Wastewater Management Training in the Northern Pacific ...

TRAINING ASSESSMENT REPORT COURSES ON “IMPROVING SANITATION AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES” Wastewater Management Training in the Northern Pacific Region – Guam and Papua New Guinea 5-10 June 2006 at University of Guam 26-30 June 2006 at University of Papua New Guinea SOPAC Training Report 117 March 2007

[2]

Copies of this report can be obtained from the:

SOPAC Secretariat Private Mail Bag

GPO, Suva Fiji Islands

Phone: (679) 338 1377 Fax: (679) 337 0040

Website: http://www.sopac.org

[SOPAC Training Report 117 – Khatri]

[3]

TABLE OF CONTENTS: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................5 2. OBJECTIVE OF THE TRAINING..................................................................................................................................6 3. BACKGROUND ON THE COURSE .............................................................................................................................6 Module 1 – Objective Oriented Planning ..................................................................................................................6 Module 2 – Conventional and Innovative Approaches to Municipal Wastewater Management ...............................6 Module 3 – Presentation Techniques .......................................................................................................................7 4. REPORT OUTLINE ......................................................................................................................................................7 5. WASTEWATER COURSE IN GUAM............................................................................................................................7 5.1 Presentations by participants ...........................................................................................................................8 5.2 Participants ......................................................................................................................................................9 5.3 Trainers............................................................................................................................................................9 5.4 Venue...............................................................................................................................................................9 5.5 Stakeholders and fieldtrip ..............................................................................................................................10 6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION – GUAM COURSE .............................................................................................10 7. WASTEWATER COURSE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA (PNG) .....................................................................................13 7.1 Presentations by participants ...........................................................................................................................13 7.2 Participants.......................................................................................................................................................14 7.3 Trainers ............................................................................................................................................................14 7.4 Venue ..............................................................................................................................................................15 8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION – PNG COURSE ................................................................................................15 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................16 ANNEXES 1 Detailed programme for Guam Course ..........................................................................................................17 2 Participants and Stakeholders List – Guam Course ......................................................................................21 3 Detailed Programme for Papua New Guinea Course ....................................................................................23 4 Participants for Papua New Guinea Course ..................................................................................................26 5 The Speranza Case Study .............................................................................................................................28


[4]

LIST OF ACRONYMS DEC – Department of Environment and Conservation DOALOS – United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea GPA – Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from

Land-based Activities GEPA – Guam Environmental Protection Agency OOP – Objective Oriented Planning PICs – Pacific Island Countries SIDS – Small Island Developing States SOPAC – South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission SPREP – Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme ToT – Training of Trainers UNDOALOS – United Nations Office of Legal Affairs/Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the

Sea UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO – IHE – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation – Institute for

Water Education UOG – University of Guam UPNG – University of Papua New Guinea WHO – World Health Organisation WSSCC – Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council


[5]

1. INTRODUCTION The first Wastewater Training course in the Pacific region was held during 24-28 October 2005 in Suva, Fiji, which trained a total of 22 participants from 7 Pacific Island Countries. UNESCO-IHE and GPA facilitated the training. The training “Improving Sanitation and Wastewater Management for Pacific Islands” in principle has been developed and renamed from the training manual “Improving Municipal Wastewater Management in Coastal Cities” which was developed by GPA jointly with UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education and UN/DOALOS Train Sea-Coast Programme. The need for the change of title of the course was recommended at the first training in Suva, Fiji. The training focuses on objective oriented planning (OOP), innovative technological and financial approaches, stakeholder involvement, presentation techniques and writing feasibility reports. After the first successful course in Fiji future deliveries were planned from the recommendations. Future deliveries were based on sub-regional training to make it most cost effective and reach the most appropriate people. The first training was carried out in Guam as the central hub for training in the Northern Pacific with the existing and identified potential partners. The second training was run in Papua New Guinea (PNG), which due to the large island size and participation expected from other provinces included participation from Vanuatu only. More detailed information on the participants, trainers, venue and presentations will follow in the body of this report. The report will include monitoring and evaluation aspects of the course and look into the need for future courses and recommendations that have emerged from these training activities. The training involved many partners who had interest in waste management. Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA), the Secretariat of the Pacific Environment Programme (SPREP), the University of Guam (UOG), University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG), Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) PNG, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) and the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education – major partners in the training – are gratefully acknowledged. On a similar note we gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the United States, Belgium and Netherlands governments through GPA without which these courses would not have been delivered.


[6]

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE TRAINING To support low-income countries in developing and implementing sustained actions to:

• prevent; • reduce; • control; and/or • eliminate

coastal and marine degradation from municipal wastewater by: strengthening the capacities of wastewater managers to implement the Guidelines1. For this report wastewater managers include managers or senior supervisors from wastewater utilities or equivalent government department levels.

3. BACKGROUND ON THE COURSE2 Module 1 – Objective Oriented Planning This module commenced with an exercise to structure a ‘problem tree’ by carrying out a problem analysis. This was later transformed into a tree of objectives, where the problems were translated to objectives. The stakeholder analysis focused on the following:

• Primary and Secondary Stakeholders; • Steps of stakeholder analysis; • Approaches for involving stakeholders; • Stakeholder analysis matrices; and • Methods of stakeholder participation.

Finally the options analysis is also covered in this module. The focus is on planning and is very specific to municipal wastewater management but the same principle can be used elsewhere. Module 2 – Conventional and Innovative Approaches to Municipal Wastewater Management This module covers areas applicable in conventional approaches and alternative technologies. It discusses the constraints to conventional approaches and the need for alternative technologies. This module also introduces the way forward using a three-step strategic approach to overcome constraints. It captures the financial approaches with respect to cost recovery and cost of wastewater service provision. The final section looks at water management in future.

1 UNEP/WHO/HABITAT/WSSCC Guidelines on Municipal Wastewater Management – A practical guide for decision-makers and professionals on how to plan, design, and finance appropriate and environmentally-sound municipal wastewater discharge systems 2 The descriptions below are based on material presented in the UNEP/GPA-UNESCO-IHE-UN/DOALOS “Improving Municipal Wastewater Management in Coastal Cities Training Manual for Practitioners.”


[7]

Module 3 – Presentation Techniques This module allows participants to practice their individual skills in oral presentations. Presentation skills are becoming increasingly important, as many donors or funding agencies require oral presentations together with detailed written proposals. As part of the final assessment of the workshop, participants in their groups presented on the various topics covered in the workshop.

4. REPORT OUTLINE This report has been structured to present the activities from the Guam course first; followed by the course in Papua New Guinea.

5. WASTEWATER COURSE IN GUAM The Guam Environmental Protection Agency, in association with UNEP/GPA, SPREP, SOPAC, UOG and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education organised and conducted the training course from 5-10 June 2006. The course comprised five days of specific training on wastewater management with a sixth devoted to ‘training of trainers’. Mr Randel L. Sablan, the Acting Administrator for Guam Environmental Protection Agency, welcomed the participants and briefly introduced the chief guest. The Honourable Felix Camacho the Governor of Guam officially opened the six-day training programme. Dr Harold Allen the President of University of Guam also addressed participants.

Honourable Felix P. Camacho – Governor of Guam opening the Wastewater Workshop.


[8]

5.1 Presentations by participants The participants were divided into four groups of about five people and assignments were given on the following topics: problem analysis, effects tree, problem tree, objectives analysis – objectives tree, stakeholder analysis and options analysis. A proposal was to be presented by each group (following criteria outlined below) on the last day of the workshop on the range of problems the participants had highlighted.

Group discussions in preparing the final presentations. Criteria for the final presentations are listed below.

1. Problem statement, objectives tree, options analysis, selection of most preferred option (with emphasis on financial sustainability).

2. Presentation lasting 15 minutes (after which 10 minutes of questions).

Also:

3. Presentations were evaluated on: • Presentation skills/structure of presentation – 20% • Objectives and options analysis – 20% • Use of innovative technologies – 20% • Financial sustainability – 20% • Applicability – 20%

4. The group with the best proposal wins. Presentations were made on the following topics:

1. Waste reuse from small-scale pig farms 2. Dengue fever outbreak in Koror, Republic of Palau 3. Wastewater problems in schools in Micronesia 4. Case Study on Gill Baza

The panel of judges included Domingo Cabusao (Program Manager, Water Pollution Control - Guam EPA) and Karen Wirth (Special Assistant to Guam EPA Administrator) together with the instructors.


[9]

5.2 Participants A total of sixteen participants altogether represented the following countries: Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, China and Guam. Similar to the Fiji course the training targeted managers from wastewater utilities. The selection criteria was designed to get the most appropriate candidates for the course. More participants were expected but due to late submissions from some organisations and some last-minute cancellations the number reduced. Participants included representatives from Environmental Protection Agencies; Wastewater Treatment Plants or Utilities; and Water and Sewer Companies.

Participants posing for a group photo during the fieldtrip – Gill Baza.

5.3 Trainers Dr Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck (UNESCO-IHE) was the lead instructor for the course and the non-technical components were co-instructed by Mr Kamal Khatri (SOPAC). Other resource people for the course included: Ms Conchita Taitano, Mr Christopher Lund and Ms Karen Wirth; who shared their knowledge and experience in water/wastewater issues. The resource persons on several occasions enhanced discussions by providing local examples from the region. 5.4 Venue The workshop was held in the University of Guam, Room 127, College of Natural and Applied Science. Training room facilities included LCD projector, white board, overhead projector, flip chart, markers and transparencies. All the overseas participants and the trainers were accommodated at the Ladera Tower, as this hotel was closest to the University of Guam in Mangilao. Morning and afternoon tea was provided to the participants for the duration of the workshop. Guam’s public television station KGTFTV-12, affiliated with PBS, video taped all the lecture sessions and the fieldtrip and will produce a short programme on the Guam course.


[10]

5.5 Stakeholders and fieldtrip Stakeholders from organisations involved in a wide range of activities such as fisheries, agriculture, aquaculture, tourism, public health, environmental NGO’s and communities were invited for the interviews on the stakeholder day. A total of six stakeholders managed to attend the stakeholder day. The organisations represented included Department of Public Health and Social Services, Guam Fisherman’s Cooperation, Guam Department of Agriculture, Guam Coastal Management Program, Guam Visitor’s Bureau and a community representative from United Pacific Islanders. The idea behind interviewing the stakeholders was for the participants to discover for themselves, how stakeholders are impacted by the specific problem that they identified; what the stakeholders’ interests are; and if they can contribute to addressing the problem. Most participants felt that the stakeholder interviews were very beneficial to them as they were made to think ‘outside the box’. Some issues they could face when trying to solve their problems surfaced and it was a good way to make them realise the importance of involvement of all stakeholders, especially at the planning stage. The Gill-Baza Subdivision is an agricultural subdivision located in Yigo, Guam, composed of eighty-four (84) lots with an area of nine hundred twenty nine (929+/–) square meters. The parceling for the Subdivision was approved with the condition that appropriate infrastructure for water and sewer be provided. The Subdivision is located on porous limestone above the island’s groundwater protection zone, which provides potable water to approximately 75,000 residents. Due to major water-borne health issues reported by the Department of Public Health and Social Services, inspections were conducted at the Gill-Baza Subdivision to verify the type of sewage disposal system and toilet facilities being used for each house. Inspections revealed that most lots were occupied with sub-standard houses without an appropriate wastewater disposal system. For example, residents were using cesspools (unlined sewage containments), tanks without proper maintenance or an open pit. The fieldtrip at Gill Baza on the stakeholders’ day was coordinated and facilitated by Mr Stanley Yanfag (Community Leader from Gill Baza) and Mr Ron Charfauros from Guam EPA. The fieldtrip was useful for 1) showing the participants applications of alternative approaches in real-life situations; and 2) it provided the participants with insights on how the community deals with these technologies.

6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION – GUAM COURSE Similar to the Fiji course, evaluation questionnaires were used to gauge participant views on several issues to allow improvement in future courses. The extent of disagreement to agreement on certain aspects of the course was from 1 to 5. On logistical issues such as the venue, audio-visual equipment and refreshments most participants generally agreed or were satisfied with the arrangements. The general overview section had a series of questions regarding the quality of the course and the trainers. Throughout the evaluation the lowest value attained was 3.7, which was on the quality of the content for Oral presentations and the highest agreement of 4.7 was for the course being worthwhile use of their time. On whether the course fulfilled their expectations and whether the course was relevant to them scored 4.4 and 4.5, respectively – which could be indicative of the right audience being targeted. A score of 4.6 was achieved with regard to the course providing participants with practical solutions and for acquiring new information.


[11]

The general overview section also covered several topics such as:

• overall format of the course; • balance of lectures, discussions, presentations by participants and field trip; • course material being appropriate; • quality of presentations; • interactions with trainers; • interaction with participants; and • schedule of activities being clear.

All the topics were rated above 4, which meant most participants, were pleased with general issues of the course. When considering time allocations on lectures and presentations, discussion with trainers and discussion amongst participants, the percentage of participants that thought the time was about right ranged from 88% to 94%. About 25% of the class felt that the time allocated for group discussions and exercises was too short. Lastly, 74% of the participants thought that the duration of the course was sufficient and can be kept at one week. The training sessions and topics from all the 3 modules were also ranked in terms of importance, quality of content and relevance to your work. The numbers represent a range of satisfaction with 1 – indicating that the sessions “did not meet your expectations at all” to 5 – indicating that they met your expectations “to the highest degree”. The introduction, modules, proposal presentation and fieldtrip ranking ranged from 3.9 to 4.3 in terms of importance of the topic. In terms of quality of the content, the introduction and module one, which included problem analysis, objective analysis, stakeholder analysis and options analysis ranked much higher then other modules at either 4.3 or 4.4. The following sequence explains the ranking seen in terms of quality of content: Introduction/Module 1 > Module 2 > Module 3 Proposal presentation and fieldtrip were ranked at 3.8. Most of the topics were rated as relevant to the work the participants are involved in, although Module 1 was ranked as most relevant followed by Module 3 and proposal presentation. The training in Guam included the ‘training of trainers’ (ToTs) session that took place on Day 6. The programme included:

• presentation by participants; • discussion on possible roles to play; • adaptations to local situation; and • needs assessment.

The ToT’s session also included a presentation in which the participants were to:

• present one wastewater problem in detail; • identify potential options; • identify obstacles; • find ways to overcome obstacles identified with experience from the training; and • find potential/alternative options.

The following are the topics presented by the participants during the ToT session:

• Mr Omar Damian – The Ordot Dump Closure and Guam’s New Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF).

• Ms Peggy Denny – The CARE Project: Community Alliance to Restore Our Environment. • Mr Albert Philip and Ms Mycellyne Edeyaoch – Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems in

Palau.


[12]

• Ms Tina Mafnas – Illegal Dumping of Solid Waste on Guam. • Mr Joseph Konno – Wastewater Standards used in Chuuk, Federated States of

Micronesia. • Mr Tos Nakayama – Presentation on Current Wastewater Systems from Chuuk Utility’s

perspective. • Ms Conchita Taitano – Planning the Management of Wastewater Generation from the

Increase of Military Presence on Guam.

Dr. Leina Wang from China making a presentation on the Minamata case (left); Ms Mycellyne Edeyaoch from Palau receiving her certificate (right).

Some presenters were very vocal and had grasped the underlying principles of the training material thus, could potentially take up roles in co-instructing parts of the course in future. Responses from the Fiji course were repeated on changing of name of the Training Manual from “Improving Municipal Wastewater Management in Coastal Cities” to Improving Sanitation and Wastewater Management for Pacific Island Countries. There were some comments on use of local case studies but no particular participant or organisation agreed on taking a lead role to developing a case study similar to Speranza3. On the need for more courses in the region, participants felt that more people could benefit from such training should in-country training be possible.

3 Sample case study created for instruction purposes, attached in Annex 5.


[13]

7. WASTEWATER COURSE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA (PNG) This was the first training course in PNG that focused on wastewater management through objective oriented planning. The demand for the course was overwhelming although the confusion on change of dates, had lead to candidates not being able to engage themselves for the course. Training focused on the following components: objective oriented planning, innovative technological and financial approaches, and stakeholder involvement and presentation techniques together with feasibility reporting. This course did not include the training of trainers’ component, as there are already some potential instructors for possible future courses. 7.1 Presentations by participants The final presentation was done similar to the steps that were followed in the Guam course. However, the participants were divided only in 2 major groups. A request was made from the participants and DEC to work on existing and real case situations. Thus, the presentation topic for both the groups was on Wastewater Management in Lae, which is the provincial capital of the Morobe Province in PNG.

The two groups working on their final presentations on one wastewater problem identified in Lae.

The titles of the two presentations were:

1. High level of sea front pollution; and 2. Discharge of untreated wastewater into the sea.


[14]

Eda Ranu wastewater treatment site at Waigani Swamp (left), one of the facultative ponds visited during the fieldtrip (right).

7.2 Participants The course was held in Port Moresby; even then, participants came in from other provinces in PNG. Organisers expected about thirty participants, however, 20 participants actually attended the course. This was attributed to issues such as change of meeting dates, assumption that there is a course fee and associated costs such as travel and accommodation that the company has to bear in order to sponsor the participation of their representative. For the facilitators, twenty participants was a workable number allowing greater interaction within and between the different groups; as well as with instructors. This course trained managers/senior supervisors from wastewater utilities or equivalent government department levels from Lae, Rabaul, Madang, Port Moresby and Vanuatu.

Participants after receiving their certificates. 7.3 Trainers Mr Klaas Schwartz (UNESCO-IHE) and Mr Kamal Khatri (SOPAC) were the main instructors for the course. Lecturers from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) also made additional presentations; these included Dr Peter Petsul and Dr Robin Totome. UPNG and Department of


[15]

Environment and Conservation (DEC) staff of Boroko generated discussions on local case studies and examples. 7.4 Venue The workshop was held at UPNG – Earth Science and Geography Tutorial Block 5 and 6. The tutorial blocks were quite spacious to allow separate group discussions. The training room was equipped with LCD projector, white board, overhead projector, flip chart, markers and transparencies. The instructors and participants coming from outside Port Moresby were placed at the Lamana Hotel with pick up and drop offs arranged by DEC.

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION – PAPUA NEW GUINEA COURSE Like the Guam course an evaluation questionnaire was prepared with some modifications due to the additional presentations. On logistical issues such as venue, audio-visual materials and refreshments from a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), responses ranged from 3.9 to 4.3. Under the general overview section the highest ranking was for balance between lectures, assignments, presentations by participants and the field trip. The course had met their expectations and was quite relevant to their work. The general overview section also covered the topics listed below.

• overall format of the course; • practical solutions and new information acquired; • course material being appropriate; • quality of presentations; • interaction with trainers; • interaction with participants; and • clear schedule of activities.

For the above listed issues, the average ranking was a high 4.3. In terms of time allocated to lectures/presentations, discussion with trainers and the duration of the course, 85% felt that it was about right. All the participants indicated that the time allocated for group discussions and exercises was sufficient. Majority (95%) revealed that the time allowed for discussion amongst participants was also about right. The training sessions and topics from all the three modules were also ranked in terms of importance, quality of content and relevance to the participants’ work. It was seen that generally all sessions were ranked relatively high showing that the course materials met most participants’ expectations. In terms of the importance of the topics, the outstanding sessions included Module 1 inclusive of problem analysis, objectives analysis, stakeholder analysis and session on gender, ethics and power. The least ranked topics in terms of importance included Options Analysis, Writing the Feasibility Report and Proposal presentation. When looking at quality of content highest ranking was attained for Problem analysis followed by Introduction and the Session on gender, ethics and power. The Module 1 session – Objective analysis, Stakeholder analysis and the 3-Step Strategic Approach followed. The quality of the content from Writing the feasibility report and Proposal presentation had the lowest ranking. Lastly, in terms of relevance to their work, problem analysis, objective analysis and session on gender, ethics and power was the most preferred. Other modules and topics were very relevant as well, ranging from 4.4 to 4.6.


[16]

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This course came at a very good time for many of the Northern Pacific countries as many of them are about to start with new wastewater treatment plants and even sanitary landfills. The demand and need for the course was evident with the Republic of Palau sending an additional participant at the Republic’s expense. The feedback from the participants at the “Training of Trainers (ToT)” revealed that the course was very helpful to them with their current jobs. Similar suggestions to the Fiji course have been repeated to include local case studies for the course. Needs assessment from the participants in both Guam and PNG courses revealed that they would like to have more courses in-country as well. In PNG it was noted by the participants that the workshop was a good point for them to establish connections and increase their network with the many different stakeholders that were present. For DEC, as a regulatory body, the training helped strengthen of the existing relationships with representatives from other provinces. There were several changes made to the normal programme on the PNG course. Notable changes were made on the Stakeholder day (Wednesday 28th June) and the Field trip Evaluation included a presentation of the case on Waigani Swamp. Each course needs to be adapted to the country and the current situation so that the maximum benefit could be reaped from the course. Some potential co-instructors have been identified from the ToT’s for future courses in the Northern Pacific region as UNEP/GPA has secured further funding to run this course over the next three years.


[17]

ANNEX 1

Detailed programme for “Improving Sanitation and Wastewater Management in the Northern Pacific region” – Guam

Time Day 1

08:30 –10:00

Registration Opening: Welcome by Randel L. Sablan – Acting Administrator of Guam EPA Opening addresses by: Honourable Felix P. Camacho – Governor of Guam Dr. Harold L. Allen – President of the University of Guam

10:00 – 10.30 Coffee/tea break

10:30 – 12.30

Setting the ground rules Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck Course Introduction Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Problem analysis Kamal Khatri Lecture Assignment

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee/tea break Problem analysis (cont’d) Handing in assignment

15:30 – 17:30 Oral presentations Kamal Khatri Invited speaker Lecture


[18]

Time Day 2

08:30 – 10:00

Problem analysis (cont’d) Presentations by participants


10:30 – 12.30

Conventional approaches and alternative technologies Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck Lecture Discussion

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

The way forward: the 3-step strategic approach Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck Lecture Discussion

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee/tea break

15:30 – 17:30

Objectives analysis Kamal Khatri Lecture Assignment Presentation by participants


[19]

Time Day 4

08:30 – 10:00

Fieldtrip evaluation Stakeholder analysis (cont’d) Presentations by participants


10:30 – 12:30

Financial approaches to municipal wastewater management Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck/Christopher A. Lund Lecture

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Options analysis Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck Lecture


15:30 – 17:30

Writing the feasibility report Kamal Khatri Lecture Preparation of proposal Assignment

Time Day 3

08:30 – 10:00

Stakeholder analysis Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck Lecture Assignment


10:30 – 12:30

Stakeholder interviews Introductions Interviews by participants

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 16:30

Fieldtrip Gill Baza Stanley Yanfag – Community Leader of United Pacific Islanders Association (a resident at Gill Baza) Coordinated by Ron Charfauros (Guam EPA)


[20]

Time Day 5

08:30 – 10:00

Preparation of proposal Assignment


10:30 – 12:30


12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00 Presentations proposals


15:30 – 17:30

Evaluation Closing Farewell drink


[21]

ANNEX 2

Participants and Stakeholders List – Guam Course

Margaret Aguiler Management Analyst PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1663 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Pacy Carpo Inspector 542 N. Marine Corp. Drive Tamuning, GU 96913 Guam Department of Public Works Ph: 671-646-3228 Philip Chugrad Wastewater Operations Supervisor PO Box 667 Yap State Public Service Corporation Federated States of Micronesia Omar C. Damian Special Projects Coordinator PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1619 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Manny Minas Engineer III PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1633 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Peggy Denney Education and Outreach Coordinator PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1654 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Mycellyne Edeyaoch Administrative Officer Ministry of Resources and Development PO Box 100 Koror, Palau 96940 Ph: 680-488-2701/6099 Fax: 680-488-3380/3195

Email:[email protected]; [email protected] Glenn Harris Environmental Specialist I Pohnpei EPA Governor’s Mail Pohnpei Federated States of Micronesia Ph: 691-320-2927 Fax: 691-320-5265 Email: [email protected] Joseph M. Konno EPA Advisor Chuuk EPA PO Box 189 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 Ph: 691-330-4158 Fax: 691-330-2233 Email: [email protected] Tina Mafnas Environment Health Specialist PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1608 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Tos Nakayama Assistant CEO Wastewater Chuuk Utility PO Box 910 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 Ph: 691-330-2400/1 Fax: 691-330-2777 Albert Philip Sewage Treatment Technician Palau Wastewater Treatment Plant II Public Works PO Box 100 Koror, Palau 96940 Ph: 680-484-2850 Fax: 680-488-2431/1367 Email: [email protected] Maricar Quezon Engineer II PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1636 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]











[22]

Alington Robert Administrative Manager PO Box 1751 Majuro Water and Sewer Company Majuro, MH 96960 Ph: 691-625-4838/8134 Fax: 691-625-3837 Email: [email protected] Domingo Cabusao (Resource person) Program Manager Water Pollution Control Guam Environmental Protection Agency Safe Water Drinking Program PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, Guam 96921 Ph: 671-475-1635 Fax: 671-477-9402 Conchita Taitano (Organiser/Participant) Air and Land Division Manager PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921

Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1609 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected] Leina Wang Tongji Institute 1239 Siping Road Shanghai 2000/2 Shanghai China Ph: 86-21-65984220 Fax: 86-21-65988406 Email: [email protected] Christopher A. Lund (Participant/Instructor) Chief Engineer PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, GU 96921 Guam EPA Ph: 671-475-1621 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected]

Email: [email protected] Rita Edwards (Organiser) Assistant Director Professional Development and Lifelong Learning Center University of Guam Ph: 671-735-2604 Fax: 671-734-1233 Email: [email protected]

Karen Wirth (Resource person) Special Assistant to Guam EPA Administrator Guam Environmental Protection Agency Safe Water Drinking Program PO Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, Guam 96921 Ph: 671-475-1637 Fax: 671-477-9402 Email: [email protected]

Stakeholders Ron Carandang Environmental Health Specialist Supervisor Department of Public Health and Social Services Environmental Health Division PO Box 2816 Hagatna GU 96921 Ph: 671-735-7221 Fax: 671-735-5556 Email: [email protected] Manuel Duenas President Guam Fisherman’s Cooperation PO Box 24023, GMF Barrigada GU 96921 Ph: 671-472-6323 Fax: 671-477-2986 Email: [email protected] Stanley Yanfag Community Leader United Pacific Islanders Ph: 671-898-2874

Jay Gutierrez Guam Department of Agriculture Vange Lujan Guam Coastal Management Program Administrator Bureau of Planning Ph: 671-475-9672 Fax: 671-477-1812 Email: [email protected] Gerald Perez General Manager Guam Visitor’s Bureau 401 Pale San Vitores Rd Tumon GU 96913 Ph: 671-646-5278/9 Fax: 671-64-8861 Email: [email protected]













[23]

ANNEX 3

Detailed Programme for “Improving Sanitation and Wastewater Management for Pacific Islands” – Papua New Guinea

Time Day 1

08:30 – 10:00

Registration Opening: Facilitated by Kay Kalim (Department of Environment and Conservation) Welcome and Opening by Dr. Chalapan Kulwin – Head of Environmental Science and Geography UPNG Address by Kamal Khatri on behalf of SOPAC and CROP agencies


10:30 – 12.30

Setting the ground rules Kamal Khatri Course Introduction Kamal Khatri

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Problem analysis Klaas Schwartz Lecture Assignment

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee/tea break Problem analysis (cont’d) Handing in assignment

15:30 – 17:30 Oral presentations Invited speaker (Dr. Robin Totome) Lecture Kamal Khatri


[24]

Time Day 2

08:30 – 10:00

Problem analysis (cont’d) Presentations by participants


10:30 – 12.30

Conventional approaches and alternative technologies Kamal Khatri Lecture Discussion

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Objectives Analysis: Klaas Schwartz Lecture, group assignments and presentations by participants


15:30 – 17:30

The way forward: the 3-step strategic approach: Kamal Khatri Lecture and discussion

Time Day 3

08:30 – 10:00

Stakeholder analysis Klaas Schwartz Lecture and assignment Presentation by Eda Ranu – Lot G. Zauya

10:00 -10:30 Coffee/tea break 10:30 – 12:30

Stakeholders within the participants Presentations and discussion

12:30 -13:30 Lunch break

13:30 – 16:30

Fieldtrip: Wastewater Treatment Plant at Morata & Waigani Swamp

Facilitated by Eda Ranu – Allen Nema, Joe Asinimbu and Lot Zauya


[25]

Time Day 4

08:30 – 10:00

Fieldtrip evaluation Stakeholder analysis (cont’d): Dr. Peter Petsul – Gender, Ethics and Power Dr. Peter Totome – Long term Impacts of Sewage on Waigani Swamp


10:30 – 12:30

Financial approaches to municipal wastewater management Klaas Schwartz Lecture

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Options analysis Klaas Schwartz Lecture


15:30 – 17:30

Writing the feasibility report Kamal Khatri Lecture Preparation of proposal Assignment

Time Day 5

08:30 – 10:00


10:00 – 10:30 Coffee/tea break 10:30 – 12:30


12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break

13:30 – 15:00

Presentations proposals

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee/tea break 15:30 – 17:30

Evaluation Closing Farewell drink


[26]

ANNEX 4

Participants for Wastewater Training Course in Port Moresby, PNG 26-29 June 2006 1. Mr. Ray Dujambi Health Inspector Morobe Provincial Administration Lae City Council PO Box 1333 Lae, Morobe Province Ph: 472 1921 Fax: 472 2531 Email: [email protected] 2. Mr. Taikone Gwakoro Co-ordinator – Mines, Natural Resources and Environment Morobe Provincial Administration PO Box 98 Lae, Morobe Province Ph: 473 1725/472 8373 Fax: 472 4745 Email: [email protected] 3. Mr. Justin Narimbi Senior Chemist National Analytical Laboratory PNG Unitech PNG Unitech PMB, Lae, Morobe Province Ph: 473 4571 Fax: 473 4578 Email: [email protected] 4. Mr. Elisha Wada Environmental Officer Gazelle Restoration Authority PO Box 2177 Rabaul, East New Britain Province Ph: 982 8633 Fax: 982 8767 Email: [email protected] 5. Mr. Rommey Waiut Engineer Gazelle Restoration Authority PO Box 2177 Rabaul East New Britain Province Ph: 982 8633 Fax: 982 8767 Email: [email protected] 6. Mr. Phillip Posanau Co-ordinator – Health and Social Services Madang Urban Local Government PO Box 2107 Madang Madang Province Ph: 852 2633 Fax: 852 2653 Email: NA

7. Mr. Jim Fanaso Manager – Water Operations Goroka Urban Water Authority PO Box 309 Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province Ph: 732 1999 Fax: 732 1818 8. Mr. Pius Palma Principal Quality Officer – LAE PNG Water Board PO Box 2966 Lae, Morobe Province Ph: 472 3852 Fax: 475 7225 Email: [email protected] 9. Mr. Kamba Kandoa Senior Wastewater Operator PNG Water Board PO Box 2966 Lae, Morobe Province Ph: 472 6012 Fax: 475 7225 10. Mr. Nelson Nali Project Engineer – POM PNG Water Board PO Box 2779 Boroko, National Capital District Ph: 325 6866 Fax: 325 6836 Email: [email protected] 11. Miss Rachael Ivai Graduate Engineer – POM PNG Water Board PO Box 2779 Boroko, National Capital District Ph: 325 6866 Fax: 325 6836 Email: [email protected] 12. Mr. Giamsa Yagas, Principal Yagas & Associates (Consultant) PO Box 2720 Boroko, National Capital District Mobile: 681 7308 13. Mr. Joe Asinimbu, Sewerage Manager Eda Ranu Limited Private Mail Bag PO WAIGANI National Capital District Ph: 312 2182 Fax: 312 2194 Email: [email protected]











[27]

14. Mr. Lot G. Zauya Executive Manager Operations Water/Sewerage Eda Ranu Limited Private Mail Bag PO WAIGANI National Capital District Ph: 312 2150 Fax: 312 2194 Email: [email protected] 15. Mr. Allen Nema Executive Manager – Technical Eda Ranu Limited Private Mail Bag PO WAIGANI National Capital District Ph: 312 2127 Fax: 312 2193 Email: [email protected] 16. Mr. Tony Kuman Senior Water Resources Planner Department of Environment and Conservation PO Box 6601 BOROKO National Capital District Ph: 325 0198 Fax: 325 0182 Email: [email protected] 17. Mr. Jim Onga Conservation Officer Department of Environment and Conservation PO Box 6601 Boroko, National Capital District Ph: 325 0195 Fax: 325 0182 Email:[email protected] 18. Ms. Yvonne Tio Environmental Officer Department of Environment and Conservation PO Box 6601 Boroko, National Capital District Ph: 325 0195 Fax: 325 0182 Email: [email protected]

19. Mr. Michael Wau Senior Environmental Officer Department of Environment and Conservation PO Box 6601 Boroko National Capital District Ph: 325 0195 Fax: 325 0182 Email: [email protected] 20. Mr. Thomas Steele Assistant Water Technician Department of Geology Mines and Water Resources PMB 9001 Port Vila, Vanuatu Ph: 678 22423/23223 Fax: 678 22213 Email: [email protected] Chalapan Kaluwin (Opening) Professor of Environmental Science and Geography University of Papua New Guinea PO Box 320 University 134 National Capital District Ph: (675) 326 7261 Fax: (675) 326 0369 Email: [email protected] Klaas Schwartz (Instructor) Water Services Management Department of Management and Institution Westvest 7 PO Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands Ph: 31 (0) 15 215 1715 Fax: 31 (0) 15 212 29 21 Email: [email protected] Kamal Khatri (Instructor) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Officer South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) SOPAC Secretariat Private Mail Bag GPO, Suva Ph: (679) 3381377 Fax: (679) 3370040 Email: [email protected]












[28]

ANNEX 5

The Speranza Case Study

Improving municipal wastewater management in coastal cities CASE STUDY ‘WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IN SPERANZA’ ANNEX TO TRAINING MANUAL VERSION 1

Background The Democratic Republic of Corazon is located in the Caribbean Sea. It is a semi-arid island with an annual rainfall of about 500 mm. The island is about 200-km long and on average 40-km wide. In 2002, Corazon had a population of about 1 million people, of which the majority (about 70%) lives in the capital Speranza. In 2002, per capita GNP was US$ 1,160, which makes Corazon a low-income country. In the 1990s, the economy expanded by just 1% per year and inflation averaged close to 4.5% in 2002. Historically, the economy depended heavily on the fishing industry. Currently the tourist industry is the most important economic activity and accounts for almost half of the GNP. Other economic activities include agriculture, various small-scale industries (tanneries, garages, plating) and some service-oriented enterprises. Speranza Metropolitan Area

Airport

a

Beach resorts

N

Fig.

Water and wastewater manSince the 1980s, water supppublic utility called the Speproduction of drinking waterseawater via reverse osmosiremaining households get the Only 15% of the houses in Sbefore being used by farmeSWC. Most households anBecause of the high costs desludged on a regular bascoast, without any further tredirectly into the sea. Many ta

Caribbean Se

1. Map of Democratic Republic of Corazon

agement ly and wastewater services in the capital Speranza have been provided by a ranza Water Corporation (SWC). Groundwater is the major source for the , although some hotels produce their own drinking water by desalinisation of s. In 2002, 45% of the households in the city had in-house water supply. The ir water from other sources.

peranza has a sewage connection. The sewage is treated in a trickling filter rs for irrigation; farmers pay only a very small amount for this provision from d commercial establishments use septic tanks, cesspits and leach holes. involved for the customers, only a limited number of the septic tanks is

is by the SWC. The septage is discharged and dried in ditches close to the atment. Some houseowners empty their tanks illegally, disposing their sludge nks, however, are not desludged at all, resulting in overflow and leakage. Part


[29]

of this contaminated water is discharged directly into the sea via stormwater drains. Part reaches the groundwater via infiltration and also ends up in the sea. Table 1: Selected Indicators of SWC in 2002

Approximate population in service area 700,000 Coverage – water (%) 45% Coverage – sewerage (%) 15% Connections – water 63,000 Connections – sewerage 21,000 Wastewater used for irrigation 3*106 m3 y-1 Irrigated area 275 ha Number of farmers served 500

Agriculture After the SWC started to collect and to treat sewage, farmers were offered the use of this water for surface irrigation. This resulted in an increase of their production by almost 30%. This has been attributed mainly to the high nutrient content in the wastewater and expenditures for fertilizers have been reduced considerably. Traditionally, farmers have a preference for the production of crops like lettuce, cabbage, carrots and spinach. They have not changed that practice to crops that would be less sensitive to contamination with pathogenic organisms (e.g. tomatoes, beans, maize).

Public health Bacterial pollution levels in the treated wastewater that is used for irrigation range from 103 to >105 faecal coliforms per 100 mL and exceed the standards for unrestricted irrigation water. Since the use of wastewater for irrigation, the number of enteric diseases has increased considerably. For example, the incidence of typhoid increased from 30-50 cases per 100,000 people to almost 200 cases per 100,000 people. This has been attributed to infection by way of the ‘long cycle’ (infected individual > sewage > water pollution > food > people). Another potential source of infection is the use of polluted groundwater for the production of drinking water. According to SWC leaking and overflowing septic tanks, cesspits and leach holes have not yet affected the sources for their drinking water production, but the inhabitants of Speranza have become very suspicious and therefore most people obtain their drinking water from street vendors, without questioning its source. Seepage from septic tanks, cesspits and leach holes and the illegal disposal of septage directly into the sea have resulted in bathing waters becoming unsafe for swimming and recreation. Moreover, seafood is now contaminated as well. In 1996, 2000 and 2002 a number of cholera cases has been reported, which resulted in high health costs and a significant drop in tourists visiting Speranza.

Environmental conditions Although most of the coral reefs that fringe the island are part of the Marine Protected Area, they are not safeguarded against pollution with nutrients by wastewater. The abundance of macroalgae, covering the coral reefs is steadily increasing. This has been further stimulated by the incidences of a number of bleaching events in the past five years, which is attributed to increased water temperatures as a consequence of global warming. Moreover, because of poverty, fishermen are not willing to restrict their catches and are even using various destructive fishing techniques. Thus, over-fishing and habitat destruction further enhance the overgrowth of the coral reefs by algae.

Tariffs for Water Supply and Sanitation Services Tariffs charged to connected consumers are either for water supply only (for the 30% who do receive water supply services but not sanitation services) or for both water supply and sanitation services (for 15% of the population). As households are not metered, the tariff used for water supply services is a flat (or uniform) rate. In the case of water supply and sanitation services consumers pay an extra 10% of their water bill for water supply services for the sanitation services they receive. Over the past decades, however,


[30]

government has been hesitant to raise the tariff in line with inflation as they have concerns about the effect on low-income households as well as possible political backlash from voters. As such, the current tariffs for water supply and sanitation services cover only 60% of the costs for providing water services. Moreover, only 65% of the water bills that are billed are collected, meaning that less than 40% of the costs for providing services is actually recovered from the consumer.

7. Interest groups The following interest groups play major roles in various issues related to handling of wastewater in Speranza. The Speranza Water Corporation The main objectives of the SWC are stated in their statutes:

• To provide and distribute a constant supply of clean and freshwater to all commercial, industrial and domestic premises in Speranza.

• To be responsible for the provision, control, and maintenance of a sewerage system for all connected commercial, industrial and domestic premises in Speranza.

• To provide services for the maintenance of septic tanks and the proper management of septage, upon request of the owners.

• To be responsible for the disposal of municipal wastewater in Speranza by such means and at such times and locations as the Company may deem appropriate.

The SWC operates a water and sewerage system and a treatment plant that have been ill maintained, are unreliable and are without a functioning revenue collection system. SWC is a public utility, owned and regulated by the Speranza City Council, which has a far-reaching influence over the utility. Thus, because of the poor financial situation of the City Council, the level of subsidy is insufficient for SWC to carry out its mandate properly. Green Globe An international NGO, strictly aiming at the protection of the natural environment. Its major focus in Corazon is the conservation of the precious coral reefs. In 1990 the government of Corazon declared the coral reefs around the island a Marine Protected Area. The local society of Green Globe is responsible for managing this marine park. Their main concern is the increase of macroalgae covering the coral reefs, as has been observed in the long-term monitoring programme carried out by Green Globe. They suspect that wastewater from Speranza is the major cause for this phenomenon, further enhanced by decreasing stocks of herbivorous fish that feed on algae as a result of overfishing. Recent coral bleaching events, attributed to global warming have worsened the situation. Corazon Association of Hotel Owners The hotel owners at Corazon are well organised. Together they launched a very successful promotion campaign to attract tourists, SCUBA divers in particular, to the island. However, since the high incidence of enteric diseases, the number of tourists dropped considerably. Another cause for the decline in tourists is the fact that the quality of the coral reefs is decreasing, in spite of the fact that these reefs are protected areas. The hotel owners association suspects that the wastewater from Speranza is the main cause for the increase of algae that overgrow the coral reefs. Healthy Corazon Healthy Corazon is a local NGO dealing with health issues for the poor. Besides organising vaccination programmes for infants and children, the volunteers of this NGO also provide information on sanitation issues. Well-known is their annual campaign ‘Proper Sanitation-A Healthy Corazon’ targetting women in the poorest districts of Speranza. One of the problems they have identified is the suspect quality of drinking water, which they attribute to the use of contaminated groundwater by water vendors and by the SWC. Moreover, they are well aware of the fact that the farmers use irrigation water that does not comply to the standards for unrestricted irrigation, and recently have launched a campaign to stimulate farmers to change to less sensitive crops. Local Farmers The association of farmers is not organised strongly. Most farmers have their own interests. However, as they realise that part of the problems they face has somehow to do with the use of wastewater provided by SWC, they combined efforts to approach SWC to discuss their problems. They realise that they depend to a large extent on the provision of the wastewater by SWC, as rainfall is not sufficient to supply their crops and they lack the funds to buy fertilizers. However, when no measures are taken to reduce the levels of


[31]

pathogens, customers will be reluctant to buy locally produced food and increasingly will buy crops that have been imported. Thus, their major concern is how to improve their livelihoods and to sustain their families.

Assignments A grant is available for a project to improve the sanitation situation in Speranza. You will be divided into sub-groups. Each sub-group will represent one of the interest groups. During the workshop you have to work on the following assignments. These have to be presented both on paper and orally (if time allows, otherwise not all sub-groups will present each assignment).

Make a problem tree Make an objectives tree Carry out a stakeholders analysis Make a long list of options and select the best option (does it solve the problem, stakeholder

involvement, technology selection, financial sustainability) Starting [__________] afternoon each sub-group has to repeat all the assignments for a case you select yourselves. This will lead to the final proposal presentation and selection on [________].


Wastewater Management Training in the Northern Pacific ...

Documents

Transcript of Wastewater Management Training in the Northern Pacific ...