sector and NGOs. In
the United States of America, the federal government provides about 25 percent of funding for
infrastructure projects, while cities or utilities pay the rest of their wastewater infrastructure. Eight
federal agencies provide funding for water and wastewater in the U.S., the largest being the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA). The Clean Water Act provides for funding to states called
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. Under the act and this program, EPA provides federal
funds to states who then loan the funds to municipalities and wastewater treatment plants for
infrastructure investment. The Philippines adopted the Republic Act No. 9275, which established a
water quality management fund, to be administered by the Department, in coordination with other
concerned agencies, as a special account in the National Treasury. The fines imposed and damages
awarded to the government by the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), proceeds of permits issued by
the Department under this Act, donations, endowments and grants in the form of contributions to
the national government under this Act shall form part of the fund. In addition to this fund, the
Philippines has also selected other innovative financing mechanisms in the form of tax incentives and
non-tax incentives for operators who intend to invest in projects related to wastewater
management. Others examples, about countries experiences, are illustrated in the Appendix n°3
based on mini-survey results.
4.3. Support to R&D
R&D plays a key role in promoting access to appropriate technologies and reducing the costs of
treatment and reuse of wastewater, whose benefits are shared broadly by society. The role of direct
government support can be large in the early stages of innovation and become smaller as
technologies mature. In R&D, the general role of the public sector is in supporting high-risk,
fundamental research with a long-term perspective, while the private sector tends to focus on near-
competitive technologies and shorter-term demonstration projects. The public sector can support
research institutes and academic institutions, fund research programs targeted at specific
technologies and supply grants to private-sector R&D efforts. In developing countries, the focus
should be on creating capacity to facilitate technology transfer, adapt technologies to local market
conditions and support private-sector players that install, manufacture, operate and maintain the
technologies.
Based on the mini-survey conducted among the WGEA community, it appears that government
policies on R&D focus in particular on issues of funding and implementation of research facility and
coordination of the research. In Philippines, under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 9275, the DENR, in
coordination with the DOST, shall establish a national research and development program for the
prevention and control of water pollution. As part of said program, the DOST shall conduct and
promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigation, experiments, training, mini-
survey and studies relating to the causes, extent, prevention and control of pollution among
concerned government agencies and research institutions.
In United states of America, several U.S. agencies fund water research. For example, the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Mini-survey study ground water and surface water quantity and
quality, the U.S. EPA studies water quality and contaminants, and multiple agencies including EPA
and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study harmful algal blooms.

24
Chapter III: Role of International Cooperation in the development of
wastewater technologies

The new UN SDGs 2030 agenda, in particular target 6.3 on water quality, will help to promote policy
development and the implementation of the necessary measures, regarding wastewater
management processes, which should benefit from international cooperation and technology
transfer mechanisms, capacity building, and other means of implementation.
Thus, wastewater issues are gaining increasing importance at international level. Because of
transboundary issues between countries when they flow into transboundary rivers, lakes or aquifers.
International and regional conventions and treaties can provide an appropriate framework to help
countries manage these transboundary effects.
1. International conventions related to wastewater
Wastewater management is a major international concern, as pollution problems are borderless.
Concerning legal aspects of international cooperation, there are two main international conventions
on transboundary wastewater (WWDR, 2017):
 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses (entered into force in 2014) requires States to take all appropriate measures
not to cause "significant harm" to other States in the international watercourse (Article 7)
and that States cooperate to protect international watercourses (Article 8);
 The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes (the Water Convention) has been prepared as a regional instrument by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) -UN, 1992). It entered into force in 1996
and has been open to United Nations Member States worldwide since 2013. The Water
Convention addresses transboundary impact; sustainability, precautionary principles and the
polluter pays (Article 2), and includes the obligation to control pollutant emissions and prior
authorization of wastewater discharges.
These conventions have framed the development of many types of international cooperation such as
bilateral and multilateral arrangements, partnerships, city networks and several others.
2. Funds to support wastewater projects
International cooperation has played a crucial role in financing projects aimed at developing
advanced technological solutions to manage wastewater in an optimal way. International
coordination can help ensure that limited financial resources are spent in the most efficient way
possible. According to the UN (2017), many multilateral environmental agreements provide for
innovative economic incentives to prevent and reduce the generation of wastewater, which can
include the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, public-private partnerships and
innovative pricing policies. Box n°5 below illustrates the success of using innovative financial
mechanisms in the Caribbean context.
In Ecuador, a significant portion of the financial resources is derived from several financial
agreements with international partners such as the World Bank (WB), the Inter-American Bank of
Development (IBD) and the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID).
Similarly, Macedonia has received financial support from Japan through JICA, which refer to the
preparation of a study on improvement, reconstruction and upgrading of the existing wastewater
collection system in Ohrid and Struga.

25
Thailand has gone into a more than financial partnership with The Asian Development Bank and the
World Bank to benefit from the expertise, technical assistance and training provided by both

Box n°5: The Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater Management (CReW)
Within the Wider Caribbean Region, it is often a tremendous challenge to secure funding for sectors such as
education, health, drinking water supply and wastewater management, with the latter consistently
receiving the least investment. However, without adequate levels of investment, the consequence will be a
continuing discharge of untreated wastewater, which threatens the Region’s economic development and
the quality of life of its people. The CReW, funded by the GEF and implemented by the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB) and UNEP, offers one way of addressing the issue of insufficient funding for
wastewater infrastructure in the region.
CReW has tested two types of funding mechanisms: revolving funds (in Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Guyana) and a credit enhancement facility (CEF) in Jamaica. The CEF was established with a reserve
guarantee of US$3 million provided by CReW, as leverage financing for a further US$9 million to fund
wastewater projects. The K-factor wastewater utility surcharge, established in 2008, is used to repay funds
to the CEF. This innovative model creates an incentive for allocating the resources garnered from the
monthly collection of the K-factor funds (a portion of the water tariff) for debt servicing for larger
commercial bank loans, rather than using the funds directly for capital investments in the sector. Belize,
Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago use CReW resources (US$5 million, US$3 million, and US$2 million
respectively) to create revolving funds which provide loans to the respective water utilities to finance
selected wastewater projects. Replenishment of these revolving funds depends on income generated
primarily by the interest from the loans and through the tariff regime. The case of Guyana is special, as the
allocation targets primarily the private sector.
Among the lessons learned are the notion that the sustainability of financing for the wastewater sector
depends predominantly on the commitment of governments; the adequacy of national policies, laws and
regulations; the level of enforcement of existing laws and regulations; and the presence of sufficient,
ongoing funding for upgrading, operating and maintenance. The project helped increase awareness of: i)
the issue of poor wastewater management amongst decision-makers; ii) the importance of integrated
water and wastewater management; iii) innovative ways of approaching financing for wastewater
management; and iv) a better understanding of the requirements for sustainable funding in the sector.

Source: WWDR (2017) based on CReW and Daniels, M. (2015)

organizations.

3. Transfer of knowledge
Technology transfer is one good example of international cooperation in the development of
wastewater solutions and technologies. It is the flow of knowledge, policies, experiences and
equipment from one area to another, from an industrialized country to a developing country, but it
can be between developing countries or even from urban areas to rural areas. Like other new
technologies, wastewater faces barriers that related to technology transfer. Before a technology can
be transferred successfully, enabling conditions need to be fulfilled, such as institutional and
adaptive capacity, access to finance, and knowledge of the technology.
Several countries have joined this cooperative initiative. In Pakistan, many international agencies
have extended their cooperation related to areas in water management. These include (but not
limited to) IWMI, IUCN and Water Aid. At this level, it is also important to remember that the UN
institutions, particularly UNESCO, FAO and WHO, provide several advisory services, support services,
studies and guidelines aimed at strengthening the mastery of the different aspects of wastewater
management.

26
Chapter IV. Auditing Wastewater

Around the world, wastewater constitute a strategic concern for public decision-makers, whether at
the national level or at the level of local authorities. These entities continue to take action and
allocate significant budgetary resources to address the different constraints and challenges imposed
by wastewater. In order to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of the efforts mobilized in relation
to the objectives set, many SAIs have considered regularly orienting their evaluation and audit
activities towards issues relating to wastewater.
In other words, the issue of wastewater has become currently a very interesting field for SAIs
activities. The increasing number of audit operations conducted on wastewater during the last
decade confirms this trend. Indeed, the audit reports database available at the WGEA website and in
the websites of SAIs contains more than 45 audit cases related to the wastewater aspects. In
addition, the responses to the questionnaire submitted to the INTOSAI community shows that almost
42% SAIs had conducted audits on this field. This chapter emphasis, firstly, a brief review on
wastewater auditing practices. Secondly, it identifies recurring topics related to wastewater auditing.
1. Overview about wastewater auditing practices

A total, of 50 SAIs have responded to the wastewater mini-survey. The analysis of the responses
received reveals the existence of positive and encouraging attitudes within the WGEA community
regarding the issue of wastewater auditing.
1.1 Wastewater is a progressive priority for SAIs
In relation to the question ‘‘has your SAI carry out audits related to wastewater issues’’, 21 SAIs
among the 50 responded to the mini-survey (almost 42%) indicated that they had conducted audits
on this field, and 4% of respondents mentioned that they have ongoing audit work on this topic. On
another side, several SAIs have indicated that they intend to schedule wastewater audits in the
future as part of their annual audit programs.

The results of the mini-survey also show that 21 SAIs, which have proceeded to the auditing of
wastewater, have published 31 reports during the past ten years 2008-2018. In addition, the
temporal analysis of publication dates of audits shows that more than 64% of reports have been
published in the last five years (2014-2018). This trend confirms the SAIs awareness on the
importance of wastewater issues and that wastewater auditing become progressively an emerging
audit topic for SAIs.

27
1.2 Type of audit: The relevance of performance auditing

In terms of the type of audit to deal with wastewater issues, it appears from SAIs audit cases that the
majority of SAIs (25 among 31 audit cases), has adopted performance audit, and only three SAIs have
made the choice of the compliance audit. It should be noted that there are also other types of
wastewater audit that are rarely practiced by the asked SAI, for example: combined between
performance and compliance audit (the cases of Jordanian SAI and Moroccan SAI), and a special
examination of Environmental Control to the Wastewater Treatment Systems of the Municipal
Autonomous Decentralized Government (SAI of Ecuador). The following table n°4 illustrates the
distribution of audit reports on Wastewater Published.

Table n°3: Audit Reports on Wastewater Published by SAIs from WGEA Community
Types of Audit
Compliance Total audit
Performance audit Combined others
audit per year
Before
USA 2
2010
2011 France 1
2012 Mexico, USA 2
Colombia, Costa-Rica,
2013 Estonia, Kuwait, 6
Year of publication

Thailand, USA
Czech
2014 Fiji, India Macedonia Morocco 4
Republic
Ecuador
Colombia, France, Peru,
2015 Costa Rica Jordan (special 7
Philippines
examination)
2016 Brazil, Canada, India Peru 4
2017 Costa Rica, India, USA 3

2018 Bahrain, Slovak Republic 2

Total 25 3 2 1 31

2. Wastewater audit topics

As mentioned above, the wastewater audit has become in the last five years a theme that is
attracting more and more attention among SAIs around the world. The analysis of audit cases, based
on mini-survey responses and the summary of the reports extracted from the WGEA and SAIs
websites made it possible to highlight that the aspects audited touch a wide variety of topics related
to wastewater. These topics can be broadly classified into five majors audit topics as follows:
 Auditing wastewater management and treatment;
 Auditing specific wastewater programs and projects;
 Linking wastewater to water resources management and drinking water safety
 Wastewater as component of the sanitation services;
 Wastewater environmental impact.
2.1. Auditing wastewater management and treatment
According to the mini-survey results, many SAIs provided a significant interest to audit the
wastewater management and treatment. The aim of this topic is to examine the fact that the
mechanisms (policies, framework, infrastructures, systems, treatment technologies…) put in place by
the governmental entities, particularly those responsible for the management of water resources,

28
make it possible to ensure optimum and safe management of wastewater throughout the cycle, from
generation of flows and discharge until reuse for productive purposes. A number of eight audit cases
related to this issue are provided by SAIs:

SAI of Brazil: Performance Audit in Wastewater (2016)

The objective of the audit was to assess to what extent federal policies and governmental actions
related to the sewage service in Brazil contribute to the efficient management of water resources.
The scope of the audit was sewage services in municipalities with more than 50 thousand
inhabitants. These municipalities, because of their population size, are those that generate more
organic load, which, when not properly treated, compromises the quality of water resources. We
developed our audit lines of enquiry based on national legislation and regulations, technical
documents, interviews with experts and government managers, field visits to 33 municipalities with a
low percentage of sewage treatment in different geographic regions of Brazil. In the visits, we
interviewed local public managers, managers of treatment sewage agencies, as well as managers of
regulatory agencies. For further detail of the report, it is available at:
https://contas.tcu.gov.br/pesquisaJurisprudencia/#/detalhamento/11/%252a/NUMACORDAO%253A
3180%2520ANOACORDAO%253A2016/DTRELEVANCIA%2520desc%252C%2520NUMACORDAOINT%
2520desc/false/1/false

SAI of COSTA RICA (1): Audit on the control implemented by the Ministry of Health for the
collection, transport, disposal and treatment of sludge from special wastewater treatment systems
(2015).
The objective was to establishing the reasonableness of the control exert by the Ministry of Health
for the collection, transport, treatment and disposal of sludge. For the scoop, the audit was focused
on actions and controls implemented by Ministry of Health, through its regional offices located all
around the country, using a sample of registered wastewater treatment systems. The audit revealed
alarming results: (1) Insufficient control of the treatment and disposal of sludge; (2) Lack of
opportunity in the verification of performance reports from treatment plants and in the attention of
corrective actions ( the maximum deadline for submitting operational reports is not defined;
untimely intervention of the Ministry of Health when there is non-compliance with the parameters of
discharges; inconsistencies in the physical-chemical and microbiological characteristics of the
discharges contained in the performance reports). Further details of the report, are available at:
https://cgrfiles.cgr.go.cr/publico/docs_cgr/2015/SIGYD_D_2015009195.pdf

SAI of COSTA RICA (2): Performance auditing on Alajuela’s Local Government sewage service (2017)
The SAI has conducted this audit to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of Alajuela’s Local
Government sewage service. The audit considered the public funding invested in Alajuela’s Local
Government sewage service, specifically related to the following matters: a) Coverage of Alajuela’s
Local Government sewage service; b) Quality of wastewater discharged in waterways (rivers and
streams, etc.); c) Management of Local Government sewage infrastructure; d); Management of
Alajuela´s septic system. Further, the audit analysis period was ranged between January 1st, 2016,
and December 31th, 2016. As for the methodology applied, the auditing work team established
performance indicators in order to assess the effective and efficiency of Alajuela’s Local Government
sewage service. In addition, AyA engineers for identifying the state of the infrastructure carried out
inspections. Finally, 71 files related with approved building permits (included the septic system
permits) were chosen based on a representative statistical sample. The main findings were: Audit
findings: a) 66% of Alajuela’s Local Government sewage service´s users (houses and commerce) are
not receiving treatment of the wastewater produced in their houses and commerce buildings. b)
Four of the nine wastewater treatment plants in charge of Alajuela’s Local Government, are not
complying with national quality standards for discharging waste water in waterways (DBO, DQO,
etc.).c) The Local Government sewage network in Alajuela downtown doesn’t has the enough
capacity to transport the quantity of wastewater generated during the raining season. d) The

29
Alajuela’s Local Government doesn´t carry out physical inspection to determine that Alajuela´s septic
systems are in line with approved building permits. more details about this case are available at:
https://cgrfiles.cgr.go.cr/publico/jaguar/Documentos/informes_rec/DFOE-DL-IF-05-2017.pdf

SAI of Fiji: Management of Wastewater (2014)

This audit was conducted in 2014 but not tabled in Parliament. It had a dual objective: (1) to assess
the adequacy of wastewater regulatory and planning framework in governing, guiding and providing
resources to enable the efficient management of waste water systems in Fiji, and (2) to determine
the effectiveness of WAF in managing its infrastructures to meet demands, and monitoring of its
daily wastewater processes that ensures discharge quality to the environment is of the required
standard. The audit focused on the activities of the Water Authority of Fiji in administering the waste
water systems for the period 2010 until the date of the audit in October 2014. The audit covered 10
out of the 11 wastewater treatment plants around the country, i.e. 91% coverage of the WAF
wastewater service in Fiji. The audit was conducted using the following audit gathering techniques:
Documentary reviews; Interviews and physical inspections of the water treatment plants located at 3
divisions.

SAI of Jordan: Evaluate the performance of treated wastewater management in the Water
Authority (2015)
The overall objectives of the audit were: (1) Determine the degree of compliance with the
environmental standards of the audited activity; (2) identify and describe the impact of treated
wastewater use on the following environmental elements: water / soil / vegetation; (3). Examination
of the use and degree of compliance with environmental indicators. The results of the audit can be
enumerated as follows : (a) There is no national standard or guidelines in the Water Authority to
measure the impact of treated wastewater on soil and plant; (b) Decrease in the number of
laboratory tests to measure the effect of treated wastewater on soil and plants by the Authority in
recent years; (c) No measuring of concentrations of phenol by the Authority in wastewater samples
(especially industrial) that are collected from sewage stations; (d) Dependence on intraday sampling
rather than aggregation when examining the wastewater of some of the factories connected to the
network, which had some violations in the wastewater measurements of the technical specification;
(e) Not to take the nature of the plant's activity as a criterion for sampling, where it is currently
dependent on the volume of water discharged from the plant. Further details about this case are
available at:
http://www.audit-bureau.gov.jo/Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202016/Full.pdf

SAI of Peru: Management and Treatment of Municipal Waste Water – Empresa Municipal de Agua
Potable y Alcantarillado Cañete S.A (2016)
The audit was conducted to determine if Empresa Municipal de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado Cañete
S.A. complied with the environmental normative framework that regulates the management and
treatment of the municipal wastewater that is directly poured into the course of the Mala River. The
issue to be examined was the management and treatment of the municipal waste waters in the
jurisdiction of the San Antonio district, by EMAPA Cañete S.A., its pouring into the natural course of
the Mala River and the negative impact that this might cause in the quality of the environment and
public health. Also, the actions undertaken with regard to the Project “Improvement and Expansion
of the Drinking Water and Sewerage System of San Antonio – Cañete” being only partially
operational. It encompassed the review and analysis of documentation relative to the treatment
process y disposal of municipal wastewater in the district of San Antonio, during the period between
January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2015. Among the main results of the audit, it should be noted
that EMAPA Cañete S.A. pours wastewater from the San Antonio district into the course of the Mala
River without previously treating them, affecting the body of water. It also failed to comply with its

30
duties of follow-up and monitoring established in the agreement for the execution of the sanitation
project. It didn’t have the authorization for pouring waste waters that the National Water Authority
(ANA) issues, even though it was granted a special period to meet the requirements through the
Compliance with Pouring and Reuse Program that ended in March of 2015. Consequently,
wastewater continues to be poured into the Mala River without any sort of previous treatment,
affecting that body of water where the levels are over what is allowed by law. On the other hand,
EMAPA Cañete S.A. failed to comply with the follow-up and monitoring to the construction side of
the sanitation project, which contemplated the building of a wastewater treatment plant for the San
Antonio district. Further details about this case are available at:
https://apps1.contraloria.gob.pe/portal/BuscadorInformes/BuscadorInformes.htm

SAI of Thailand: The Management of the Wastewater Management Authority (2013)

The main objective of the audit was to determine whether WMA was meeting its purpose of
providing central wastewater treatment systems both within and outside the wastewater
management areas with fee collection, as well as to provide services in wastewater related affairs.
The audit covered activities implemented from the WMA was founded by the Royal Decree
Establishing the Wastewater Management Authority, B.E. 2538 (1995) on August 15th, 1995, through
fiscal year 2013. This performance audit conducted in accordance with the Royal Decree Establishing
the Wastewater Management Authority, B.E. 2538 (1995) and the amendments in 1997 and 2005.
The audit found that The WMA could not achieved the objectives under the Royal Decree
Establishing the Wastewater Management Authority, B.E. 2538 (1995), i.e. (a) From the WMA was
founded in 1995 until 2013, The WMA could not establish central wastewater treatment systems to
treat wastewater both within and outside its assigned areas; (b) The wastewater treatment fee has
not been applied in local municipalities.

SAI of USA: Water Pollution: EPA has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit
from More Information on Treatment Technologies (2012)
By this audit, the GAO aimed to examine : (1) the process EPA follows to screen and review industrial
categories potentially in need of new or revised effluent limitation guidelines and the results of that
process from 2003 through 2010; (2) limitations to this screening and review process, if any, that
could hinder the effectiveness of the effluent guidelines program in advancing the goals of the Clean
Water Act; and (3) what actions EPA has taken or could take to address limitations, if any, that exist.
In terms of findings, the audit showed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a two-
phase process to identify industrial categories potentially needing new or revised effluent guidelines
to help reduce their pollutant discharges. EPA’s 2002 draft Strategy for National Clean Water
Industrial Regulations was the foundation for EPA’s process.
In the first, or “screening,” phase, EPA uses data from two EPA databases to rank industrial
categories according to the total toxicity of their wastewater. Using this ranking, public comment,
and other considerations, EPA has identified relatively few industrial categories posing the highest
hazard for the next, or “further review,” phase. In this further review phase, EPA evaluates the
categories to identify those that are appropriate for new or revised guidelines because treatment
technologies are available to reduce pollutant discharges. Since 2003, EPA has regularly screened the
58 categories for which it has issued effluent guidelines, as well as some potential new industrial
categories, and it has identified 12 categories for its further review phase. Of these 12 categories,
EPA selected 3 for updated or new effluent guidelines. EPA chose not to set new guidelines for the
others. Limitations in EPA’s screening phase may have led it to overlook some industrial categories
that warrant further review for new or revised effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA has relied on
limited hazard data that may have affected its ranking of industrial categories. Further, during its
screening phase, EPA has not considered the availability of advanced treatment technologies for
most industrial categories.

31
Although its 2002 draft strategy recognized the importance of technology data, EPA has stated that
such data were too difficult to obtain during the screening phase and, instead, considers them for the
few categories that reach further review. Officials responsible for state water quality programs and
experts on industrial discharges, however, identified categories they believe EPA should examine for
new or updated guidelines to reflect changes in their industrial processes and treatment technology
capabilities. According to some experts, consideration of treatment technologies is especially
important for older effluent guidelines because changes are more likely to have occurred in either
the industrial categories or the treatment technologies, making it possible that new, more advanced
treatment technologies are available. Recognizing the limitations of its hazard data and overall
screening approach, EPA has begun revising its process but has not assessed other possible sources
of information it could use to improve the screening phase. In 2012, EPA supplemented the hazard
data used in screening with four new data sources. EPA is also developing a regulation that, through
electronic reporting, will increase the completeness and accuracy of its hazard data. In 2011, EPA also
began to obtain recent treatment technology literature. According to EPA, the agency will expand on
this work in 2013.
Nonetheless, EPA has not thoroughly examined other usable sources of information on treatment
technology, nor has it reassessed the role such information should take in its screening process.
Without a more thorough and integrated screening approach that both uses improved hazard data
and considers information on treatment technology, EPA cannot be certain that the effluent
guidelines program reflects advances in the treatment technologies used to reduce pollutants in
wastewater. Further details about this case are available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-
845
2.2 Auditing specific wastewater programs and projects
Some SAIs have conducted wastewater audit by focusing on programs and projects implemented by
national and local governments in this area. The choice of this topic is justified by the fact that
wastewater projects are characterized by their transverse aspect that involve multiple levels of public
actors and by the fact that they require significant budgetary resources. Therefore, the objective of
auditing this topic is to evaluate whether the audited programs and projects were implemented and
provided results as planned, and whether they reached their targets. Six cases of audits focused on
programs and projects implemented in this field were identified:

SAI of Bahrain: Audit of Wastewater Projects (2018)

The Audit objectives are to ensure that: 1) Efficiency and effectiveness of the ministry in the
planning, implementation and management of sewage projects; 2) The existence of internal control
systems on sewage projects work efficiently and effectively; 3) The Ministry's commitment to laws,
regulations and regulations related to government projects. The report of this audit is being
discussed for later publication during this year.

SAI of Canada: Federal Support for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (2016)

The Office of the Auditor General’s responsibility was to conduct an independent examination of
federal support for municipal infrastructure intended to improve environmental performance, in
order to provide objective information, advice, and assurance to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of
the government’s management of resources and programs. All of the audit work in this report was
conducted in accordance with the standards for assurance engagements set out by the Chartered
Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA) in the CPA Canada Handbook—Assurance. While the
Office adopts these standards as the minimum requirement for our audits, we also draw upon the
standards and practices of other disciplines. As part of our regular audit process, we obtained
management’s confirmation that the findings in this report are factually based. The overall objective
was to determine whether Infrastructure Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

32
managed two key programs designed to support sustainable communities to achieve their objectives,
and whether Infrastructure Canada adequately coordinated the set of programs.
Our audit work focused on Infrastructure Canada’s management of the Gas Tax Fund and its
coordination of some key federal programs that provide funding for municipal infrastructure. We
also assessed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ management of the Green Municipal Fund.
We also spoke to officials in Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada,
in view of their roles in overseeing the Green Municipal Fund. We relied on interviews with officials
from audited organizations and with stakeholders, such as the recipients of federal funds. We
examined selected project files and databases used for tracking performance information. Entity
officials provided details on key management processes. We spoke to municipal and provincial
officials in several jurisdictions and conducted interviews and site visits in Calgary, Toronto, and St.
John’s. For our work on the Gas Tax Fund, we also used an online mini-survey distributed to all
signatories of funding agreements to obtain their views on aspects of the management of the Fund.
To assess the procedures used by Infrastructure Canada to review the reports received from the
signatories of the Gas Tax Fund agreements, we chose 35 of the second of the two annual payments
made to the signatories from October 2012 to November 2015 and looked at the procedures leading
up to the payments. Given that there were 15 signatories and that our testing covered four fiscal
years, we expected that there would be 57 possible payments, considering that our testing occurred
in November 2015, when three annual reports were not yet due. The payments were selected to
focus on higher-risk items (for example, because of larger dollar amounts) and to include examples of
payments to all jurisdictions. The main emphasis of the audit was on the period between April 2010
and October 2015. Some questions required consideration of events and information related to the
design and early implementation of the programs. For example, the agreements for the Green
Municipal Fund and for the first round of the Gas Tax Fund were signed in 2005. To provide the most
up-to-date information possible, we also included some information from after October 2015.
Further details about this case are available at:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201605_01_e_41380.html#hd2d

SAI of the Czech Republic: Funds of the Operational Program Environment earmarked for
wastewater treatment (2014).
This audit was a control of legality of the activities carried out by the Funds of the Operational
Program Environment earmarked for wastewater treatment. The objective was to verify whether the
funds of the Operational Program Environment for Waste Water Treatment were provided and used
in accordance with the legal regulations and the conditions laid down; verify the implementation of
the measures taken based on previous controls. The Supreme Audit Office scrutinized subsidies from
the Operational Programme Environment, which were approved by the Ministry of Environment and
the State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic in period 2008–2013 for purification of waste
waters. Auditors aimed at selection, supervising, evaluation, and monitoring processes related to
projects, which had been granted subsidies. The auditing operation scrutinized 15 individual projects.
The auditing operation scrutinized 15 individual projects. Handling of the applications took rather
long. On average, 28 months passed from receiving the application to ruling about the subsidies. In
23 cases, auditors revealed that the Ministry of Environment approved applications after the
construction works had been finished. Delays were caused by complexity of applications and
frequent mistakes in forms, and the fact that projects managers were overburden with many tasks
and big projects needed European Commission’s approval. Moreover, the Ministry and the State
Environmental Fund failed to keep all necessary documents related to calls and selection processes.
As a result, it was not possible to assess whether these phases had been transparent. The SAO’s
concluded that it is hard to assess whether the objectives of the Operational Programme
Environment were met. Priority Axis 1.1, which was the main focus of the auditing operation, aims at
reducing of the pollution of ground water. But the Ministry failed to define the measures of the
targeted pollution’s reduction. Errors were found in the monitoring system as well. For example,
terms and dates for public administration controls at beneficiaries were not properly set. So, the

33
State Environmental Fund carried out an audit scheduled for June 2012 as late as September, the
audit notes were elaborated in February 2013 and the audit protocol was presented to the
beneficiary in March 2013. The Operational Program Environment is among the programs, which
were temporarily suspended by the European Commission because of serious errors. The Czech
Republic was ordered to cut by 5 % all reimbursements claimed by the end of August 2012. In 2012,
the Government prepared Action Plan to deal with the reimbursement problems, but there were CZK
23,500 million left in the Program by the end of 2013, which made roughly one half of the
allocations. By the end of 2013, only 44 % of the funds allocated in the Operational Program
Environment were paid to beneficiaries. More details about this case are available at:
https://www.nku.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=5072
SAI of Slovak Republic: Audit the benefits of investment in sewerage from the Operational Program
Environment (2018)
The audit was conducted to Review and analyze the efficiency of the resources spent on drainage
within the Operational Program Environment (value for money) from the point of view of meeting
objectives and measurable indicators (connectivity). Analyze the unit prices of selected budget items
as well as the cost of 1 km of newly built sewerage. Report on the fulfillment of the Slovak Republic's
commitment to the EU in the area of drainage under the Treaty of Accession to the EU. The purpose
was also to verify the obligations of municipalities in the area of wastewater treatment in
agglomerations, as well as to identify the reasons for non-connection of citizens to newly built
sewerage networks. The audit examined the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the spent
financial resources. When assessing economy, the criteria were the assessment of the cost of 1 km of
built-in sewerage and the comparison of unit prices of selected construction items. Efficiency was
assessed in terms of the degree of connection of citizens to the sewer network. Criteria for assessing
effectiveness were to assess the fulfillment of the Slovak Republic's commitment to the EU as a result
of the Accession Treaty and the fulfillment of the set objectives. Audit was focused on 26 final
beneficiaries (municipalities and water companies) and MoE SR. The questionnaire was addressed to
all district authorities. Audit was in 23 cases ended with prepared records and in four ones with
protocols.

SAI of USA (1): Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure: Information on Identified Needs,
Planning for Future Conditions, and Coordination of Project Funding (2017)
There are three objectives of this audit: (1) how federal agencies and selected states identify drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure needs; (2) how federal agencies have supported selected states
in planning for future conditions that may affect such needs; and (3) the extent to which federal and
state agencies have coordinated in funding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects,
and any challenges they face in funding these projects. As audit criteria, the GAO is used mainly two
elements. The first is the GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012) and the
second is the GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). The results of
the audit touched on several aspects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal
and selected state agencies collect information to identify drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs through mini-survey s, the administration of agency programs, and studies.
EPA’s most recent mini-survey s estimated approximately $655 billion of drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure needs nationwide over the next 20 years. The seven other agencies GAO
reviewed—the departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
the Economic Development Administration, Indian Health Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—collect information on
these needs by administering their programs. For example, the Corps collects information on
congressionally authorized water projects. Of the six states GAO selected for review, all but Alaska
and California had collected data on their needs such as through mini-survey s of communities. For

34
example, North Dakota biennially collects information on drinking water projects from its
communities. The Corps, Reclamation, and FEMA provide technical assistance and funding to support
efforts in the six selected states to plan for future conditions that may affect drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure needs. For example, the Corps helped Minnewaukan, North Dakota,
identify alternatives for reducing flood risks to the city’s drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure, and Reclamation worked with Santa Fe, New Mexico, to study its projected water
supply and demand. The remaining five agencies have at times been involved in long-term planning
but do not have established programs for such purposes. Federal and state agencies in the six
selected states have taken actions to coordinate funding for projects while facing several challenges.
For example, agencies in most of the selected states had established interagency coordinating groups
that reached out to communities needing funding for projects. In some cases, agencies developed
written agreements for their coordinating groups, with such goals as simplifying the application
process and encouraging agencies to fund projects together. However, agencies in the selected
states faced challenges, such as difficulty in developing a set of specific projects that were ready for
funding, despite having infrastructure needs. For example, in the six selected states, USDA did not
have enough applicants with projects that were developed to the extent needed to receive funding;
therefore, USDA did not loan a total of about $193 million in available loan funds for fiscal years 2012
through 2016 to communities in those states. GAO found that federal and state agencies within
selected states had taken some actions to help address challenges they faced in funding projects;
these actions included conducting joint outreach to develop a set of projects ready for funding. EPA
and USDA also have taken actions. For example, in February 2017 in response to a GAO
recommendation in a prior report, EPA and USDA issued a joint memorandum outlining five practices
to help improve interagency collaboration at the state level on drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects; these practices include using common application materials and conducting
joint marketing or outreach. Further details about this case are available at:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-559

SAI of USA (2): Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data Needed to Determine
Impact of EPA’s Stormwater Program on Communities (2007)
Four main objectives have been set for this audit: (1) EPA’s and states’ responsibilities in the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program; (2) what is known about the status of long-established
TMDLs; (3) the extent to which long-established TMDLs contain key features that enable attainment
of water quality standards; and (4) the extent to which such TMDLs exhibit factors that facilitate
effective implementation. The work is based on the Clean Water Act: The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 816, codified as amended at 33
U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (2013) (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). It’s also focused on
National Research Council, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management
(Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001). In terms of findings, the audit shows that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states each have responsibilities for developing and
implementing pollution targets, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDL). EPA oversees states’
TMDL efforts by establishing in regulations minimum requirements TMDLs need for approval,
providing funding, and furnishing technical assistance. States develop TMDLs and generally take the
lead in implementing them by identifying pollutants that impair water quality and taking actions to
reduce them. Of about 50,000 TMDLs developed and approved, nearly 35,000 were approved more
than 5 years ago, long enough for GAO to consider them long established. State officials GAO mini-
survey ed in its representative sample of 191 TMDLs reported that pollutants had been reduced in
many waters, but few impaired water bodies have fully attained water quality standards. The sample
of 25 TMDLs reviewed by water resource experts GAO contacted seldom contained all features key
to attaining water quality standards. According to the National Research Council and EPA, these
features—some that are beyond the scope of EPA’s existing regulations—include identifying
pollution-causing stressors and showing how addressing them would help attain such standards;

35
specifying how and by whom TMDLs will be implemented; and ensuring periodic revisions as needed.
The experts found, however, that 17 of 25 long-established TMDLs they reviewed did not show that
addressing identified stressors would help attain water quality standards; 12 contained vague or no
information on actions that need to be taken, or by whom, for implementation; and 15 did not
contain features to help ensure that TMDLs are revised if need be. GAO’s review showed that EPA’s
existing regulations do not explicitly require TMDLs to include these key features, and without such
features in TMDLs—or in addition to TMDLs—impaired water bodies are unlikely to attain standards.
In response to GAO’s mini-survey, state officials reported that long-established TMDLs generally do
not exhibit factors most helpful for attaining water quality standards, particularly for nonpoint source
pollution (e.g., farms and storm water runoff). The officials reported that landowner participation
and adequate funding—factors they viewed as among the most helpful in implementing TMDLs—
were not present in the implementation activities of at least two-thirds of long-established TMDLs,
particularly those of nonpoint source TMDLs. Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint
source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel
landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO’s mini-survey, state officials
knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for
point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for
nonpoint source pollution. In 1987, when the act was amended to cover such pollution, some
Members of Congress indicated that this provision was a starting point, to be changed if reliance on
voluntary approaches did not significantly improve water quality. More than 40 years after Congress
passed the Clean Water Act, however, EPA reported that many of the nation’s waters are still
impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met. Without changes to the act’s approach to
nonpoint source pollution, the act’s goals are likely to remain unfulfilled. Further details about this
case are available at:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-479

2.3 Linking wastewater to water resources management and safety drinking

Currently, it is widely accepted that water authorities should perceive wastewater as a vital
component not only of the prevention of water resources from contamination and pollution risks,
but also by terms of water quality and safety drinking. Several policies and programs have been
implemented in this perspective. For this reason, some SAIs have decided to focus their audit efforts
on measures that have a direct link between wastewater, on the one hand, and water management
and safety drinking, on the other hand. Five examples of audit related to this issue are identified:
SAI of Colombia: Audit of the Bogotá river vigencias 2012-2015 (2015)
The conduct of this audit was considered in order to determine the improvement of the quality of
water and the reduction of the contamination of the water resource, in the period 2012-2015, and
verify if the Autonomous Regional Corporation of Cundinamarca when granting the discharge
permits that affect the Bogotá River has evaluated the impact of the pollutant loads and their
behavior and determine the fulfillment of the plans of sanitation and handling of wastewater
subscribed by the municipalities in the same period. The audit based on the evaluation and
verification of the management of the Autonomous Regional Corporation of Cundinamarca and the
FIAB Fund during the 2012-2015 term of the resources executed for the decontamination of the
Bogotá River.

SAI of Costa Rica: Effectiveness of the State to guarantee the water quality in its different uses
(2013)
The objective of conducting this audit was to determine the effectiveness of the State in the
protection of water bodies from the pressure exerted by different sources of pollution, as well as in
safeguarding the quality of water resources to meet the requirements of their different uses,
ensuring the constitutional rights to human health and the environment. The audit was carried out in

36
the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and
Sewers. The audit included the analysis of the pressure exerted to the bodies of water and their
status in terms of quality, as well as the exposure of people in contact with waters that do not meet
quality parameters, and the effect of water quality on human health and the environment. In
addition, good practices implemented by the audited entities in terms of regulation, risk-based
planning, control and monitoring of water quality were analyzed; roles and institutional and sectoral
coordination; the generation of information and reports for decision making and accountability to
public authorities and citizens. Further, the audit analysis period was ranged between January 1st,
2009, and December 31th, 2011. The results of the audit indicate several weaknesses: (a) Only 5% of
the ordinary wastewater discharged into water bodies of the country receive some type of prior
treatment. There are different sources of pollution of water resources, but the main one is the
discharge of domestic wastewater; (b) 19.8% of the population disposes the wastewater in the
sanitary sewer; and of this population, only 15.19% has treatment. The problem of contamination by
this origin occurs mainly in the Metropolitan Area; (c) None of the 4 large collectors administered by
the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers in the Metropolitan Area has treatment systems,
so wastewater is discharged directly into the rivers of the Grande de Tárcoles basin; (d) 16 of the 20
wastewater treatment systems operated by public entities exceeded the maximum permissible limits
during the 2009-2011 period of: methylene blue active substances, biological oxygen demand,
chemical oxygen demand, fats and oils. Further details about this example are available at:
https://cgrfiles.cgr.go.cr/publico/jaguar/sad_docs/2013/DFOE-AE-IF-01-2013.pdf

SAI of Macedonia: Effectiveness and efficiency of the legislation on water in the Republic of
Macedonia, the safety of drinking water and wastewater (2014)
The basic audit objective in the performance audit: The effectiveness and efficiency of the legislation
on water in the Republic of Macedonia, the safety of drinking water and wastewater, is set out in the
following question: “Does the current level of implementation of the water legislation provide quality
drinking water and wastewater disposal”? According to the results of the audit the MEPP of the
Republic of Macedonia has not done a complete and detailed analysis for the implementation of the
Law on Waters, ie it does not have enough data on the level of implementation of the legal
provisions for the waters in the Republic of Macedonia, necessary for obtaining indicators as a basis
for determining priorities in the further creation of policies. The MEPP has not established a
complete and up-to-date registry of permits for water use, discharge of waters, extraction of sand
and gravel, protection zones, old rights and obligations, water management consents, requests for
issuing permits and other data. Keeping the register would mean collecting and recording data,
updating them, archiving them in order to obtain a single database that would could be the basis for
proper administration of water-related decisions. In addition, there is an insufficient number of
adopted bylaws is the reason for the difficult implementation of the legislation on water, although
they are with a determined deadline. In another side, the National Council is an advisory body, its
functioning should result in consideration of water management issues, proposing various measures
for preservation, protection and continuous improvement of the water regime on the territory of the
Republic of Macedonia. However, according to the current way of working, its efficiency is weak. In
the same way, and related to the wastewater, the audit has identified a small number of applications
for obtaining a permit for discharging wastewater, although the licenses are a legal obligation, for
both (legal entities and natural persons), including the state administration bodies, the
municipalities, the municipalities in the City of Skopje and the City of Skopje. They may discharge
wastewater or discharge or dispose of substances and substances in the recipients only after
obtaining water right or a license for discharge into the waters. The audit found that the responsible
persons in the MEPP and MOH did not establish a list of water bodies as protective zones for
discharging urban wastewater. In addition, the requirements regarding the load and method of
purification of urban wastewater discharged into water bodies as protection zones have not been
determined. These conditions lead to the risk that environmental protection is not provided for the

37
harmful effects of the discharge. The audit established that legal entities and natural persons who
discharge wastewater do not transfer data in accordance with the Rulebook on the manner and
transmission of information from monitoring of the discharged wastewater, they have not set
measuring instruments for the quantity and quality of wastewater due to which they have no records
or data to submit to the MEPP of the Republic of Macedonia. The audit established that legal entities
and natural persons who discharge wastewater do not transfer data in accordance with the Rulebook
on the manner and transmission of information from monitoring of the discharged wastewater, they
have not set measuring instruments for the quantity and quality of wastewater due to which they
have no records or data to submit to the MEPP of the Republic of Macedonia. Further details about
this example are available at:
http://www.dzr.mk/Uploads/1_61_RU_REZIME_Efektivnost_efikasnost_na_zakonska_regulativa_na
_vodi_RM.pdf

SAI of Mexico: Integrated Water Resources Management (2012)

This audit was conducted in accordance with the 2017 annual program, it aimed to control the
integral management of water, in order to verify the fulfillment of its objectives and goals. The
results of the audit focused on 15 aspects related to water management : (1) Annual programming of
CONAGUA activities; (2) Participation of basin councils in national water planning; (3) Information
system for processing and registration of concession titles; (4) Water availability: Groundwater and
Surface water; (5) Concessions of volumes of groundwater; (6) Concessions of surface water
volumes; (7) Publication and update of water availability; (8) Mechanisms for Coordination with
Watershed Councils to establish the extraction volumes; (9) Inspection of national water users; (10)
Sewage sanitation coverage; (11) Water quality; (12) Operational efficiency of water quality
monitoring; (13) Compliance with official Mexican regulations on wastewater discharges; (14) Water
Cost; (15) Budget of the Basin Council. Further details about this example are available at:
https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2014i/Documentos/Auditorias/2014_0103_a.pdf

SAI of USA: Clean Water Act: Changes Needed If Key EPA Program Is to Help Fulfill the Nation’s
Water Quality Goals (2013)
In conducting this audit, the GAO has aspired to achieve four major objectives: (1) EPA’s and states’
responsibilities in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program; (2) what is known about the status
of long-established TMDLs; (3) the extent to which long-established TMDLs contain key features that
enable attainment of water quality standards; and (4) the extent to which such TMDLs exhibit factors
that facilitate effective implementation. Among the main results of the audit is that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states each have responsibilities for developing and
implementing pollution targets, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDL). EPA oversees states’
TMDL efforts by establishing in regulations minimum requirements TMDLs need for approval,
providing funding, and furnishing technical assistance. States develop TMDLs and generally take the
lead in implementing them by identifying pollutants that impair water quality and taking actions to
reduce them. Of about 50,000 TMDLs developed and approved, nearly 35,000 were approved more
than 5 years ago, long enough for GAO to consider them long established. State officials GAO mini-
survey ed in its representative sample of 191 TMDLs reported that pollutants had been reduced in
many waters, but few impaired water bodies have fully attained water quality standards. The sample
of 25 TMDLs reviewed by water resource experts GAO contacted seldom contained all features key
to attaining water quality standards. According to the National Research Council and EPA, these
features—some that are beyond the scope of EPA’s existing regulations—include identifying
pollution-causing stressors and showing how addressing them would help attain such standards;
specifying how and by whom TMDLs will be implemented; and ensuring periodic revisions as needed.
The experts found, however, that 17 of 25 long-established TMDLs they reviewed did not show that
addressing identified stressors would help attain water quality standards; 12 contained vague or no

38
information on actions that need to be taken, or by whom, for implementation; and 15 did not
contain features to help ensure that TMDLs are revised if need be. GAO’s review showed that EPA’s
existing regulations do not explicitly require TMDLs to include these key features, and without such
features in TMDLs—or in addition to TMDLs—impaired water bodies are unlikely to attain standards.
In response to GAO’s mini-survey, state officials reported that long-established TMDLs generally do
not exhibit factors most helpful for attaining water quality standards, particularly for nonpoint source
pollution (e.g., farms and storm water runoff). The officials reported that landowner participation
and adequate funding—factors they viewed as among the most helpful in implementing TMDLs—
were not present in the implementation activities of at least two-thirds of long-established TMDLs,
particularly those of nonpoint source TMDLs. Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint
source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel
landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO’s mini-survey, state officials
knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for
point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for
nonpoint source pollution. In 1987, when the act was amended to cover such pollution, some
Members of Congress indicated that this provision was a starting point, to be changed if reliance on
voluntary approaches did not significantly improve water quality. More than 40 years after Congress
passed the Clean Water Act, however, EPA reported that many of the nation’s waters are still
impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met. Without changes to the act’s approach to
nonpoint source pollution, the act’s goals are likely to remain unfulfilled. Further details about this
example are available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-80

2.4 Wastewater as component of the sanitation services

Wastewater cannot be dissociated from sanitation services. Much of the wastewater generated
around the world comes from flows into urban sanitation systems, and reciprocally, sanitation is the
hygienic means of preventing human contact from the hazards of wastes to promote health.
Therefore, it is highly conceivable that SAIs may be of particular interest in auditing sanitation
services to examine how the urban wastewater supply is managed and treated during the pipeline
process. A number of four examples of audit cases related to this issue are identified:

SAI of France: Publics services of water and sanitation (2011)

In its thematic report of 2003 dedicated to the management of public water and sanitation, the Cour
des comptes had recommended an inter-communal management, in order to strengthen the
economies of scale, financial transparency and the management of these services. Seven years later,
despite the noted progress, important streamlining efforts remain to be accomplished.
Implementation of the recommendations of the Cour des comptes: the advances initiated by Central
Government and Parliament. Among these advances, the Decree of 14 March 2005 has standardised
the presentation and the content of the annual operating income account (compte annuel de
résultat de l'exploitation or CARE). The law of 30 December 2006 on water and the aqua-tic
environment for its part has made budget planning and management easier. The obligations of the
assignee were also strengthened, notably in relation to the renewal of facilities. Finally, the law
created a system of information about the public water and sanitation services (système
d’information sur les services publics d’eau et d’assainissement or SISPEA). The efforts engaged to
improve the management of water and sanitation services can be seen in the development of expert
capacities. They make possible a greater transparency in the choice of the management method, a
decrease in the length of delegation contracts, faster return to competition as well as inclusion of
contractual clauses allowing real control over the performance conditions. Thus, deficiency remains,
notably in terms of costs, due to the excessively high number of water and sanitation services.
According to ONEMA (1); France totals 35,000 of these services, a number unmatched in Europe. The
laws adopted since 2003 to favor their combination did not modify the territorial grid pattern. This
excess creates difficulties for funding SISPEA, its reliability and completeness criteria being rather

39
incompatible with the current fragmentation of structures. A necessary rebalancing of the
relationships between local authorities and the assignees Due to the poor knowledge of the
networks, the local authorities do not have true control over the renegotiation of contracts, which
explain the low rate of operator changes. Likewise, the financial reports of the assignee, often short
and incomplete, do not allow for a comparison between actual and estimated results. The water and
sanitation syndicates and smaller authorities were traditionally supported by the Central
Government services in terms of public engineering, but these services are slated for complete
discontinuation by 2011. In conclusion, only a drastic reduction in the number of structures and the
pooling of resources and skills will make it possible to improve management and rebalance the
relationship between the local authorities and the public service assignees. The audit report
eventually offered the following recommendations : (a) Make the opening of their own cash accounts
mandatory for all public service contract holders (delegation de service public or DSP) ; (b) Authorize
the investment of surpluses by applying the provisions of Article L.2224-11-1 of the CGCT; (c)
Implement efficiently the new accounting standards from instructionM49 applicable to water and
sanitation services ; (d) Determine by regulatory means the content and presentation of the CARE
contractor, to render it comparable to the estimated operating account appended to the contract ;
(e) Postpone until 30 September the presentation of the annual report on the price and quality of the
service, in order to enable the organizing authority to prepare an expert opinion based on the
information provided by the contract holder ; (f) In order to have a database on water pertinent for
the entire territory of France, improve the operations of the information system for the public
services of water and sanitation by establishing a requirement to submit all the performance
indicators for the public services with the greatest weight nationally. Further details about this
example are available at:
https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/documents/22077

SAI of Kuwait: Report of the evaluation of the efficiency of sanitation activity (2013)
Effectiveness and efficiency of the sanitation process, programs, treatment and internal control of
the wastewater management. The scope of the audit covered all the projects and government
programs that were carried out during the 2007-2012 period. The main conclusion of the audit is that
there is a low level of coordination among the different stakeholders involved in the implementation
of projects and programs related to wastewater. This weakness is the main reason why these
projects have not been forthcoming so far. Therefore, the coordination process needs to be speeded
up to complete the projects in a timely manner.
SAI of Morocco: Delegated management of local public services (2014)
The Moroccan Court of accounts has examined the measures taken by public entities (both at
national and local level) to promote and invest in the field of wastewater, under a theme entitled
"Delegated management of local public services ". The main objectives of this theme were: 1) To
draw up a diagnosis of this management method in terms of strengths and weaknesses: socio-
economic efficiency for the citizen, quality of service for the user, efficiency of public choices for the
taxpayer; 2) Draw lessons from delegated management through the review of the execution of a
sample of significant contracts; 3) Suggest ways of reform and / or improvement. For the realization
of the theme, the Court relied on the exploitation of a questionnaire relating to the management of
local public services which was sent to all urban and rural communes, on the previous audit reports
carried out by the Regional Courts of Accounts dealing with the same subject and on benchmarks and
good practices. The work team also organized workshops and working sessions with key stakeholders
in delegated management, in particular the chairpersons of communal councils, the heads of the
Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment, ONEE and
managers in different delegated companies. The mission also engaged experts in the areas of
delegated management, including aspects related to the preparation of institutional frameworks, the
negotiation of contracts and the management of local public services. In relation to the subject of
wastewater, the results of the theme showed both positive progress and negative aspects. The

40
positive points are that because of the use of delegated management and the "National Program for
Liquid Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment" Morocco has been able to catch up with investments,
especially in liquid sanitation, to create wastewater treatment plants in large cities (Casablanca,
Rabat, Tangier, Tetouan). Several indicators confirm this trend: the connection rate to the
wastewater network rose to 72% compared with 70% in 2005; the wastewater treatment rate in
relation to the total volume increased to 28% compared to 8% in 2005, representing 210 Mm 3 per
year; 16% of volumes are processed at the tertiary level; 75 polluted water treatment plants (WWTP)
have been completed, including 30 with the tertiary level; 50 other WWTPs are under construction
including 15 with tertiary treatment. But, despite the efforts made, the wastewater still escapes the
treatment process and that reuse remains minimal compared to the potential offered. Indeed, it was
noted that the legal texts governing delegated management have become inappropriate and do not
allow to meet all the constraints and contractual challenges posed by the problem of wastewater.
Similarly, significant differences were recorded in structuring projects, especially in the sanitation
sector, such as emissaries, pre-treatment stations, interceptors and collectors. Finally, the theme
ends with recommendations that aims to improve the current situation of wastewater management.
Further details about this example are available at:
www.courdescomptes.ma/upload/MoDUle_20/File_20_126.pdf

SAI of Peru: Performance Audit to the Sanitation Services of Rural Homes (2015)
The overall objective of the audit was Explain how the sector normative framework, the oversight
and vigilance of the quality of the water for human consumption, contribute to the quality of the
sanitation services for rural homes. The problem identified by the audit is that a significant
percentage of the rural population has access to sanitation services, but their quality is not adequate,
creating a health hazard. The main critical elements related to the problem are: the norms on quality
of services and regulation, the oversight on the services provision, and the system monitoring the
quality of the drinking water. The general question of the audit is: How do the normative framework
on quality and economic regulation, the oversight, and the monitoring of the drinking water quality,
contribute to the quality of the sanitation services on rural homes? In order to answer this question,
qualitative and quantitative methodologies were applied. In relation to the former, the following
tools were used: Documentary archive review, semi-structured interviews and workshops. In relation
to the later, mini-survey s were conducted on regional and local governments. The audit found that:
(a) the normative criteria on the quality of the sanitation services for rural homes are not articulated,
nor are they made explicit in the various technical and normative instruments. This is due to the
following: i) the governing body prioritized regulation on the pre-investment and investment phases
of the sanitation projects in the rural areas, rather than post-investment. ii) limited information
about the sanitation services in rural homes prevents proper decision-making. (b) The family quotas
that the rural homes pay do not cover the minimal costs necessary for operating, maintaining,
managing, and replenishing the system; (c) The governing body didn’t implement mechanism to
oversee the compliance with national and sector policies and norms on rural sanitation. It also failed
to supervise the provision of the sanitation services; (d) Weak effectiveness on the supervision
actions to the communal organization that provide sanitation services to rural homes. Further details
about this example are available at:
https://apps1.contraloria.gob.pe/portal/BuscadorInformes/BuscadorInformes.htm

2.5 Wastewater Environmental impact

Currently, the environmental impact of wastewater is well established. A large part of wastewater
effluent is released into natural environments (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, estuaries, oceans ...)
without any treatment. In addition, despite the case where the wastewater passes through
sophisticated treatment systems, the effluents discharged by the treatment systems contain
sometimes a hazardous pollutant, because even sophisticated treatment systems are still not able to

41
remove all pollutants and chemicals from water. The infiltration of polluting elements causes almost
irreparable damage to the quality of the environment, as they also affect the ecological biodiversity
of aquatic and terrestrial areas. For SAIs, this major risk should not go unnoticed. Several audit
reports have been produced to highlight the effectiveness of the measures taken to limit the
contamination of the environment by pollutants from wastewater. A number of five audit case
studies related to this issue are identified:

SAI of Colombia: Special audit to the management on the Bogotá river (2013)
The overall objective of this special audit is to verify the effectiveness of public spending, in
compliance with the collective rights established in our social state of law, in this case the healthy
environment, identifying the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the resources from the
national budget that have been invested in the sanitation, adaptation and conservation of the Bogotá
river basin. The audit focused on the execution of resources that the entities audited to
conceptualize about compliance with the fiscal management principles indicated and issue a concept
on the management carried out by each entity in the Bogotá river basin. This auditor process had the
General Coordination of the Delegate Comptroller for the Environment, with the participation of the
Sectoral Delegated Comptrollers and the Provincial Comptroller Bogotá - Cundinamarca. The audit
carried out covered 63 national and territorial entities that have competence in the conservation and
preservation of the Bogotá River, as well as in the municipalities of jurisdiction of the basin, through
the collection of homogeneous information about the current management. The audit report show
two majors findings : (a) 3570 of 2011: Objectives and structure of the Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development and the Administrative Sector of Environment and Sustainable
Development is integrated, chapter I is assigned in addition to those determined in the Political
Constitution and in art 489 of 1998, its objectives and functions, as rector of the management of the
environment and renewable natural resources, responsible for guiding and regulating the
environmental order of the territory and defining the policies and regulations to which the recovery,
conservation, protection, ordering, management will be subject , use and sustainable use of
renewable natural resources and the environment of the Nation, in order to ensure sustainable
development. In addition, the MADS, together with the Presidency of the Republic is responsible for
formulating the national environmental policy and renewable natural resources, guaranteeing the
right of all people to enjoy a healthy environment and protect the natural heritage and sovereignty
of the Nation. As well as direct the National Environmental System (SINA), which guarantees the
fulfillment of the duties and rights of the State and of individuals in relation to the environment and
the natural patrimony of the Nation. (b) Document Conpes 3320 of 2004, called "strategy for the
environmental management of the Bogotá River", recommends to the -MAVDT to carry out activities
in the sense of issuing a regulation, with special emphasis on use, reuse and water quality, to support
management to obtain economic resources for programs and projects to decontaminate the Bogotá
River; provide support to municipalities that need to adjust their -POT-, in the formulation and
presentation of new housing projects in the call of the Agrarian Bank for projects linked to rural
sector policy programs, lead the confirmation of regional schemes.

SAI of Ecuador: Special examination of environmental control to the wastewater treatment

systems of the Municipal Autonomous Decentralized Government (2015)
The choice to conduct this examination aims to achieve three main objectives: (1) To examine the
processes of environmental licensing of wastewater treatment systems; (2) To evaluate compliance
with the legal, technical and environmental requirements of wastewater treatment systems; and (3)
To verify the application of the resolutions issued in the administrative process. This special
examination analysed the process of environmental regularization and obtaining the permits for
operation and discharge of wastewater, the legal, technical and environmental aspects of the
wastewater treatment system; and the compliance, in relation to wastewater, of the contract for the
preparation of the Environmental audit, the update of the environmental management plan
including the operation of the subsystem of the pumping stations as an integral part of the

42
wastewater treatment plant and the environmental monitoring of compliance of the projects
"Operation and Maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the New Potable Water
System" of the city. Among the major results of the examination, the following observations should
be made: (a) The environmental compliance audit was not submitted, after one year of issuing the
environmental license; (b) The corresponding authorizations were not available for the operation of
the submarine outfalls and the discharges of the wastewater system, which caused that control by
the environmental authority was not carried out; (c) There were no plans or maintenance programs
for the wastewater treatment plant and the pumping stations, allowing the wastewater treatment
plant and the pumping stations to stop operating for 450 hours and to be discharged into the sea
through the by pass, 12 960 cubic meters of wastewater without treatment; (d) There was no interim
wastewater monitoring kit, nor the equipment of the WWTP laboratory, provided in subparagraph a)
of measure 3 of paragraph 7.3 "Waste management plan", of the Environmental Management Plan,
of the expost eslA "Operation and maintenance of the city wastewater plant; (e) Quarterly
monitoring was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph d) of measure 5
"Monitoring environmental and safety factors" of the aforementioned study; (f) The dosage,
preparation and placement of the bacteria and chemicals used in the WWTP, did not have technical
support, so it is not demonstrated that the concentrations of the solution of bacteria and prepared
chemicals used in the WWTP are those required for the removal of the contaminants; (g) The
discharges do not comply with the maximum permissible limits established in table 11 “Limits of
discharge to a body of seawater. (B) The discharges through submarine emissaries” of the Ministerial
Agreement No. 028 that substitutes the Book VI of the Unified Text of Secondary Legislation. Further
details about this example are available at:
http://www.contraloria.gob.ec/Consultas/InformesAprobados/DAPyA-0001-2017
SAI of Estonia: Sustainability of the state developed drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
and its impact on achieving environmental goals (2013)
The National Audit Office audited whether the investments made in water management have helped
to achieve the required quality of wastewater treatment and drinking water in the public water
supply and sewerage systems, whether the water management infrastructure is sustainable and
whether the investments have helped to improve the condition of the water bodies. The audited
agencies were the Ministry of the Environment, the Environmental Board, the Environmental
Inspectorate, the Environmental Investment Centre, the Competition Board and the Health Board.
According to the National Audit Office, despite adequate funds, the state has not managed to keep
its promise and make all larger drinking water and waste water systems comply with the
requirements. The Ministry of the Environment therefore considers it necessary to invest another
165 million euros of EU money in water infrastructure from 2014-2020. The state has also failed to
give sufficient attention to guaranteeing the future sustainability of the drinking water and
wastewater treatment systems, the establishment or renovation of which cost a lot of money. There
is also more specific findings related to waste water management: (a) The state and local authorities
have invested more money in water infrastructure than initially planned; (c) Irrespective of the large
investments, waste water is still not collected in the required quantities and many waste water
treatment plants have not treated the waste water of urban areas according to requirements and
agreed deadlines; (d) The pollution load in many waste water collection areas (agglomerations) may
be overestimated, which means that it is not certain that the money allocated for the reconstruction
and establishment of waste water treatment systems goes where it is needed the most. Further
details about this example are available at:
http://www.riigikontroll.ee/tabid/206/Audit/2309/Area/15/language/en-US/Default.aspx

SAI of India: Performance Audit of Rejuvenation of River Ganga (Namami Gange) (2017).
Performance Audit on Rejuvenation of River Ganga seeks to examine: (1) Whether various
schemes/projects were planned as per prescribed framework; (2) Whether projects on sewerage,
Ghats and crematoria, river front development, canals and rural sanitation were implemented in

43
accordance with milestones prescribed under Namami Gange in an economic, efficient and effective
manner; (3) Whether execution of projects for conservation of flora, fauna and maintenance of river
flows were implemented in effective and efficient manner; (4) Whether human resources were
adequate. The scope of audit included examination of records at the following entities involved in
implementation of projects relating to Rejuvenation of River Ganga. in terms of results, this audit
revealed two findings related to the issue of wastewater: the first the non-achievement of targets for
Sewage treatment under Namami Gange and the seconde is that the capacity of the installations put
in place remains largely low in order to be able to properly treat the generated wastewater flows.
Further details about this example are available at:
https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Report_No.39_of_2017_-
_Performance_Audit_on_Ministry_of_Water_Resources%2C_River_Development_%26_Ganga_Reju
venation_Union_Government.pdf

SAI of Philippines: Adopt-an-Estero/Water Body Program (is this for biodiversity?) (2015)
By this audit, the SAI of Pilippines aimed to determine whether the Adopt-an-Estero program
reduced the water pollution and improved the water quality of esteros. The audit focused on the
implementation of the program in six regions (NCR, CAR, 3,6, 9 and 11). The results indicate that the
goal to achieve cleaner, safer and healthier environment by reducing the water pollution through the
Adopt-an-Estero/Water Body Program has not yet been attained for the past five years in the NCR,
Regions 3, 6 and 11 due to: (a) non-abatement of the dumping of domestic wastes and that only 10
percent of the total water body in Metro Manila was adopted as of December 31, 2015; (b) the terms
and conditions of the MOA are not fully observed; (c) non-involvement of the residents in the
management of the estero; and (d) low enforcement of ordinance on solid waste management in the
barangay level. Further details about this example are available at: www.coa.go.v.ph –annual audit
report

44
 Appendices

Appendix n°1: Institutional aspects (role of national bodies, local government,

private sector …), based on the mini-survey results
Institutional aspect (role of national bodies, local government, private sector, …)
Countries
Based on mini-survey results
At national level, the water management policy is implemented by the Ministry of
Environment and Water, assisted by the Water Management Directorate, and at the
Bulgaria basin level - from 4 Basin Directorates, with 16 Regional Inspectorates of Environment
and Water conducting monitoring and control of wastewater in the boundaries of their
respective territorial range.
-Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development: Rector of the Environmental
Policy in Colombia.
-Superintendence of Residential Public Services: Entity that monitors and controls the
adequate provision of public services in Colombia.
Colombia -Regional Autonomous Corporations at the national level, management as
environmental authorities and at the same time cofinance, plans, programs and projects
related to wastewater
Territorial Entities, which develop and implement plans, programs and projects related
to wastewater
-Ministry of the Environment (MoE)
-State Environmental Fund (SEF) mediates investment in environmental protection and
improvement in the Czech Republic
Czech Republic
-The Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI) is the expert body responsible for
monitoring compliance with environmental legislation. It has national jurisdiction. It is
established by the MoE.
The Single Water Authority (SENAGUA) is the legal entity under public law that directs
the national strategic water system. Its head is appointed by the President of the
Republic and has the rank of Minister of the State. It establishes the coordination and
the complementarity mechanisms with the Decentralized Autonomous Governments
regarding the provision of public irrigation and drainage services, potable water,
sewerage, sanitation, wastewater treatment and others established by law.
The Agency of Water Control and Regulation (ARCA) coordinates with the Ministry of
Ecuador
Environment and the National Health Authority the formulation of policies on water
quality and control of water pollution; establishes the coordination and the
complementarity mechanisms with the Decentralized Autonomous Governments in
relation to the provision of public irrigation and drainage services, potable water,
sewage, sanitation, wastewater treatment and others established by law; and, issues a
feasibility technical report for the execution of potable water, sanitation, irrigation and
drainage projects.
National Committee:
The committee was formed by instruction from the Cabinet, letter number
57/11/1/6826 of the Prime Minister dated 21/5/2003. The committee was formed
under the supervision of the Secretary General of the Water Authority of Jordan and
representatives of The Royal Court, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health,
Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan Valley Authority, National Center for Agricultural
Jordan
Research and Technology Transfer (NCARTT), Royal Scientific Society, Farmers Union,
Universities and the Private Sector. The committee will cooperate with the Environment
and Water Reuse Unit in all water reuse issues to eliminate overlapping between
ministries and to achieve the objective and goals of the unit.
The NWRCC will work in close association with the sewerage and wastewater treatment
plants committee and with the Jordan Institution for Standards and Metrology (JISM).

45
 National Service of Environmental Sanitation (SENASA): technical body of the Ministry of
Public Health and Social Welfare whose function was to promote and build drinking
water supply systems in rural populations with less than 10,000 individuals and in
indigenous communities.
ESSAP is an autonomous agency, provider of drinking water services, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer to urban populations, in localities of more than 10,000 inhabitants. There is
also the figure of Private Drinking Water Operators, who provide drinking water services
in rural and urban areas.
Sanitary Services Regulator Entity (ERSSAN): regulates the functioning of the agencies
responsible for the preparation, standardization, coordination, execution and control of
the national environmental policy and management.
The General Secretariat for the Protection and Conservation of Water Resources
(DGPCRH) was created in the Secretariat of the Environment (SEAM), which must
formulate, coordinate and evaluate policies for the maintenance and conservation of
water resources and their watersheds.
The General Direction of Conservation and Protection of the Water Resources of the
SEAM, fulfills the functions of:
• Formulate policies for rational and sustainable management of water resources and
their basins and raise them for consideration by the Executive Secretariat.
• Promote, review, approve and submit to the Executive Secretariat preliminary drafts
of creation, regulation, modification and / or updating of laws related to water
resources and their watersheds.
• Define technical norms related to the management of water resources and propose
them to the Executive Secretariat for approval.
• Provide technical support to the DFAI in the control and supervision of activities aimed
Paraguay at the exploitation of water resources.
• Control compliance with the plans and programs developed.
• Develop plans to control the rational and sustainable use of water resources.
• Prepare monitoring plans for the renovation processes, maintenance of the basic flows
of the water currents, the recharge capacity of the aquifers, the care of the different
uses and the use of the water resources, preserving the ecological balance.
• Coordinate and actively support current and future policies and regulations related to
the conservation of water resources and wetlands.
• Evaluate and approve the proposals for technical regulations and preliminary drafts of
laws, resolutions and regulations presented by the Hydrology and Watersheds
Directorates.
• Promote the management of water resources considering their multiple uses.
• Execute national and international projects and agreements related to the
conservation and preservation of water resources and their watersheds.
• Supervise the authorization of the sustainable use of water resources and the
improvement of environmental quality.
• Promote, jointly with the General Directorate of Conservation and Preservation of
Biodiversity, the research and exchange of data and publications related to wetlands
and their flora and fauna.
• Promote technical training on issues related to water resources and their watersheds.
• Conduct international and cross-border technical management with international
organizations on issues related to Water Resources, jointly with the Planning
Department and with the intervention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when
appropriate.
• Prepare joint work programs in transboundary basins, with the intervention of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• The Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation is the governing body of the
sanitation sector.
• National Superintendence of Sanitation Services.
Peru
• The National Water Authority of the Ministry of Agriculture y Irrigation, is the
governing body and the normative technical authority of the National System of Water
Resources Management.

46
 • The Ministry of the Environment, has among its functions designing, approving, and
supervising the application of all the tools for prevention, control and environmental
rehabilitation relating to sanitation, with the goal of guaranteeing optimal
environmental quality.
• The Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion, governing body of the national
policies promoting development and social inclusion, is responsible for intervening in
the rural aspect of sanitation investment and for maintaining and rehabilitating said
systems.
• The Ministry of Economy and Finance, is the governing body in economic and
financial policy, on a national level and by sectors, applied to all level of government.
This ministry is the center of all decisions on public financing, through the assignation of
the state budget, and promoting private participation in the sanitation sector.
• Regional Governments, that provide technical support for investments, as well as for
the planning and financing.
• Local Governments, responsible for providing sanitation services, and as
shareholders and public utility companies, help plan and finance investments.
The Environmental Management Bureau, an attached agency to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) implements the Clean Water Act
Republic Act No. 9275 dated March 22, 2004” AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”, the
following are the roles of different stakeholders on Wastewater:
A. Local Government Units (LGUs)
1. LGUs - appropriate the necessary land for the construction of the sewage and/or
septage treatment facilities in accordance with the Local Government Code; may raise
funds to subsidize necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of sewerage
treatment or septage facility servicing their area of jurisdiction; and shall submit to
DPWH a priority listing of their projects.
2. The League of Municipalities/Cities/Provinces - shall contribute specific inputs
reflecting the interests of Local Government Units (LGUs).
B. National Government and Corporate Agencies
1. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – provide specific
environmental criteria & data for the prioritization of sanitation, sewerage, septage
management and combination of different systems and projects.
2. Metro Manila Water Supply and Sewerage (MWSS) and Local Water Utilities
Authority (LWUA) - provide the responsibilities of concessionaires and water districts in
sewerage, septage and sanitation management.
Philippines 3. Department of Health (DOH) - formulate guidelines and standards for the collection,
treatment and disposal of sewage including guidelines for the establishment and
operation of centralized sewage treatment system.
4. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) - prepare a national program on
sewerage and septage management.
5. Department of Agriculture (DA) - shall coordinate with the Department, in the
formulation of guidelines for the re-use of wastewater for irrigation and other
agricultural uses and for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution from
agricultural and aquaculture activities.
6. Department of Science and Technology (DOST), in coordination with the DENR and
other concerned agencies, shall prepare a program for the evaluation, verification,
development and public dissemination of pollution prevention and cleaner production
technologies.
7. Department of Education (DepEd), Commission Higher Education (CHED),
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and Philippine Information
Agency (PIA) shall assist and coordinate with the DENR in the preparation and
implementation of a comprehensive program.
C. Others
1. Water supply utility provider - shall be responsible for the sewerage facilities and the
main lines.
2. In areas where there are no existing facilities, the LGUs, water districts or water

47
 utilities may adopt septage management program or other sanitation alternatives.
3. The DENR and the LGUs, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies.
and in consultation with the business and industrial sectors including commerce, shall
formulate appropriate incentives for the adoption procedures that will preserve and
protect our water bodies through the introduction of innovative equipment and
processes that reduce if totally eliminate discharge of pollutants into our water bodies.
4. Loan from a private bank and equity of a water district to finance its Septage
Management Project. Full cost recovery of the project was taken from septage fees
collected through the water bills.
5. Entering into a joint venture agreement between a LGU and a water district – There
will be an equal sharing of capital and operating costs and any future income between
the two; the water district will collect and transport septage to the treatment plant; and
the LGU will operate and maintain the septage treatment plant.
The treatment of urban wastewater is a competence of the municipalities.
The situation in Portugal is complex and the situations are very diverse, and the
collection and treatment can be done directly by the municipalities or municipal
companies or be granted to mixed or private companies. In general, the sewage
treatment is done by municipal or mixed companies, but in many situations the
Portugal treatment plants cover several municipalities.
Licensing of the activity and inspection of compliance with the standards is the
responsibility of the Portuguese Environment Agency, of the Ministry of the
Environment.
The regulation of the Sector is made by The Water and Waste Services Regulation
Authority (ERSAR).
There are 4 ministries involved in the wastewater management in Thailand; i.e.
1. Ministry of Industry is responsible for industrial wastewater management by Factory
Act, 1992. Industrial wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment and quality effluent
standard are controlled by this act. The monitoring and inspection of factory are also
included.
2. Local authority, such as municipality, district administration, and provincial
administration which belong to Ministry of Interior, is responsible for community
wastewater management by Building Controlled Act, 1979. Local authority takes charge
of the construction of sewerage system and community wastewater treatment plant.
Thailand The quality effluent standard of all accommodation and building is controlled by this act.
3. Wastewater Management Authority and Department of pollutant Control belong to
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Wastewater Management Authority
takes charge of national community wastewater management policymaker and gives
technical advice to local authority. Department of pollutant Control is responsible for
water quality control of natural water resources. Both agencies have implemented to
follow the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, 1992.
4. Ministry of Public Health is responsible for human excreta collection, transportation,
and treatment. The wastewater from septic tank of toilet or contaminated by human
excreta is controlled by Public Health Act, 1992.

Appendix n°2: Key policies, programs or measures adopted, based on the

mini-survey results
Countries Key policies, programs or measures adopted by country, Based on mini-survey results
National Plan for the Management of Municipal Residual Waters, National environmental
policy for the sustainable development of the Oceanic Spaces and the Coastal and Insular
Areas of Colombia, the National Development Plans include topics for integral water
Colombia
management and water decontamination, there is a comprehensive policy of water
resource, laws on wastewater management and treatment, water use, dumping
management, etc.
Czech Republic • CEI – controls of major waste water treatment plants, industrial plants, and sites with

48
 old ecological burdens, controls of agricultural holdings, fisheries and biogas stations
• National programs
• Operational program of the environment (e.g. Improving water management
infrastructure and reducing the risk of floods)
• Rainwater subsidy program
• Flood protection measures
• Divisional Master Plans
• Fiji National Liquid Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan (2006)
Fiji • Capital works include improvement & upgrade of wastewater distribution system,
relocation of existing wastewater, and automation of WAF Wastewater control system
• 5 year and 20 year National Development Plan
1. National Water Policy, 2012
2. National Urban Sanitation Policy 2014
3. National Environment Policy 2006
4. National Water Quality Monitoring Programme (NWMP)
5. Nation Mission for Clean Ganga
India
6. National River Conservation Plan
7. National Lake Conservation Plan
8. Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT)
9. Smart Cities Mission
9. Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan
There is a hybrid system in Pakistan, in most of the cases the local government and its
concerned agencies are responsible for waste management but in few cases, waste
Pakistan
management has been outsourced to private companies like Lahore Waste Management
Company.
• National Sanitation Policy, approved by the Supreme Decree N° 007-2017-
VIVIENDA, the National Sanitation Policy is the set of guidelines aimed at improving the
management and performance of the sanitation sector. This policy arose as a way to
address the following points:
1. Increasing the coverage, quality and sustainability of sanitation services, with the
aim of achieving universal access.
2. Reducing the infrastructure gap in the sector and insuring priority access to
sanitation services for rural and poor populations.
3. Attaining business autonomy and integration for the sanitation service providers.
4. Increasing the efficiency of the sanitation service providers with high indicators of
quality, continuity and coverage.
5. Achieving sustainable management of the environment and water resources in the
Peru
provision of sanitation services.
The National Sanitation Policy sets as a goal for 2021 a 100% coverage of sanitation services
for Peruvians in urban areas, and 84% of Peruvians in rural areas. To date, the Ministry of
Housing, Construction and Sanitation reports that over 100,000 Peruvians have been added
to the sanitation services by the conclusion of 174 projects. By the end of 2017, over
720,000 Peruvians will have been added.
• National Sanitation Plan 2017-2021, approved by the Supreme Decree N° 018-
2017-VIVIENDA,
• Agreement on the delegation of functions and powers with provincial
municipalities, signed by the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, which states
that it will assume responsibility for the improvement of the drinking water and sewage
treatment services, in order to benefit thousands of people.
The Strategic Plan for Water Supply and Sanitation (PENSAAR 2020), was approved in 2014
and is in progress. The plan reflects the maturity reached by the sector (population served
by wastewater treatment over 80%) and includes, in relation to wastewater, the following
objectives:
Portugal
• Reduction of the urban pollution of the water bodies;
• Improvement of the quality of the wastewater sanitation service;
• Sustainable cost recovery and optimization of operating costs;
• Improvement of the operational framework, the management and the provision of

49
 services;
• Increase the availability of information;
• Innovation;
• Climate change, natural disasters, risks – mitigation, adaptation.
The Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National
Environmental Quality (1997–2016) recognized the role of local governments and civil
society in improving and protecting water quality with the following objectives:
Thailand o Accelerate the rehabilitation of water quality in important water bodies
o Reduce water pollution originating from communities, agriculture, and industry
o Apply the “polluter-pays” principle
o Promote private sector involvement in water pollution management
Under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adopted several
policies to ensure that waters of the United States meet the intent of the Clean Water Act,
which is to provide fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water.
Point sources are regulated by EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, as described in previous sections.
Nonpoint sources of pollution are managed by a voluntary program called the Total
Maximum Daily Load program. The states identify waters that are impaired and identify the
United states of sources of impairment. They add limits to permits and develop a TMDL for nonpoint sources
America of pollution.
Stormwater has been gradually added to the point-source permit program
Green infrastructure is a relatively new policy to manage stormwater.
EPA has numerous settlements and agreements with cities that have combined sewer
overflows. Many occur in older cities in the northeastern U.S.
EPA has an affordability policy that allows for integrated planning for wastewater
infrastructure. This policy allows cities who are facing large infrastructure investments to
prioritize their investments based on an affordability calculation.

Appendix n°3: Financial mechanisms and instruments, based on the mini-

survey results

Countries Financial mechanisms and instruments, Based on mini-survey results

Operational Programme Environment, Priority Axis 1: Improvement and development of

infrastructure for drinking and wastewater as well as improvement of ambient air
quality. The main activities financed under the priority axis are the construction of
sewage treatment plants and sewerage networks for agglomerations of settlements
with a population of more than 10000 eq., Construction of wastewater treatment plants
and sewerage networks for agglomerations of populated areas 2000 - 10000 eq. and
Bulgaria those below 2000 eq. falling within urban agglomeration areas, as well as development
and updating of river basin management plans, activities related to the delivery of
leakage detection and measurement equipment, as well as provision of treatment
facilities of sludge from urban waste water treatment plants as well as preparation of
investment projects for subsequent financing under priority axis 1.
-Rural Development Programme, Sub-measure 7.2. Investments in creating, improving
or expanding all types of small-scale infrastructure
One of the axes of the Policy refers to the following:
Policy Axis 2: Financial sustainability
Specific Goal: Guarantee the generation of economic resources and their efficient use by
Peru the providers
Policy Outlines:
1. Plan long term investment on a national, regional and local level, for the drinking
water, sewage, and sewage treatment services according to the type of provider.

50
 2. Assign economic resources according to the Multiyear Investment Plan and national
goals.
3. Leverage the assignment of the national government’s budget resources with the
resources available to the regional and local governments.
4. Assign public resources by linking them to specific oriented to closing the gaps.
5. Promote the sustainability of infrastructure investments.
6. Make it so that the fees guarantee the investment goals and the financing structure.
7. Establish that the internal generation of progressive cash flow be the main source of
financing for the country’s sanitation infrastructure, as well as for its adequate and
efficient management, operation and maintenance.
8. Progressively implement a system of crossed subsidies
9. Assign funds according to quality and efficiency indicators, in order to guarantee the
sustainability goal.
Financing by Operational Programme for Sustainability and Efficiency in Resource Use
and Regional Operational Programmes and also by own resources. The cost of the
investment to be undertaken as proposed in the PENSAAR 2020 (water supply and
wastewater treatment) is estimated as follows:
Portugal • Environmental protection, improvement of the quality of the water bodies – 918 M€
• Improvement of the quality of the services provided – 739 M€
• Optimization and efficient management of resources – 1,828 M€
• Economic, financial and social sustainability – 12 M€
• Basic and cross-cutting conditions – 208 M€

Bibliography
 Corcoran, E. Nellemann, C., Baker, E., Bos, R., Osborn, D. and Savelli, H. (eds). 2010. Sick Water? The
Central Role of Wastewater Management in Sustainable Development. A Rapid Response Assessment.
United Nations Environment Programme/United Nations Human Settlements Programme/GRID-
Arendal (UNEP/UN-Habitat).
 Culp, G. L. and Culp, R. L. 1971. Advanced Wastewater Treatment. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Environmental Engineering Series.
 Heymann, E., Lizio, D. and Siehlow, M. 2010. World Water Markets: High Investment Requirements
Mixed with Institutional Risks. Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Deutsche Bank Research.
www.dbresearch.de/ PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000258353.PDF
 Massoud, M. A., Tarhini, A. and Nasr, J. A. 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment
and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.
90, No. 1, pp. 652–659. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.001
 Miller, K. 1990. « US Water Reuse: current status and future trends », Wat. Env. Technology.
 Spiller M, McIntosh BS, Seaton RAF, Jeffrey PJ (2012) An organizational innovation perspective on
change in water and wastewater systems – the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in
England and Wales. Urban Water Journal 9, 113-128.
 Sterner T. 2003. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management.
Washington, DC, Resource for the Future.
 Tchobanoglous (1995), Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
 UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).2015. Economic Valuation of Wastewater - The Cost
of Action and the Cost of No Action. Nairobi, UNEP.
unep.org/gpa/Documents/GWI/Wastewater%20Evaluation%20Report%20Mail.pdf
 UNEP and UNITAR. (2013). Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies: Moving from
 UNICEF/WHO (United Nations Children’s Fund/World Health Organization). 2014. Progress on Drinking
Water and Sanitation, 2014 Update. New York/Geneva, UNICEF/ WHO Joint Monitoring Programme
for Water Supply and Sanitation.
 UNESCWA (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia). 2015. ESCWA Water
Development Report 6: The Water, Energy, Food Security Nexus in the Arab Region. Beirut, United
Nations. www.unescwa.org/publications/escwa-water-development-report- 6-water-energy-and-
food-security-nexus-arab-region

51
 UN-Water. 2015. Wastewater Management: A UN-Water Analytical Brief. UN-Water.
www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/unwater_new/docs/UNWater_Analytical_Brief_Wastewate
r_Management.pdf
 UN-WATER. 2017. World Water Development Report.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002471/247153e.pdf.
 US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse.
Washington, DC, US EPA. nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/ P100FS7K.pdf
 Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., Salgot, M., Collado, J., Hernandez, F. and Torricelli, R. 2010.
The Wealth of Waste: The Economics of Wastewater Use in Agriculture. FAO Water Report No. 35.
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i1629e/i1629e00.htm
 WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. Guidelines of the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Grey
Water – Vol. 2: Wastewater Use in Agriculture. Geneva, Switzerland, WHO. www.who.int/
water_sanitation_health/wastewater/wwuvol2intro.pdf
 World Water. 2013. Fresh Thinking to Improve Business and Sustainability. msdssearch.dow.com/
PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_08d9/0901b803808d92c4.pdf?filepath=liquidseps/pdfs/ noreg/609-
50111.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

52