improving wastewater use in agriculture: an emerging priority in the face of growing water scarcity...

Improving Wastewater Use in Agriculture: An Emerging Priority in the

Face of Growing Water Scarcity

Carl R. BartoneEnvironmental Engineering Consultant

(Retired Lead Environmental Engineer, Urban Anchor)

Joint BBL of Water Anchor, ARD and Urban WSS Thematic GroupNovember 8, 2010

1. Background and Context

2. Objectives for Improving Wastewater Irrigation

3. Applying a Risk Assessment and Management Framework

4. Reducing Public Health Risks

5. Developing a Strategy and Action Plan

6. Promoting an Integrated Approach to Planned Wastewater Use in Irrigation

7. Conclusions

Outline

Experience with Improving Groundwater Management

• Review of World Bank’s analytical and operational involvement in wastewater reuse, particularly in agriculture

• Economic and Sector Work (ESW) in the Water Anchor on wastewater use in agriculture

• Objective: To assess the feasibility of interventions for improving wastewater use in agriculture

• Presentation is based on one of the outcomes of the ESW:

Scheierling, Susanne, Carl Bartone, Duncan Mara, and Pay Drechsel. “Improving Wastewater Use in Agriculture: An Emerging Priority”. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 5412, World Bank, September 2010.

Available at http://econ.worldbank.org /docsearch

Observations on KSA

Strategies for Reform

International Experience Background on ESW


Wastewater use for irrigation is growingIt is seen as an attractive option for conserving and expanding available water

supplies – A tenth of the world’s irrigated crops (about 20 million ha) are irrigated

with wastewater (treated and untreated) • 4 million ha in China alone• Unplanned use (direct and indirect use of untreated wastewater) an order

of magnitude greater than planned use– Mostly on the urban fringes

Powerful drivers for the expansion of wastewater irrigation– Increasing water stress and scarcity– Increasing urbanization, and growing urban wastewater flows in

developing countries• Between 1990 and 2006 urban population grew 46% while provision of

urban sewer connections grew from 618 to 1,488 million (+141%)– More urban households engaged in urban agriculture

Observations on KSA


International Experience Context


Risks and Benefits of Wastewater Irrigation

Risks:– Microbial risks to farmers and consumers are a major concern– Chemical risks, especially from industrial wastewater– Risks to plant health– Environmental risks (soil and groundwater pollution)

Benefits:– Agricultural benefits– Water resources management benefits– Environmental benefits, especially from reduced pollution (such as

eutrophication)

Observations on KSA




Typology of Links Between Economic Development and Wastewater Irrigation Practices and Issues

– Economic development is characterized by increasing urbanization, higher rates of water and sanitation services, and lower burden of diseases that are linked with wastewater irrigation (Table 1)

– Progressive improvements in sewerage and wastewater treatment occur with economic development, along with increasing water pollution concerns (Table 2)

– Wastewater irrigation practices and policies evolve with economic development, as do health issues (Table 3)

– Wastewater irrigation is increasingly driven by water scarcity as development occurs (Table 4)

Observations on KSA




Characteristics

Low-incomecountries

< $975/cap

Lower-middle-income countries$976-3,855/cap

Upper-middle-income countries$3,856-11,905/

cap

High-incomecountries

> $11,906/cap

No. of countries 43 55 46 66

Total urban population (106)

280.4 1,528.3 709.7 812.1

Percent urban (%) 28.7 41.3 74.8 76.0

Improved urban water supply (%)

86.2 94.6 95.2 99.3

Improved urban sanitation (%)

49.6 60.3 86.6 99.4

Diarrheal disease burden (106

DALYs)

59,207 11,798 1,309 438

Ascariasis disease burden (106

DALYs)

661 304 34 6

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International Experience Table 1: Country characteristics by level of economic development


CharacteristicsLow-income

countriesLower-middle-

income countriesUpper-middle-

income countriesHigh-income

countries

Access to basic sanitation services

•Low coverage, especially for urban poor•Mainly non-sewered options

•Increasing coverage, but low access for poor•Increasing use of sewerage

•Generally acceptable coverage•Higher sewerage levels

•Good coverage•Mainly sewerage

Wastewater treatment

•Few or no WWTPs•Severe operational deficiencies•Affordability issues dominate

•Some WWTPS•Often poorly operated or design capacity exceeded•Affordability issues persist

•Increasing treatment capacity•Continued operational deficiencies•Difficult to mobilize needed investments

•Generally high treatment levels•Non-OECD: increasing investments over 20 years•OECD: major investments over 50-60 years

Water pollution issues

•Health problems from inadequate sanitation and raw sewage “in the streets”

•Severe health problems from untreated municipal discharges

•Severe pollution problems from poorly treated mixed municipal and industrial discharges

•Primarily concerned with amenity values, toxic substances, and Emerging Pollutants of Concern (EPOCs)

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International Experience Table 2: Wastewater characteristics by level of economic development


CharacteristicsLow-income

countriesLower-middle-

income countriesUpper-middle-

income countriesHigh-income

countries

Practices •Widespread direct and indirect use of untreated sewage and fecal sludge

•Indirect use (untreated) common•Direct use of treated effluent appearing

•Direct use (treated) increasing•Indirect use still problematic but increasingly regulated

•Direct use of reclaimed effluent common and well-regulated

Policy framework •Non-existent or unenforced•Informal (unplanned) use predominates

•Emerging policies and framework•Enforcement capacity lacking

•Use policies generally defined•Enforcement capacity increasing

•Use policies defined and enforced

Health issues •High burden of helminths and diarrheas•Difficult to ascribe cause due to high background levels

•Continued concern with helminths and diarrheas•Uncontrolled industrial discharges a problem

•Typhoid and cholera outbreaks linked to untreated use•Growing concern with industrial discharges to sewers

•Pathogens under control•Industrial discharges under control•EPOCs (e.g., endocrine disruptors, pharmaceutical wastes)

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International ExperienceTable 3: Wastewater irrigation characteristics by level of economic development


Low-income countries

Lower-middle-income countries

Upper-middle-income countries

High-income countries

Countries with significant wastewater irrigation

Vietnam, Yemen, Sub-Sahara Africa except South Africa

Bolivia, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, West Bank & Gaza

Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Peru, South Africa

•Non-OECD: Bahrain, Cyprus, Israel, Kuwait, Malta, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE•OECD: Australia, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, USA

Observations on KSA

International ExperienceTable 4: Key wastewater irrigation countries by level of economic development







7. Conclusions

Outline


In response to the risks and benefits associated with wastewater irrigation, countries should pursue the following key objectives:

1. Minimize risk to public health2. Minimize risk to the environment3. Improve livelihoods for urban agriculturalists4. Integrate wastewater into the broader water resources

management context

Depending on the level of economic development, a country may seek to achieve one or a combination of objectives (see Table 5)

Observations on KSA


International ExperienceObjectives for Improving Wastewater Irrigation


Country level of economic development

Objective 1:Minimize public health risk

(priority)

Microbial risks Chemical risks

Objective 2:Minimize risk

to environment

(priority)

Objective 3:Improve UA livelihoods(priority)

Objective 4:Incorporate wastewater into IWRM

(status)

Low-income Urgent Low Low Urgent Nil

Lower-middle income

High Emerging Emerging High Incipient

Upper-middle income

High Urgent Urgent High Evolving

High-income non-OECD

High High High Low Advanced

High-income OECD

Low High High (esp. EPOCs)

Nil Advanced

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International Experience Table 5: Typical objectives by level of economic development

1. Context






7. Conclusions

Outline


For implementing comprehensive and progressive measures for reducing public health risks, countries should adopt a risk assessment and management framework:

– The framework was applied to develop Australia’s “National Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks”.

– The 2006 WHO “Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater” show how the framework can be applied for microbial risks, which are a major concern in low- and middle-income countries.

Observations on KSA


International ExperienceApplying a Risk Assessment and Management Framework


(a) Quantitative Microbial Risk Analysis (QMRA) Approach for establishing microbial risk reduction targets

– Define the tolerable maximum additional burden of disease• Internationally agreed to be ≤10-6 DALY loss pppy• Low-income countries may start with ≤10-5 or ≤10-4 DALY loss pppy

and work progressively toward the maximum value

– Derive tolerable disease and infection risks

– Conduct QMRA to determine required minimum pathogen reduction targets• Reference pathogens in 2006 WHO Guidelines are rotavirus,

Campylobacter, and Cryptosporidium• More recently the approach has also been applied for norovirus and

Ascaris

Observations on KSA




(b) Multi-barrier Approach to Reducing Risks– For restricted irrigation, the pathogen reduction targets should be achieved

mainly by wastewater treatment to protect farm workers– For unrestricted irrigation, additional post-treatment control measures must

be selected to protect the health of consumers; alternatively, but entailing additional cost, the degree of wastewater treatment may be increased

Observations on KSA




(c) Verification Monitoring

– Verification monitoring must be carried out to confirm that pathogen reduction is being achieved by wastewater treatment

– For unrestricted irrigation, a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system should be implemented to monitor the efficacy of treatment and post-treatment measures

Observations on KSA




2. Objectives of Improving Wastewater Irrigation





7. Conclusions

Outline


(a) Progressing from Unplanned to Planned Wastewater Irrigation– High-income countries took many decades to implement their wastewater

treatment capacity and achieve safe use for irrigation (e.g., United States, Israel)

– Middle-income countries have some treatment and regulatory capacity in place. They should:• Improve financial management and mobilization of investments for maintaining the systems

in place • Step-wise upgrade treatment systems and improve overall operations

– Low-income countries have neither enough money or capacity to immediately build and operate the treatment systems needed to reach pathogen reduction targets. They should:• Commit to work toward the targets within a realistic time frame through stepwise

implementation of a plan of steady improvements• In the first stage, rely on non-treatment measures and progressively introduce low-cost

treatment solutions• Based on that experience, lay the foundation for subsequent stages• Define a timetable for progressive implementation, allowing adequate time for achieving

strategic goals

Observations on KSA


International Experience Reducing Public Health Risks


From 1976 to 1983 Santiago reached hyperendemic levels of typhoid (up to 215 cases per 100,000 pop) after decades of irrigation with raw wastewater (13 m3/s irrigating 130,000 ha) -In 1983 the health authorities prohibited the cultivation of vegetable crops consumed raw, and initiated a public health campaign on the risks of sewage irrigation for health. From 1983 to 1985, typhoid was reduced 59% and dropped from hyperendemic levels to a situation of average endemicity (50 cases/100,000). This was achieved at modest cost. -In 1991, in response to the Latin American Cholera epidemic, the government took decisive action:

• An emergency control program was implemented to improve water quality, change irrigation practices, and change consumer behavior – accompanied in great part by health education campaigns and intensive press coverage about cholera and typhoid

• Through a World Bank loan, a long-term plan for wastewater treatment was developed, a pilot treatment plant was built, and two major interceptors were built to protect key irrigation areas

• These parallel actions succeeded in preventing the spread of cholera in Chile and reduced typhoid rates to unprecedented levels (2.2 cases/100,000), all accomplished with moderate investments

• The Santiago example shows that non-treatment options can be cost-effective when full treatment is not yet possible

-Only in 1998 were the emergency measures supplemented by the implementation of a Sanitation Plan for the construction of capital-intensive wastewater treatment plants.

• The Sanitation Plan is on target and virtually all wastewater is now treated (2012 completion)• It guarantees that 130,000 ha is irrigated with safe water, and restrictions on growing vegetables

can now be lifted

Observations on KSA


International Experience Reducing Public Health RisksExample: 3 Decades of Progress in Santiago, Chile


(b) Phased Improvements in Wastewater Treatment

– Introduction of wastewater treatment is an essential strategic goal

– Countries should progressively move toward expanded sewerage systems and cost-effective treatment technologies as financial and operational capacity grows

– An array of treatment options exists (Table 6); the key is to choose appropriate cost-effective technologies matched to country circumstances

– Scale is an important factor when choosing appropriate treatment systems; four levels of scale are of interest:

• On-site wastewater treatment and use• Communal wastewater treatment and use• Decentralized wastewater treatment and use• Centralized wastewater treatment and use (at drainage basin level)

Observations on KSA




Low-income countries

Lower-middle-income countries

Upper-middle-income countries

High-income countries

Scale of interventions

•Household gardens•Communal plots•Large urban or peri-

urban plots•City-wide systems

•Communal plots•Large urban or peri-

urban plots•City-wide systems

•Large urban or peri-urban plots

•City-wide systems•Watershed mgmt.

systems

•Urban reclamation and use projects

•River basin mgmt. systems

Evolution of typical wastewater treatment options

Household gardens:•On-site latrine

alternatives•Septic tank•Greywater

collectionCommunal plots:• Imhoff tank•Storage ponds•Three tank systemLarge plots:•Waste stabilization

ponds (WSP)•Upflow Anaerobic

Sludge Blanket Reactors (UASB)

Large plot or medium-size city:

•WSP systems•UASB•Wastewater

Treatment and Storage Reservoirs (WSTR)

•Chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT)

Large cities:•CEPT + sand

filtration (SF) + disinfection (D)

Large plot or medium-size city:

•WSP systems•UASB•WSTR•CEPT + SF + DLarge cities: •WSTR•CEPT + SF + D•Conventional

treatment + polishing ponds

•Soil aquifer treatment systems (SAT)

Small and medium cities:

•WSP systems•Constructed

wetlands•Trickling filters +

disinfectionLarge cities:•Conventional

treatment + tertiary treatment +++

•SAT•Membrane

technologies (MBR, MF, UF, NF, RO)

Observations on KSA

International ExperienceTable 6: Examples of progressive treatment options by level of economic development


(c) Planning for Control of Industrial Wastewater

– As cities industrialize, industrial wastewater discharges can jeopardize irrigation use of municipal wastewater

– Implementation and enforcement of industrial pretreatment programs is essential for the successful operation of municipal WWTPs and use of effluents

– Quality standards are needed to ensure that heavy metals and other contaminants do not reach levels that may:

• damage sewer systems• inhibit biological treatment processes• remain in effluents in higher concentration than permitted• accumulate in sludge ,and limit or prevent its disposal or reuse

– Industrial effluents that cannot meet quality standards should be prohibited from discharging into municipal sewers

– Industries should pay their fair share of costs for using municipal sewers and treatment capacity

Observations on KSA









7. Conclusions

Outline


(a) Long-term Strategy and Phased Action Plan for Meeting Strategic Goals and Needed Policy Reforms

– Important for moving from unplanned to planned wastewater irrigation that meets acceptable health-based targets

– Since strategic goals cannot be achieved overnight or even in one phase, the action plan should be multi-phased and aim at steady and measurable progress toward the goals within a realistic timeframe (e.g., 15-20 years)

– The Strategy and Action Plan should be placed within a broader water resources management planning framework to:

• maximize economic yields from an increasingly scarce resource• stretch scarce water and financial resources• protect water quality and minimize treatment cost• obtain maximum agricultural benefit from nutrients

Observations on KSA


International ExperienceDeveloping a Strategy and Action Plan


(b) Steps for Developing a Strategy and Action Plan

1. Design and conduct a national survey of wastewater irrigation practices2. Evaluate and prioritize health risks of wastewater irrigation, in the

context of the national burden of disease3. Formulate appropriate strategies for mitigating health impacts with

stakeholder involvement (e.g., farmers, traders, consumer advocate groups)

4. Develop an action plan with policies for safe wastewater irrigation, considering the cost-effectiveness of both treatment and post-treatment options• Include time-bound interim health targets for steady improvement in health

outcomes over the medium and long-term

5. Strengthen institutional capacities of responsible authorities to monitor and enforce safe practices

6. Review and revise national strategy, action plan, and policies as needed

Observations on KSA


International Experience Developing a Strategic Plan


1. Pathogen reduction targets: To be achieved over suitable time period, for example:

2. Treatment plan: Schedule for introducing or upgrading treatment at strategic locations where wastewater irrigation is taking place or could be encouraged

3. Strengthen local capacity: Establish team of health/agricultural outreach workers4. Health and hygiene education: Expand hygiene and sanitation outreach programs to educate

farmers, produce vendors, and consumers about food safety and hygiene5. Crop restrictions: Work with farmers to develop feasible crop restrictions to protect health6. Wastewater application: Determine safety level of current practices, and shift over time to safer

water application practices (e.g., drip and bubbler irrigation)7. Human exposure control: Require protective clothing; provide clean water at markets for ‘freshening

produce; inspect general hygiene at food markets; expand education campaigns8. Other health interventions: Initiate or expand vaccination programs in affected areas; complement

hygiene and sanitation programs with anti-helminthic drug campaigns9. Industrial effluents: Identify sources; phase in pretreatment program, first for largest polluters, and

eventually for all industrial discharges

Observations on KSA


International ExperienceSample Content of a Strategy and Action Plan

Implementation phase:DALY loss pppy:

Phase 11 × 10-4

Phase 21 × 10-5

Phase 31 × 10-6

Norovirus Restricted irrigationUnrestricted irrigation

1 log unit4 log units

2 log units5 log units


Ascaris eggs Restricted irrigationUnrestricted irrigation

1 log unit3 log units









7. Conclusions

Outline


Adoption of an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Framework

– IWRM is the accepted international paradigm for efficient, equitable, and sustainable management of water resourcesIts foundations were set at the Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment and the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

“As water scarcity and wastewater disposal problems become more acute, it becomes increasingly important to adopt and improve water conservation practices, desalination and wastewater use systems, and overall pollution-reduction approaches.”Water Resources Management, Policy Paper, World Bank, 1993

– IWRM comprises a set of agreed principles:(a) Use multi-sectoral approach to water management (at river basin level)(b) Encourage stakeholder participation and devolution of responsibility(c) Promote private sector involvement(d) Employ economic instruments

Observations on KSA


International ExperiencePromoting an Integrated Approach to Planned Wastewater Use in Irrigation


(a) Coordinated Multi-Sectoral Decision-Making– Involves consideration of urban sanitation and land use policies, public health and

environmental impacts, agricultural productivity, economic feasibility, and sociocultural aspects• The multi-sectoral nature of wastewater use requires the proper identification of the many

interested stakeholders and institutions typically involved• Wastewater irrigation and strategies for its implementation should be part of national water

resources planning and integrated into sectoral policies– Cross-sectoral issues that often arise and need attention:

• Wastewater use is undervalued – the costs and benefits of wastewater use accruing across sectors need to be quanitified

• Water and land use policies should be better coordinated across sectors– Formal access to wastewater for urban farmers– Secure land tenure for urban farmers– Suitable land area should be identified and preserved in the vicinity of treatment facilities

• WWTPs are often designed only to meet water pollution controls standards– A new paradigm for wastewater treatment is needed that views wastewater as an asset and

manages water, wastewater, pollution control, effluent irrigation, and public health in an integrated way

– Treatment should be designed to conserve nutrients and reduce pathogen risks using appropriate technologies

Observations on KSA




(b) Stakeholder Participation and Social Acceptance– Benefits include:

• Improving public acceptance of decisions• Involving a wider range of expertise when considering options• Reducing risk of opposition from disaffected groups that might delay projects• Increasing likelihood of compliance with agreements reached in negotiations

– Key issues: • Clarify stakeholder roles and responsibilities• Involve farmers and consumers in health protection measures

– Train farmers in safe irrigation and post-harvest practices– Inform consumers about safe handling and food preparation of wastewater irrigated

crops– Social marketing strategies to increase consumer’s risk awareness

• Build trust, credibility and confidence– Professional water community should convey the value of planned wastewater use

to the public and elected officials through education, publicity campaigns and other means of communication

– Transparency, information sharing, and involvement of users and local communities in decision-making process helps ensure greater acceptance of projects

Observations on KSA




(c) Private Sector Involvement in Financing and Management of Wastewater Treatment

– Developing country governments and public utilities often lack experience in wastewater treatment plant design and operation• Many “white elephant” projects

– Some governments turn to private sector participation (PSP) for:• more efficient operation and management of WWTPs• new ideas and technologies to lower costs• financing investments without public guarantees

– Two models have been successful for PSP in wastewater treatment• Design-Build-Operate (DBO) contracts: Government owns the WWTP and finances the

investment, but operational risks are assumed by private partner• Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) contracts: Private partner invests in and operates

the WWTP, and transfers ownership to government after 20-30 years free of charge and in good operating condition.

(A variant is BOO where private ownership is retained indefinitely.)– Many examples now exist in middle- and high-income countries specifically for

effluent irrigation projects (Table 7)

Observations on KSA




Location (date)Wastewater

treatment plants Capacity(m3/s)

Cost(US$ millions)

Form of PSP

Mendoza, Argentina (1995) Campo Espejo 1.7 15 20 yr BOOT

Santiago, Chile (2009)

El TrebolLa FarfanaMapocho

4.48.81.8

115240140

30 yr BOO

Monterrey, Mexico (1995)

NoroesteNorteDulces Nombre

0.52.55.0

325 total 3 yr DBO

Qatar (2010) Doha West 1.6 260 10 yr DBO

Kuwait (2005) Sulaibiya ISulaibiya II

4.32.6

430 n/a 30 yr BOOT

Jordan (2008) As Samra 3.1 169 25 yr BOOT

Tehran, Iran (2009) Southern WWTP 5.2 121 2 yr DBO

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International ExperienceTable 7: Examples of Private Sector Participation (PSP) in wastewater treatment for irrigation


(d) Use of Economic Instruments– “Polluter pays full cost” is the commonly accepted principle for financing wastewater

collection, treatment and disposal– Other economic instruments may be effective in mobilizing financing for wastewater irrigation

projects:• Sustainable cost recovery: Where full cost recovery is not possible, focus on

– Mix of tariffs, taxes and transfers (3Ts) to finance recurrent and capital costs and leverage other forms of financing

– Predictable public subsidies to facilitate investment planning– Tariff policies that are affordable to all, including the poorest, while ensuring financial

sustainability• Pricing treated wastewater: Set appropriate fees for treated wastewater, which may be

defined as a percentage of freshwater price (Table 8)• Use of subsidies for investment:

– Historically used in the USA, Europe and Japan to promote municipal WWTPs– Specifically used in the EU, California and Florida to finance wastewater use projects

• Effluent taxes: Encourages wastewater treatment and discourages discharge into natural waterways; tax proceeds can be used to subsidize treatment investments

• Sewerage fees for industry: Industrial discharges exert heavy loads on WWTPs, and should be charged per unit of BOD or COD and suspended solids, plus volumetric fees

Observations on KSA




SchemeFreshwater price

per m3

Treated wastewater price per m3

Percentage

Noirmoutier, FR €1.54 €0.23-0.30 15-20%

Cyprus €0.10 €0.10 100%

Israel $0.31 $0.12 39%

11 projects in California, USA n/a n/a Ave. 77%

Tunisia $0.08 $0.02 25%

Syria n/a Free 0%

Yemen n/a Free 0%

Observations on KSA

Strategies for

International Experience Table 8: Examples of pricing of treated wastewater for irrigation







7. Conclusions

Outline


1. Wastewater use for agriculture is an emerging priority for water-stressed countries and low-income countries.

2. Many countries have progressed toward some degree of planned wastewater irrigation, including planning approaches, policy instruments, and investments.

3. The most successful countries have labored for decades to achieve safe wastewater use.

4. While each country is unique, the experiences of successful countries can provide important lessons on how to improve wastewater irrigation practices.

5. The 2006 WHO Guidelines present a new concept for reducing microbial health risks based on a risk assessment and management framework. Countries can use it to rationally take targeted steps to reduce health risks, even when wastewater treatment is not (yet) an option.

6. Increased industrialization of urban areas requires that chemical risks be addressed, primarily through pre-treatment programs.

Observations on KSA


International Experience Conclusions


1. As water scarcity grows, investment in wastewater treatment and related irrigation systems will become more viable. To encourage such investments, governments should establish enabling policies, establish a clear regulatory framework (based on 2006 WHO Guidelines), and develop a strategy and action plan for moving from unplanned to planned wastewater use for irrigation.

2. Wastewater use policy, the regulatory framework, and the strategy and action plan should be set within an integrated water resources management context that addresses the related institutional/ planning, economic/financial, technological, and social issues.

3. The experience of relatively successful countries, such as Chile and Israel, suggests that achieving safe wastewater irrigation requires steady progress on all of these fronts for several decades. Governments should be prepared to make a long-term commitment to action and should be supported in this endeavor by the international community.

Observations on KSA


International Experience Recommendations


1. Active partner with WHO and UNDP from 1981 to 1994– Supported research on wastewater treatment and safety of use for irrigation and

aquaculture, issued seminal publications on epidemiology contributing to establishment of 1989 WHO Guidelines; published 1994 Planning Guide

– Co-developed DALY metric for 1993 WDR on Investing in Health – permitted eventual development of 2006 WHO Guidelines (QMRA)

2. Examples of lending operations:– Israel Sewerage Project (1972, $75M) a first for the Bank – financed sewage treatment

and reuse facilities, supported development of Wastewater Treatment and Storage Reservoirs, instituted cost-sharing provisions and division of responsibilities between cities and farmers for wastewater irrigation

– Santiago Water and Sewerage II Project (1986, $45M) financed major interceptors, design and construction of pilot treatment plant, and preparation of treatment master plan; plus ESW on economic impacts of wastewater irrigation

– Tehran Sewerage Project (2000, $121M) financed 5.2 m3/s wastewater treatment plant and allowed additional 15,000 ha of irrigation in Varamin Plains Irrigation Scheme

– Current Portfolio includes 25 projects that address wastewater treatment and (possible) use in agriculture, but only 7 had major financial commitments (<0.5% of total sewerage and wastewater treatment portfolio)• Tunisia $19 million; China $10 million; Iran $3 million

Observations on KSA


International Experience World Bank’s Track Record on Wastewater Irrigation


The report Sustaining Water for All in a Changing Climate (World Bank, 2010) recommends wastewater reuse as a strategic principle, but points out the need to develop core skills in this area to prepare and supervise projects or engage in high-level policy dialogue with client countries on this issue.

A Bank wastewater irrigation agenda should seek to:•Support client efforts to develop wastewater use policies, investment plans and programs within a broader IWRM framework•Enhance the quality of policy dialog with clients and project preparation activities focused on application of the 2006 WHO Guidelines and phased introduction of appropriate treatment technologies•Leverage private sector resources•Build up the capacity of Bank staff across key sectors (water, urban, agriculture, health, environment, social) to better respond to client demands – the current ad-hoc structure is not adequate •Work with and build support among key external partners – clients, donors, specialized institutions (especially WHO and FAO), and NGO/CBOs

Observations on KSA


International ExperienceEmerging Priority for the Bank?

Thank you! Comments are welcome.

Contact:[email protected]@aol.com

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. WSP 5412:http://econ.worldbank.org/docsearch

More detailed version of the paper:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWAT/Resources/ESWWastewaterAg.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://econ.worldbank.org/docsearch

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWAT/Resources/ESWWastewaterAg.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWAT/Resources/ESWWastewaterAg.pdf

improving wastewater use in agriculture: an emerging priority in the face of growing water scarcity...

Documents

planned wastewater use

wastewater treatment

wastewater reuse

urban wastewater flows

industrial wastewater

wastewater irrigation

groundwater management

urban agriculture observations