SMALL VILLAGES WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS PROGRAM (SVWTS): Final External Evaluation January 2013 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Social Impact. i Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 SMALL VILLAGES WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS PROGRAM (SVWTS): Final External Evaluation DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 This document is available in printed or online versions. Documents are also made available through the Development Experience Clearing House (http://dec.usaid.gov). Additional information can be obtained from Social Impact, Inc. 2300 Clarendon Boulevard Arlington, VA, 22201 Tel: (703) 465-1884 Fax: (703) 465-1888 info@socialimpact.com This document was submitted by Social Impact, Inc., to the United States Agency for International Development under USAID Contract No.: RAN-I-00-09-00019. iii Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International￾Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance ADS Automated Directives System AO Assistance Objective AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative AUB American University of Beirut BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOQ Bill of Quantities BWE Bekaa Water Establishment CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDM Smith Camp, Dresser, McKee and Wilbur Smith CIO Chief Information Officer CO Contracting Officer COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSO Civil Society Organizations DCOP Deputy Chief of Party DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DG Director General DO Development Objective DQA Data Quality Assessment ED Engineer’s Decision ED/CMC Engineer Design/Construction Management Contract EU European Union FY Fiscal Year (USAID Oct 1 to Sept 30) GIS Geographic Information System GOL Government of Lebanon IMF Independent Municipal Fund IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRG International Resources Group IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract LMU Lake Municipalities Union lps Liters per Second LRA Litani River Authority LRBMS Litani River Basin Management Support M3 Cubic Meters M3 /d Cubic Meters per Day iv Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 MAARD Modified Acquisition & Assistance Request Document M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MoIM Ministry of Interior & Municipalities MoE Ministry of Environment MoEW Ministry of Energy & Water NSWS 2012 National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector 2012, MoEW O&M Operations & Maintenance PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets PMP Performance Management Plan PMPL Performance Management Program for Lebanon PSV Project Site Visit SI Social Impact SOW Scope of Work SPS Standard Program Structure (the FACTS system) SVMTS Small Villages Waste Water Treatment Systems TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WTP Water Treatment Plant WW Waste Water WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant v Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8 II. SVWTS PROGRAM INFORMATION. ................................................................................. 8 PROJECT CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................8 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: ................................................................................................................. 13 CONTRACT AND CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS: ..................................................................... 15 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 17 PROJECT INTENDED RESULTS – PHASE II: ...................................................................................... 17 DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS .............................................................................................................. 17 CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 18 RESULTS FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................................... 19 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................................................................. 20 III. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION. ....................................................................................21 AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES ..................................................................................................... 22 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................... 22 IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHOD .........................................................................23 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ......................................................................................................... 23 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................................................................................. 23 METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................. 24 V. EVALUATION FINDINGS: ANSWERING THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......24 IMPACT: ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 SUSTAINABILITY: ...................................................................................................................................... 29 CLIENT SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 41 RELEVANCE: ............................................................................................................................................... 42 VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTIONS: .............................................................................................................. 43 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................44 VII. LESSONS LEARNED ...........................................................................................................44 VIII. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................46 ANNEXES ..........................................................................................................................................47 ANNEX A. PERSONS CONTACTED ................................................................................................. 48 ANNEX B. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 50 vi Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEX C. Wastewater Plants Investments Identified in the National Strategy 2012 .............. 53 ANNEX D. List of EU & Other Donors Wastewater Projects ....................................................... 58 ANNEX E. MoU between USAID and MoIM ....................................................................................... 60 ANNEX F. MoU between USAID and Municipalities ......................................................................... 65 ANNEX G. New Wastewater Tariff Strategy – GTZ ........................................................................ 70 List of Tables Table 1. Funded wastewater projects in 2001. .................................................................... 9 Table 2. List of 8 out of 16 municipalities selected for the Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems Project ............................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Investment Program for Inland Wastewater Systems ......................................... 12 Table 4. Donor funding for wastewater treatment facilities that are anticipated to come online by 2016................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5. CDM Design effluent criteria ............................................................................. 26 Table 6. Ablah WWTP - Water Quality Summary Data - AUB Lab Analysis ............... 26 Table 7. Recent, November 2012, daily effluent readings from the 3 WWTP ................. 27 Table 8. Plant capacity and 2012 influent flows .............................................................. 30 Table 9. Aitanit WWTP – O&M Financial Report ........................................................... 33 Table 10. Union of the Lake: Yearly Income & Sources ................................................. 34 Table 11. Fourzol WWTP – O&M Financial Report ....................................................... 35 Table 12. Fourzol Municipality 2012 Budget: Projected Yearly Income & Sources ....... 35 Table 13. Ablah Municipality 2012 Budget: Projected Yearly Income & Sources .......... 36 Table 14. De Jure and De Facto practices in wastewater management ............................ 40 1 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Acting under Mission Assistance Objective 4: “Improved water services for all in Lebanon”, and in recognition of the serious pollution problem occurring in the Litani watershed, USAID/Lebanon designed a project aimed at reducing the direct discharge of sewage into the Litani River. In coordination with other donors’ wastewater treatment infrastructure programs, and with a view to using low-cost, low maintenance, natural based sewage treatment technologies, USAID/Lebanon identified locations in the Upper Litani River Basin not currently served by wastewater treatment facilities as the best target for use of development funds that would support Mission objectives. The proposed project, called the Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems (SVWTS) project, identified municipalities and unions of municipalities in the West and North Bekaa regions. Municipalities, rather than the Water Establishments, were seen as the target government institutions that had the means to operate and maintain the constructed facilities to the benefit of their constituents. The Government of Lebanon and the participating municipalities were engaged in the project through Memoranda of Understanding that described the responsibilities and duties of the signatories. Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM)1 was awarded the SVWTS Project under Contract #: 268-C-00- 05-00066. The project was designed in two Phases. Phase I (October 2004 - November 2005) was the facility design phase where alternative infrastructure configurations that met the design criteria were compared and a final design selected. Phase II (October 2005 – August 2012) was the construction and commissioning phase and included an “Advise & Assist” stage designed to gradually transition the operation of the plants to the participating municipalities. The available budget for Phase II was $18,041,628. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for the Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems project requested an end of project evaluation to be limited to Phase II of the project implementation, focusing mainly on issues of sustainability, and recommendations for future projects in the sector. Subsequently, the Performance Management Program for Lebanon (PMPL) was requested to develop the scope of work (SOW) for the final evaluation of the project. The resulting Evaluation SOW is referenced in Annex B. The proposed suggested objectives of the evaluation were: 1. Analyzing the extent of achievement of the program objectives of mitigation of pollution at the Litani River 2. Evaluating the outcomes and impact of the program. 3. Documenting successes, challenges, and lessons learned. 4. Providing recommendations for USAID on any possible enhancements of the current program, specifically enhancement of its sustainability. 5. Providing recommendations for USAID for any future programs of the same or similar nature. 1 In 2012 CDM merged with Wilbur Smith to become CDM Smith 2 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 The final evaluation questions answered were: Evaluation Questions Question Category Question or Issue to be Addressed Findings of this evaluation Impact  Explain the results and net impacts of the activities undertaken, and infrastructure built identifying any unintended impacts.  Where results were not met, identify why not and provide recommendations for strengthening the development strategy.  Pollutants entering the Litani River have been reduced.  The number of people envisioned to be covered by the project was limited due in part to the fact that some communities were not able to extend networks as expected. Sustainability  What are the prospects for sustainability of the end results produced by SVWTS?  What identified results appear to be less sustainable and why?  Was the scale of the project (i.e., three WWTP, number of municipal staff trained) appropriate to ensure sustainability?  Sustainable O&M of the WWTP by the municipalities is precarious as paying for it is not fee-based and currently relies on budget transfers.  Municipalities have not been able to provide candidate plant operators who could have been trained by CDM. This remains a challenge.  The scale of the project is appropriate for small villages not associated with larger treatment plants where sewer networks are available or can be provided along with the treatment plant. Client Satisfaction  Determine if the benefactor’s (the municipalities served) needs were met, and if not what wasn’t met and how can that be corrected?  Municipal leaders confirmed their overall satisfaction with the project and partnership with USAID through CDM contractors. Relevance  How relevant is the SVWTS to the GOL short, middle and long term National Wastewater Management Strategic Plan?  A list of all of USAID’s contribution to the wastewater sector is presented in the recent National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector. How the smaller plants such as those constructed under SVWTS relate to the overall wastewater strategy going forward is not specified. The strategy stresses completion of the larger treatment plants and the networks that connect to them. Validity of the hypothesis and assumptions  Is the original WWTP physical plant design and the use of the MoU with the Municipalities to ensure sustained plant operation still valid?  The physical plant design remains valid for small villages with limited means. Some modifications mentioned in this report can be made to further reduce costs.  The current legal framework for the operation and ownership of wastewater treatment plants suggests that other legally binding agreements may not be possible and that use of an MoU is the most viable option. The MoU was confirmed by the 3 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Council of Ministers and published in the official gazette.  The recent National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector refers to municipalities being delegated by the WE to operate facilities. Findings:  Phase I of the project identified locations and designs for waste water treatment plants in the Upper Litani River Basin. Sixteen municipalities comprising 101,000 people were identified as potential beneficiaries for the construction of 7 waste water treatment plants. Phase II of the project, under a separate contract, was to construct the treatment plants. The number of plants to be constructed was not specified, but was to be determined by the willingness and ability of the communities to support the construction. This resulted in the selection of 4 WWTP to be constructed. However, one of the four communities, Chmistar, was not able to secure land for the construction and was dropped. As a consequence 3 wastewater treatment plants serving 20,350 persons in 8 municipalities were constructed.  The 3 constructed wastewater treatment plants were fully commissioned, and upon Tests on Completion for 30 consecutive days certifying that the performance of each WWTP was in compliance with design criteria and environmental standards, they were handed over to the municipalities. All 3 plants are currently in operation. However, at least one of them was shut down for an extended period of time because of electricity shortages (a recurrent phenomenon in Lebanon) and lack of funds to purchase fuel for the generator, which suggests that this might happen again.  The project was successful in mitigating pollution reaching the Litani River. This is indicated by the volume of sludge removed from the digesters at the treatment plants, and by water quality measurements comparing influent and effluent characteristics. Specifically, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was increased, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) reduced, and settleable solids effectively removed. Nevertheless, the impact of these three small wastewater treatment plants on the overall levels of pollution in the Litani River would be undetected by river monitoring stations. However, Government and donor agencies are committed to the waste water sector. By 2015, seven other wastewater treatment plants in the Litani Basin are said to become operational and improved water quality in the Litani River should then be detectable.  Implementing a sewer network protection and repair program to prevent excessive inflow, such as storm water, and debris from entering the system was part of the responsibility of the Municipalities under the Memorandum of Understanding signed with USAID. Excessive infiltration of storm water into the sewer during the rainy season forces the treatment facility to treat more influent than is necessary. It results in less efficient plant operation and can overload the system. Excessive flows can lead to untreated effluent bypassing treatment and reaching the Litani River. Some municipalities have not yet implemented a sewer network protection and repair system. 4 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  Expansion of the sewer network to Niha and repair of Nabi Alya network is a Municipal responsibility under the MoU, but this work has not yet started. Areas not yet covered by a sewer network are served by septic tanks or simple cesspits that are pumped out by septic tank pumper trucks that often dump their waste directly into the river (although they are encouraged to dump their waste at special waste receiving stations within the WWTP). Fourzol has now repaired its network and the results of this are seen in the tests taken at the plant. When networks are extended and maintained then pollutant reduction in the Litani River is further enhanced.  The treatment plants remain vulnerable to blockages of the sewer lines. This occurred in Aitanit and in Ablah when farmers broke the line or blocked it in order to irrigate their fields with the untreated sewage water. Awareness raising and policing are needed to prevent this from re-occurring.  Under the auspices of GIZ, a working group consisting of the 4 WE Directors General and 2 Directors from the Ministry of Water and Energy agreed that consumption-based tariffs for water supply together with newly introduced wastewater tariffs are required. All participants confirmed that existing regulations generally permit the introduction of a new tariff system. The National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector promotes full cost recovery by 2020 based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle.  Water quality tests are specified in the O&M manuals for each of the 3 plants. Completing these tests is an important way to monitor plant performance. Thus far the results of measurements are kept internally and not subject to oversight and review by any external authority. Phosphates and Nitrates, pollutants associated with health hazards, are not currently monitored.  Less sewage is reaching the plants than planned, but there is sufficient plant capacity to handle intended network expansion.  Due to the government freeze on employment, the staff at the three facilities are hired and paid as daily workers. This staffing arrangement managed to overcome the municipalities’ barrier to hiring plant operators but failed to provide the appropriate employment social security and benefits hence, could possibly affect the plants’ long term management sustainability.  Yearly service maintenance contract agreements for plants’ equipment (generator, pumps, and control panels) are not yet in place for the Aitanit plant. Fourzol is already covered by a maintenance agreement and Ablah equipment is still under warranty.  A financial analysis of the three municipalities and union of municipality showed that all were capable of covering the O&M costs and seemed to be willing to do so, but remain vulnerable to external funding source availability. Fourzol is the most vulnerable to possible short falls in the necessary budget. The establishment of user fees would do much to ensure long term sustainability. 5 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  Unions of Municipalities currently is a ‘more sustainable financial partner’ for the implementation and operations of wastewater treatment plants with USAID than individual municipalities because of their higher income and financial resources.  The MoIM committee did not fully deliver on their role and responsibilities as signed in the MOU with USAID to support selected municipalities “for all legal and procedural actions needed for the success of this activity.” Participating municipalities are still working to secure funds for the implementation of sewer network protection and repair, construction of new sewers and connection lines and most importantly funding for O&M costs. Various initiatives in the form of draft laws are still being discussed to resolve these O&M issues.  In spite of the financial burden of the O&M cost and challenges for operating the WWTPs, interviewed municipal leaders confirmed their municipality’ and union’s ability and willingness to operate the wastewater treatment plants.  An interview with BWE General Director established the WE inability and unwillingness to manage the three USAID WWTPs. BWE inability is due to the Water Establishment’s lack of funds and appropriately trained staff. Moreover, the financial burden of operating the WWTPs will not be offset, according to the Director, by additional income from wastewater treatment tariffs especially in the Beka’a valley where collection rates for water are comparatively low.  The limited awareness and restricted engagement of the ‘large base’ of the SVWTS project’s beneficiaries meant that there was limited citizen reaction to incidents that affected project’s implementation such as breaking the sewer network and diverting sewage flow to irrigate farms in Mashghara; dumping solid waste in the Litani River bed at the effluent outlet of the WWTP in Fourzol; contamination of raw sewage with residues from olive presses thus hampering plants’ biological treatment processes … etc. In our opinion, these constraints should have been addressed with awareness raising activities, enhanced coordination with and direct engagement of the local population to run in parallel to project infrastructure development.  The National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector (NSWS 2012)2 supports the polluter pays principle for full recovery of O&M costs. The strategy confirms the role of the municipalities as acceptable operators of wastewater assets, supports the economic use of effluent and sludge, encourages private sector participation in the sector, and supports legal, regulatory and policy measures that inter alia would establish responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement. Recommendations:  Reduce energy costs/consumption at the plants: o Reduce the number of trickle filter blowers. 2 The Ministry of Energy and Water, National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector (2012) became available to the evaluators only in January 2013. References to the Strategy were added following submission of the first draft of the report. 6 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 o Reduce the size of the generators.  Assist in developing municipal policy that encourages septic tank pumper trucks to deposit septic waste at the plant septage receiving stations. Impose fines for violators.  Assist municipalities to develop a policy for use/disposal of dried sludge from the drying beds.  Policy development for the measurement of wastewater treatment plant effluent to be discharged into the Litani River. Define different agency’s responsibility. For the three plants this may best be the Litani River Authority who already see this as part of their future role and responsibility. This has been encouraged under the USAID funded Litani River Basin Management Support (LRBMS) project. The LRBMS could be requested to determine how best to implement this policy. Part of the effluent monitoring should include measurement of Total P and Total N because, according to recent research cited in this evaluation , the main concern for pollutants in the Litani River comes from Nitrates and Phosphates which have leached into underlying aquifers well beyond permissible concentrations.  Support the wastewater tariff discussion and implementation. Introducing user-based tariffs is the best long-term solution for WWTP O&M sustainability and expansion and is now supported by the NSWS 2012.  Support awareness raising in the Upper Litani aimed at increasing the number of water rate payers as this is linked to proposed wastewater tariff collection schemes. The Litani Water & Wastewater Sector Support (LWWSS) project has initiated awareness raising campaigns achieving positive results, and this can be encouraged.  The municipalities and union of municipalities appear to be the best option for operation of small scale WWTP and their engagement for this task should be continued. In general, support for decentralization of wastewater treatment plant operation should be encouraged based on the experience gained from SVWTS.  The source for training of wastewater treatment operators is not apparent. This should be supported through technical education opportunities. Many new treatment plants will come on line in the coming years that will require trained operators. Lessons Learned:  To assess the financial and administrative soundness of the partners before committing USAID resources. The situation of municipal, water establishment and ministerial finances and their ability to provide adequate staffing for a project or initiative is complex in the Lebanese context. Understanding this or preparing for uncertainty might avoid or mitigate the brinksmanship that caused the Fourzol plant to be inoperative for several months. 7 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  To undertake awareness-raising campaigns in parallel with infrastructure development. Awareness raising can mitigate diversion of sewage to irrigate fields and the indiscriminate dumping of sewage into the Litani River.  To assess the entire sewer system as a condition for investment. The sewer network serving the Aitanit plant was at one point broken by farmers to divert sewage to their fields. The Niha and Nabi Alya municipalities were to construct sewer networks to connect with the Ablah plant, but have not yet done so. The Fourzol municipality, however, did complete needed repairs.  The USAID project design was too ambitious and initially envisioned the construction of 7 treatment plants reaching 101,000 people or 29% of the Upper Litani River basin’s population. By the end of the project 20,350 persons were connected to the 3 completed treatment plants. While the reduced number of constructed WWTP can be explained, it creates the impression that targets were not achieved. Preferably, the number of WWTP to be constructed should have been specified during Phase I and the commitments from the communities obtained at that time.  Union of Municipalities affords a financially more reliable partner for USAID investments in waste water projects than individual municipalities due to possible economies of scale in treatment processes, and second due to the larger revenues at their disposal compared to individual municipalities.  The Memoranda of Understanding is a viable legal framework that certifies the Lebanese government’s willingness through the MoIM, Union and Municipalities- to achieve the common purpose stated in the MoU. However, the MoU does not cover the financial ways and means –capacity- to deliver on these commitments. In light of the government’s past and current budgetary issues, more specifics on the financial process by which this support will be realized has to be included in future agreement mechanisms. Other donors have provided project funding to cover 2-3 years of forecast O&M costs; this strategy may simply be kicking the can down the road as the resolution to covering O&M costs must come through user-based revenue.  Wastewater projects entail costs for operation and maintenance of infrastructure and equipment that goes beyond the construction and commissioning phase. Future studies of wastewater projects would be inclusive of the long term ‘sustainable sources’ by which these costs should be covered. Such means can be legal such as levying wastewater treatment tariffs (draft law under process) or raising voluntary contributions from the local population as is the case in Qsarnaba for wastewater treatment or Baaloul for networks construction.  To assess the entire sewer system and industrial pollution sources as a condition for investment. Sewer networks and wastewater treatment plants are technically considered as one unit of treatment. For the SVWTS, assessment of the network occurred after the commitment to construct the WWTP. Assessment of the network was possibly assumed not to be necessary as this was a responsibility of the municipalities under the MoU. The ability of the municipality or union to meet this responsibility was not assessed. 8 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 I. INTRODUCTION A final external evaluation was requested for the Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems (SVWTS) project (October 2004 – August 2012) by the project Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). This is a project final performance evaluation as described in the USAID Evaluation Policy. “A performance evaluation focuses on descriptive and normative questions: what a particular project or program has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period); how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and to answer other questions that are pertinent to future program design, management and operational decision making.” II. SVWTS PROGRAM INFORMATION. PROJECT CONTEXT From the Contract 268-C-05-00-00066-00 Section C – Description/ Specifications/ Statement of Work: “The Litani River and Lake Quaraoun are among the most important freshwater resources in Lebanon. The river has a length of 170 Km and an average discharge rate of 770 Million Cubic Meters (m3 ) per year. Groundwater reserves, estimated at a total of 104 m3 per year, are relatively low and at a shallow depth. The surface and groundwater resources in the river basin provide drinking water to more than 350,000 persons in more than 161 communities and serve as a fundamental component of the Bekaa Valley's agricultural and industrial sectors. Lake Quaraoun has a storage capacity of 220 m3 of which 160 m3 is considered as active storage for irrigation and hydroelectricity, while the remainder is used for storage through the dry season.” Flow in the river ranges between 14.2 m3 /second during the wet season to about 4.4 m3 /second in the dry season3 . The river basin, covering 15% of Lebanon, lies entirely within the Lebanese territory and efficient and sustainable management of the river basin's water resources is a national priority. The principal management agencies of the Litani River Basin are the Litani River Authority (LRA) and the Ministry of Energy and Water (MoEW). LRA is responsible for surface and groundwater resources in the Litani Basin and includes the initiation and management of irrigation, potable water, and electricity generation projects. Inter alia, the LRA monitors water quality in the Litani River Basin. The MoEW, through the Bekaa Water Establishment (BWE), is responsible for wastewater and potable water management. The National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector noted the dysfunction of the sector: “Water Establishments lack the autonomy, technical capacity and financial resources to improve service standards. Despite massive investment, very little wastewater is being treated, causing severe environmental damage. The investment program has been poorly coordinated, and reforms to transfer institutional and financial responsibility for wastewater management to the WE have been only very partially implemented.” 3 K. Khair, N. Aker, F. Haddad, M. Jurdi, and A. Hachach, Environmental Status in Lebanon, Part I: Natural Factors. National Action Program, Beirut, Lebanon, 1994 9 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 The Litani watershed suffers from a serious water pollution problem. This is mainly caused by lack of domestic wastewater treatment, agro-chemical contamination, and uncontrolled solid waste and industrial waste disposal. This situation has caused negative water-use impacts on public health, the environment, and socio-economic development. According to the project contract description, more than 92% of the summer samples from the Litani River and its tributaries show total and fecal coliform levels exceeding the Ministry of Environment (MoE) guidelines for domestic use; further, 77% and 38% of summer samples of groundwater wells exceed the MoE drinking water standards for total and fecal coliforms respectively. 4 The Ministry of Health reports more than 1,500 cases per year of water-related illnesses in the Upper Litani watershed. The costs of these illnesses are estimated to be between $250 and $1,900 per case suggesting a total cost of more than $375,000 to $475,000 per year while the average per capita yearly income in the region is $800. The Government of Lebanon through the National Wastewater Management Strategic Plan developed a Wastewater Master Plan in 1982 which was updated in 1994, and again in 2012.5 The 1994 Master Plan identified 11 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) catchment areas for treating domestic wastewater in the region and which were to be owned and operated by BWE. BWE however, lacks the financial and human resources for construction and management of the WWTP facilities. By 2002, the USAID funded Lebanon Environmental Program Assessment Report noted that 25 waste water treatment plants outside the greater Beirut area were funded and were either being implemented or were in the project preparation stage (see Table 1 below), citing the CDR progress report of March, 2001.6 Eight of the 25 were funded projects in the Upper Litani River Basin region (i.e., Baalbek, Zahle and West Bekaa area). Table 1. Funded wastewater projects in 2001. Caza Location/Name Source of Funding Implementation Status Under Execution Under Preparation No Funding Secured Akkar Jebrayal None so far X Abdeh None so far X Michmich Italian Protocol X Minieh-Dinnieh Bakhoun Italian Protocol X Tripoli Tripoli None so far X Becharre Becharre None so far X Hasroun None so far X Koura Amioun None so far X Batroun Chikka French Protocol X Batroun French Protocol X 4 Mark Saadeh, Lucy Semerjian, and Nabil Amacha (January 2012), “Physicochemical Evaluation of the Upper Litani River Watershed, Lebanon,” The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, Article ID 462467, 8 pages, doi:10.1100/2012/462467. This recent study noted that “…A Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) simulation model shows that the current practice of discharging untreated sewage into the river system is already causing a wide-scale pollution that escalates to an alarmingly hazardous state during drier times, which last for the longer part of the year, and possibly for several years in a row during drought spells.” 5 Ministry of Energy and Water, Lebanese Government (Resolution No. 35, Date 17/10/2012), National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector. 6 Ecodit (August 2002), Lebanon Environmental Program, Assessment Report, Final Report, prepared for USAID/Lebanon under Task Order No. LAG-I-00-99-00017-00. 10 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Jbeil Jbeil French Protocol X Kartaba Italian Protocol X Kesrouane Khanchara None so far X Harajel Italian Protocol X Kesrouane/Tabarja None so far X Metn Dora None so far X Aley Ghadir None so far X Chouf Chouf coastal area French Protocol X Mazraat el Chouf French Protocol X South Saida Japan X Sour None so far X Hermel Hermel Italian Protocol X Baalbeck Laboue IBRD X Yammouneh Lebanon X Baalbeck IBRD X Zahle Zahle Italian Protocol X Aanjar/Marj Italian Protocol X West Bekaa Joub Jennine/Deir Thih IDB X Qaroun Italian Protocol X Sohmor/Yohmor IDB X Hasbaya Hasbaya Italian Protocol X Nabatiyeh Jbaa Italian Protocol X Nabatiyeh French Protocol X Bint Jbeil Shakra Italian Protocol X Bint Jbeil Italian Protocol X USAID launched the Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems in 2 phases: Phase I (October 2004 – November 2005) to identify the most suitable design for small WWTP facilities and propose construction schedules for a number of project sites agreed with USAID/Lebanon; and Phase 2 (October 2005 – August 2012) to build a number of WWTPs in select communities in the Upper Litani River Basin based on the 100% design7 documents prepared in Phase 1. Phase 2 had a budget of $18,041,628. At the start of Phase 2, the project identified and selected 16 candidate municipalities8 to be served by 7 WWTPs. The treatment facilities were prioritized in order of population served starting with the largest population to effectively utilize economies of scale. In some cases, wastewater from several villages was to be combined and treated at a single facility based on existing interconnections between the village sewer networks. The 7 selected plant sites are listed in Table 2. The 3 sites ultimately selected are highlighted. Table 2. List of 8 out of 16 municipalities selected for the Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems Project Village Proposed Plant 2006 Population* Caza 7 The 100% rule states that the work breakdown structure includes 100% of the work defined by the project scope and captures all deliverables – internal, external, interim – in terms of the work to be completed, including project management. 8 The selection of municipalities was based on the following criteria: • Population less than 15,000. • Located within the Bekaa Valley north of Lake Qaroun and south of Baalbek. • Currently discharge untreated wastewater that ultimately flows to the Litani River. • Not covered in other currently funded ongoing or proposed wastewater programs. 11 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 1. Ablah 2. Nabi Ayla 3. Niha A. Ablah 9,480 Zahle 3. Chmistar B. Chmistar 8,030 Baalbek 4. El Marj C. El Matj 14,500 Zahle 5. El Fourzol D. Fourzol 5,000 Zahle 6. Qaraoun 7. Machghara 8. Baaloul 9. Aitanit E. Machghara 22,090 West Bekaa West Bekaa West Bekaa West Bekaa 10. Rayak 11. Ali En Nahri 12. Haouch Hala 13. Haret El Fikani 14. Massa F. Rayak 21,130 Zahle Zahle Zahle Zahle Zahle 15. Anjar 16. Majdel Anjar G. Anjar 21,000 Zahle Total : 16 villages Total: 7 Plants Total: 101,230 Zahle The National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector - 20129 The preface to the NSWS 2012 details the grim reality of the wastewater sector today, and the grave problem that is faced. Current situation of the wastewater sector (2012) “Along the coast, much of the planned large scale capacity has been constructed, but little of it is operational. Of the twelve large treatment plants planned on the coast to service 65% of the population, seven are completed (Tripoli, Chekka, Batroun, Jbeil, Ghadir, Nabi Younes and Saida), one is under construction (Sour), three are under preparation (Aabde, Kesrwane, and Bourj Hammoud), and one require funding (Sarafand). However, to date only two plants (Ghadir and Saida) are operational based on preliminary treatment only.and five completed plants lack collection networks (Tripoli, Chekka, Batroun, Jbeil, and Nabi Younes). Inland, only two medium-sized collection and treatment schemes are operating - and well below capacity. Of the 42 medium sized collection and treatment schemes planned, 23 are funded. However, only two are operating, and way below design capacity (Baalbek 10%, and Yamouneh 50%). Two plants (Nabatiye and West Beqaa) are completed but not operating. Five (Kfarsir, Yahmour, Zawtar, Tibnine and Zahle) are under construction and 14 plants are under design. A further investment of $255 million is required to bring all 23 plants into operation. The remaining 19 schemes are not funded at all and would require $325 million. In addition, around 60 small treatment plants have been constructed inland by municipalities through donor funding without coordination with MoEW or CDR. Today, only a few of these plants are operational, and considerable further investment would be needed for them to operate adequately and to cover all rural areas. As a result of these investments, about two thirds of the population are connected to wastewater collection networks but only 8% of wastewater reaches the four operational plants (Saida, Ghadir, Baalbeck and Yammouneh) and is treated. Wastewater collection networks have been conceived and executed piecemeal, leading to a major mismatch between collection and treatment capacity. Considerable installed treatment capacity is lying idle. Seven major plants (Tripoli, Chekka, Batroun, Jbeil, Nabi Younes, West Beqaa and Nabatiye) are not working at all because of lack of networks. 9 The national strategy breaks out coastal wastewater systems investments where a total of $648,000,000 in funding is already available, but another $1,115,000,000 is needed. 12 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 With this background the NSWS 2012 identifies 42 treatment plants in its investment program for inland wastewater treatment systems that includes systems in the Bekaa region. Twenty-three of these plants are partly funded and 19 are currently unfunded. For completion of the inland wastewater investment plan $260,610,000 is available, while $577,810,000 is needed to complete the investment plan. Table 4 below provides details of needed investments. It is noteworthy that annual O&M costs have been identified. Table 3. Investment Program for Inland Wastewater Systems10 WE Zone Number of Plants Equivalent Population (000s) Funds required to complete partly funded schemes (Million USD) Requirements for unfunded schemes (Million USD) O&M costs of treatment (Million USD) Partly funded Unfunded Partly funded Unfunded Already funded Not yet funded Not yet funded Annual average at full operation (per scheme) North Lebanon 4 141 37.00 25.38 0.24 6 210 98.13 Total North 10 351 37.00 123.51 BML 6 116 39.40 22.88 0.28 5 153 79.91 Total BML 11 269 39.40 102.79 South Lebanon 6 260 42.50 53.65 0.52 6 176 93.47 Total South Leb. 12 436 42.50 147.12 Beqaa 7 803 141.71 153.39 0.13 2 118 51.00 Total Beqaa 9 921 141.71 204.39 TOTAL 23 1,320 . 260.61 255.30 0.29 for treatment + 0.20 for 19 657 322.51 GRAND 42 1977 260.61 577.81 “Note: For budget purposes, it is assumed that: (1) all schemes that are currently partly funded will be funded and completed and will become operational by 2015; (2) all schemes that are currently unfunded will be implemented 2013- 2020. (3) It is estimated that remaining areas not covered by the identified schemes would require around 500 million US$ and will be implemented 2013 - 2020., (4) Out of the available 260.61 million US$ funds, 39.0 million US$ are already disbursed.” Details of existing and needed investments from the NSWS 2012 are presented in the tables of Annex C. The NSWS 2012 includes a list of all the USAID funded WWTP. However, the USAID projects, including the SVWTS plants are not well integrated into the strategy. The National Strategy says of the small treatment plants that “around 60 small treatment plants have been constructed inland by municipalities through donor funding without coordination with MoEW or CDR. Today, only a few of these plants are operational, and considerable further investment would be needed for them to operate adequately and to cover all rural areas.” New projects and donor commitment – a changing context Since the SVWTS award the project context has evolved reflecting continuing donor interest in the wastewater sector. Table 4 shows the value of donor funded wastewater projects by region reported by the EU Water Coordination Group in February 2012. Based on the EU list (Annex D) total 10 National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector, page 13 (table and table note). 13 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 donor commitment for wastewater infrastructure and services exceeds €500,000,000 (projects are denominated in $ or in €). It was beyond the scope of this evaluation to reconcile the donor list in Annex D of projects with those of the National Strategy in Annex C. The point to be made is that there seems to be significant funding available to address development of the wastewater sector. Table 4. Donor funding for wastewater treatment facilities that are anticipated to come online by 2016 Region value of commitment South Lebanon € 67,648,971 Mount Lebanon € 196,156,007 Beirut € 76,200,000 Bekaa $61,000,000 North Lebanon € 158,105,945 Lebanon-wide in € € 22,943,391 Lebanon-wide in $ $5,100,000 Total € 521,054,314 $66,100,000 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: USAID sought the services of an engineering company to construct approved WWTPs, provide construction management services, commission these units, and provide necessary training for operation and maintenance to operators selected by the municipalities and BWE. CDM Smith was awarded the contract (#: 268-C-00-05-00066). Scope of the Project: The Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems Phase II Project is fully funded by USAID and had two primary objectives:  Assist selected Bekaa Municipalities in addressing uncontrolled discharges of untreated domestic wastewater into the Upper Litani River Basin by providing them with viable treatment systems and designs for their domestic wastewater discharges in the Litani River; and  Assist the selected Bekaa Municipalities in establishing domestic wastewater treatment facilities based on those designs. During Phase 1, the project completed detailed design drawings, technical specifications, bills of quantities, and proposed construction schedules for seven selected projects agreed with USAID/Lebanon. The small plants are traditional natural treatment plants, based on a standard US design that was well tested and reliable. Seven sites were selected for funding under Phase II. Construction and commissioning 14 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Phase 2 of the project provided for the construction of 4 WWTPs out of the 7 selected under Phase 1: at Aitanit, Fourzol, Ablah and Chmistar. However, the proposed plant at Chmistar was later dropped because the community was not able to provide the land needed to construct the facility and only the 3 remaining WWTPs were eventually constructed. Phase 2 included three stages: construction, commissioning and advise & assist training of local staff. A Defects Liability Period of four months coincided with the Tests on Completion of the Commissioning Stage (one month) and the Advise and Assist Stage (three months). During the Commissioning Stage, CDM operated the facilities for a period of 3 months and was fully responsible for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the plants during that period. The Commissioning Stage included two main activities: Start-Up Testing and Tests on Completion. The purpose of the Start Up Testing is to expose any flaws or defects in workmanship, equipment, or materials that were not previously discovered and correct them. At the end of the Commissioning Stage CDM conducted the Tests on Completion for 30 consecutive days certifying that the performance of each WWTP meets the design and operational requirements specified in the contract. This was completed for all three plants. Advise and Assist During the Advise and Assist Stage municipal operators were trained by CDM on O&M. These trainings are documented in the project’s 4 “O&M Advise & Assist Progress Reports.”11 The trainees were to operate the WWTPs under the supervision of, and with the assistance of, CDM for a period of 3 months. The Advise and Assist Stage began with the completion of the Commissioning Stage. The Advise & Assist stage was extended from the original 3 months to 12 months for the Aitanit and Fourzol WWTPs, and 9 months for the Ablah WWTP under contract modification #3. Plant design overview The construction stage began in October 2005 and the CDM Smith technical team was fully responsible for the construction of three wastewater treatment facilities according to the approved designs. The small plants being constructed were traditional natural treatment plants, using a design mainly found in the USA. The plants include primary and secondary treatment: The plant utilizes fixed film biological treatment in a trickle down aerated tower and anaerobic digester tanks for treating the sludge. The anaerobic action kills the bacteria by reducing the amount of oxygen available. Assessment of networks was added later On April 28, 2010, USAID added a task to do an assessment for the sewer collection system in five villages around Aitanit WWTP, namely: Qaraoun, Mashghara, Aitanit, Baaloul, and Lala. This study was completed in August 2010, but this activity is not covered in this evaluation. 12 11 These reports were discontinued after Report 4 issued in June 2010 although the Advise & Assist stage continued until the end of the project. 12 The sequence of this assessment is unusual as an assessment of this type would be of more benefit if it informed the design of the project. 15 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 On December 22, 2011, USAID amended the SVWTS phase II contract to include additional enhancement works for the three built WWTPs. The main activity of this contract modification was the construction of additional sludge drying beds (approx. 2,000 m2 ) at Fourzol WWTP in order to accept some of the generated wet sludge from the Ablah WWTP. Contracting for the construction of the plants The first two treatment plants at Aitani and Fourzol, were constructed under the concepts of Construction at Risk and Management at Risk. The third plant at Ablah, was done directly under CDM Smith management. To do this CDM needed to change staffing. The role of the local contractors was reduced, but local contractors were still used: for example the construction of sludge drying beds in Fourzol used local contractors to build the forming that was directly supervised by a CDM on-site construction manager. In addition, the municipalities and union of municipalities had signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with USAID which stated specific tasks to be completed by the municipalities who were also involved in the periodic review of the construction progress. All three facilities were handed over to the municipal authorities. Responsibilities of the municipalities under Memoranda of Understanding USAID signed separate MOUs with MoIM and the municipalities which defined the responsibilities of each party (Annexes E and F). Specifically, the municipalities were responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities once they were handed over, and expected to make a contribution towards making the treatment plant system operational including:  Provide suitable land for the plant  Provide required building permits for the plant Perform preliminary site clearing and access for the survey crew and geological investigation  Provide site fencing and non-process buildings such as offices, laboratory, and guard house as designed by the consultant  Provide permanent site access as designed by the consultant  Agreement to take on full responsibility for long-term plant (O&M)  Implement a program to repair leaks in the existing wastewater network and pipelines to reduce inflow of surface water  Construct wastewater interceptor pipelines designed by the consultant  Remove industrial wastewater contribution to the municipal sewer network if the consultant advises that the industrial wastewater will harm the WWTP intended for domestic wastewater13 CONTRACT AND CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS: 13 What would the municipalities do with the industrial waste? This waste should be treated separately and then redirected to the WWTP. Other possible solutions could have been investigated. 16 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Baseline Contract Agreement: Phase II of the Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems (SVWTS) project provides for the construction of WWTPs based on the 100% design documents prepared through Phase I. Phase II was implemented using a single program management contract team over a period of 24 months with a six month optional period. USAID anticipated a total budget of $9.85 million which included both program management and construction costs. The construction of the WWTP facilities was to have been through the competitive procurement of local subcontractors for construction and equipment/materials procurement. Design, construction, and maintenance and operation training of the treatment plants was funded by USAID while the maintenance and operation of the facilities upon completion of the project was to be transferred to the beneficiary municipalities “until such time that the BWE has the institutional capacity to take over the operation.”14 The goal of the USAID-funded SVWTS project was to construct the maximum amount of wastewater treatment systems serving the largest population allowable under the funding available for the project. With the 7 WWTPs initially approved, Phase II was to provide wastewater treatment service to around 101,000 people, 29% of Upper Litani River Basin population. However, since only 3 WWTPs were executed (43% of original target), the population served was estimated at 20,35015 or 20% of the original target. Contract Modifications: During the life of the project there were significant modifications to the duration and scale of the project. Contract Modification #2, date?: variation in construction of Aitanit WWTP to include sludge drying beds as requested by LRA. Contract Modification #3, date?: considers how a 4th plant is to be constructed, extends the Advise and Assist duration from 3 months to 12 months at Aitanit and Fourzol and to 9 months at Ablah. Extends the Phase II implementation period from 24 to 69 months. Contract Modification #5, date?: clarifies provisions for the construction of a 3rd and 4th WWTP and explains the extension of the ‘advise and assist’ stage of the project. Contract Modification #6, date?: reduces from 4 to 3 the number of WWTP that are to be constructed, and adds an assessment of the sewer network in and around Aitanit to the contract.16 14 However, it was not stated in the MoU with MoIM that facilities would be taken over by the BWE. 15 SVWTS Progress Report #34, July 2012, reported under performance indicator 1 “Number of people in target areas connected to functioning wastewater treatment facilities as a result of USG assistance” that Aitanit served 11,000, Fourzol 3,000, and Ablah 6,350 people. 16 The objective for contract modification 6 notes that “The purpose of the assessment is to collect all necessary data related to the existing sewer networks in the villages of Aitanit, Mashghara, Qaroun, Baaloul and Lala, and to develop the necessary scope of work and the anticipated cost required to have all of the above mentioned five villages connected to the Aitanit WWTP.” Logically this should have been done in preparation for the project design, not after it had begun. As was seen later a breakdown of the network reduced the number of beneficiaries, and at one point (July to August 2009) there was no influent entering the plant at all. 17 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Contract Modification #9, date?: defines SOW for expansion of sludge drying beds at Ablah. The Advise & Assist stage at Fourzol is extended until the end of the project. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT The institutional context for the implementation of the project is described in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between, on one hand, USAID/Lebanon and the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (MoIM-USAID MOU), and on the other hand, between USAID and the individual municipalities served by the project (Annexes E and F). These MOU define the roles and responsibilities of each party. Among others, MoIM is tasked with coordinating with national stakeholders to ensure project success, such as report on progress, request assistance from the proper ministries, and provide the selected municipalities with support for legal and procedural actions needed. As to the beneficiary municipalities, their responsibilities included facilitating the construction of the WTTPs, taking on full responsibility for the WTTPs O&M once handed over, constructing and maintaining sewer networks, ensuring compliance with environmental standards and regulations, etc. The BWE does not seem to have been involved in the discussions or signing of the MOUs. It was only mentioned in the MOU signed between USAID and the municipalities, through naming BWE as one possible specialized public establishment that could take over O&M responsibility for the WWTPs in case the municipalities were not able to do so. The MoEW was also not a party to any MoU. The project did not coordinate with the CDR, which implements virtually all of the WWTP in Lebanon. PROJECT INTENDED RESULTS – PHASE II: Within the $18,041,628 budget the project was expected to: Construction  Provide engineering to enhance the constructability of the selected WWTPs;  Procure equipment and materials  Construct approved wastewater treatment plants (Aitanit, Fourzol, and Ablah)17 ; Advise & Assist  Train municipal operators to operate and maintain the constructed wastewater treatment plants, as a measure of institutional capacity building toward sustainability. The periods for the Advise& Assist Stages are as follows: o 12-months for Aitanit & Fourzol WWTPs; and o 9-months for Ablah WWTP  Conduct a sewer collection system assessment study for five villages around Aitanit WWTP. The subject villages are: Qaraoun, Mashghara, Aitanit, Baaloul, and Lala. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS No development hypothesis was specifically stated in the project work plan or performance management plan (PMP). However, one of the arguments put forward in favor of the design of the 17 A 4th plant at Chmistar was originally included. 18 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 SVWTS plants was that they use natural treatments and processes to purify sewerage bringing the final effluent into compliance with Lebanese water quality standards (and EPA standards) before discharging it into the Litani River. The design does not use expensive treatments and chemicals and hence has lower operations and maintenance costs. This aspect of the design should make it an attractive solution for other municipalities in the Litani River basin. Proxy hypotheses are that: 1) the SVWTS plants will be seen as a relatively low-cost solution to water treatment and the design will be taken up by other municipalities, and 2) that the SVWTS natural treatments and processes will bring the final effluent into compliance with Lebanese water quality standards. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS For the project to succeed in achieving its objectives, the design of the project assumes that the Ministry of Interior & Municipalities (MoIM) and the municipal bodies of the benefitting communities will exercise active leadership and participation in the project implementation process. Another assumption adopted by the project is that sewer networks are in place and well maintained by the participating municipalities by the time the WWTPs are constructed, as declared in the MOUs signed with USAID. 19 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 RESULTS FRAMEWORK The SVWTS project was awarded by the Mission to support IR 2 of Assistance Objective 4 (AO 4) illustrated below. AO 4: IMPROVED WATER SERVICES FOR ALL IN LEBANON AO: Improved walel'" servlces for al1 In Lebanon _ Mitigallon of waslewaler pollutlon of Ihe Upper Litanl Rlver Basl n 1. Number of people in target ilreas connected to functloning wastev.rater treatmen! facilities a: a result of USG assistance I I I IR 1: More emclem waler managemem IR 2: Improved waler Infraslruclure al allhe lila ni Basln the Utanl Basln I 1. Number of fundionil19 wastewater conslructed or rehab¡litaled with USG assistance IR1.1 :1mproved 2. Amount of treated wastewater in capacily of water large1ed areas complying with national entitleI> standards 1. Number 01 staff from water entities Irained as a restJlt of USG assistance 2. Number 01 new management systems and plans used al water management 20 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Number r:i t.a.qet are;&:$ 'i:Dnf'CGcd 1=0 ... -tiDning .a cf SG NI. indictors :Pre¡:;ar.ed>!;¡nJuLl ::ll.,2:0U F'fU Tari" "-O: Im:Ol'O'm rar conr,.;a.,.'1IUl WWTF • tra:n:d ;&:$ 3-le5ut el USG ... 1V i!Urtn¡ cth I,;;¡¡,ft;¡r ¡CUI. Or1¡ I stodt u;¡¡lnlid dur ·101lS.1011J by .... t,;¡.s:; I"\wjclp;¡lIry . ... ______________ -I ____ -:- __ + ________ + ________ + ______ -+ ________ -I ________ +- ______ + ______ -+ ______ -+ ______ -I ______ -I"' fX"" .. .. '_"-r..¡¡.; "'_" __ "'At ___ ""' __ OO= __ '_"_'_h1"_"_"'_'_"_'_'''_'*' __ ''-1 '''' Nu be.r af systelT".3 ;an I lIse-d .at ... .ater ma n.a.;e rr. Kl'A iI a f USG assist;r,nt:e Number an:l f41 ci1i:ies ar d wit::iI USG iI.s;s3:tanr;!! or ""' . WWTPln8W WWTP/n_ WWTPln_' r.1 NI. N!:te 1.: Ait2nit wwTP flawO.NLy rrcm 2009- .and 2:01.0. e rNscn fcr leu isóeto • gbvth:.e .. lity n !:crof Cln_ c id 01 re tD th:.e r..ctwcrk'A-e rr tdcwn he lSOOttl 1300. tt 's W/lrthy m !! \hI t UlO i Mas g.l"llril d isdlIJ'g!! to I s.!!verely d ol ."ol;ged mol ln sewe,r In t'he OtitU P.ive:r. N!:t.e 2: Ait;a;.,it wwTP r . !!SoSe'""age flaw fn:un ! d ir.g 1ihis fellortir.g u ·¡¡dned infarmm:::J1 iPo: tr.e M,I1j!: rs of ir.diutor a.!'e n s ud!: IU M,I,sh.gh l"lII ]300 htnls.!!h!: le ' = 1. S00. (2) Qanl>!lu n: J: !: = l.1IOO . ... ,d (3) Aitmit: 1.00 cn.ue.'holdl J: .:I OL:lS!!!hoId = 400; whidl brins;s tne ttl umber of ':le!: :Jle C(1nrr d t o e M ol . durins; t . re¡¡¡ortins; pe1'lod b:1 g.400. 21 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 The indicators are appropriate and appear straight-forward, but their measurement was complicated by the reality on the ground. Three of the indicators had precision and reliability issues as explained below. The first indicator counts the number of people connected to the USAID-financed WWTPs waste water treatment plants in Ablah, Fourzol and Aitanit. The numbers are estimated and derived from voter registration records. The numbers reported assume that the plants are fully operational and served by a functioning network. However, at one point the Fourzol plant was not operating, and on another occasion the sewer line feeding Aitanit was blocked effectively reducing the number of households covered from 1300 to 700. In addition, the reported number may undercount the number served when consideration is taken of the trucks that deliver septic waste pumped from households in the municipalities that are not connected to the sewer network – arguably these households are also served by the WWTPs. The second indicator captures the number of municipal staff trained to operate the waste water treatment plants but does not track staff turnover nor does it reflect the extensive coverage of the training received. The last indicator summarizes the volume of waste water treated by the 3 WWTP. The volume reported as 4300 cubic meters per day is based on the average flows over the year. This was verified by reviewing the log maintained at the Fourzol and Aitanit sites with the daily reading for treated waste water. The measurement of the amount of water treated in this indicator is based on flow-meter readings and is accurate. Reports on water quality of the plant effluent indicate that it is in compliance with national standards (see details below). Overall, the project performed well against its approved indicators. A qualification is that the original RFP proposed the construction of 7 WWTP, but this was later reduce to 4, and then to 3 WWTP. III. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION. This evaluation provides an external review of the Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems (SVWTS) Phase 2 project, with following objectives:.  An analysis of the extent of achievement of the program objectives of mitigation of pollution at the Litani River;  To provide documentation of successes, challenges, and lessons learned;  To provide recommendations for USAID for any future programs of the same or similar nature;  To evaluate the constraints of the institutional context for developing WWTP infrastructure in Lebanon;  To confirm whether the WWTP design is appropriate for the context (it was assumed that the design solution is appropriate, i.e., rather than more expensive tertiary treatment. Is this a valid design decision?). Specific areas for the evaluation to cover include inter alia:  Role of USAID management and oversight of the project.  Role of MoIM follow-up committee. 22 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  Ability of Municipalities to operate and maintain the WWTP.  Ability of Municipalities to honor the MoU and provide staff that will be trained to operate the plants.  Is the MoU a valid and enforceable basis for ensuring GOL project participation? Are there other instruments more suitable?  Operators’ performance in the three plants.  Safety, Security and Incidents.  Functionality of the three plants.  Sustainability (citizen awareness of the benefits, O&M technical skills, O&M budget availability).  Comparison of the SVWTS concept with tertiary treatment plants such as the one in Joub Jennine funded by a loan from the Islamic Bank and constructed by CDR.  Environmental impact. AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES This evaluation is intended to be used by USAID/Lebanon and others at the discretion of the Mission. In the spirit of USAID Evaluation Policy this evaluation provides concise recommendations based on evidence aimed at improving future programming in this sector. It is also expected that this evaluation will be used by USAID/Lebanon during their annual Portfolio Review of the water sector. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Questions Question Category Question or Issue to be Addressed Impact  Explain the results and net impacts of the activities undertaken, and infrastructure built identifying any unintended impacts.  Where results were not met, identify why not and provide recommendations for strengthening the development strategy. Sustainability  What are the prospects for sustainability of the end results produced by SVWTS?  What identified results appear to be less sustainable and why?  Was the scale of the project (3 WWTP, number of municipal staff trained) appropriate to ensure sustainability? Client Satisfaction  Determine if the benefactor’s (the municipalities served) needs were met, and if not what wasn’t met and how can that be corrected? Relevance  How relevant is the SVWTS to the GOL short, middle and long term National Wastewater Management Strategic Plan? Validity of the hypothesis and assumptions  Is the original WWTP physical plant design and use of the MoU with the Municipalities to ensure sustained plant operation still valid? 23 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHOD This evaluation relies on primary and secondary data collected from desk reviews, Key Informant Interviews with Municipal authorities (including the Mayors), the Chairman of the Municipalities Union, the Bekaa Water Establishment (BWE), WWTP project staff, plant operators provided by the municipalities, USAID staff, beneficiaries, government counterparts, other international donors in the sector, as well as field visits to the three WWTPs. Quantitative data include estimates of sludge kept from the Litani River by the treatment plants, decreases in biological oxygen demand (BOD), increases in Dissolved Oxygen and other measures of water quality collected by the WWTP and compared with water quality standards. Financial data has been collected from participating municipalities as a basis for assessing the impact of operating the WWTP and the ability of the municipality to sustain WWTP operations. DATA COLLECTION METHODS Performance evaluation, data sources and collection methods  Quantitative analyses: WWTP flow, estimates of pollutant reduction, and septage truck volumes delivered to the WWTP. Data for these analyses come from measurements taken at the WWTP by the plant operators.  Requests for budget and expenditure data from the municipalities.  Qualitative interviews conducted with stakeholders (municipalities, service providers; project beneficiaries, water sector donors). DATA ANALYSIS METHODS The evaluation will cover all three SVWTS project sites as per the “Scope of the Project” section above. These are: Aitanit, Fourzol, and Ablah WWTPs.  Impact on pollutant reduction compares WWTP influent characteristics with effluent characteristics. This indicates the impact of the WWTP on pollutant discharge. The total amount of sludge removed by the plant is thus prevented from entering the Litani. These are measurements taken at the WWTP digesters. It is not anticipated that the effect of the WWTP will be seen through improvements in water quality measurements in the Litani itself because the volume of influent treated is a small fraction of all discharges into the Litani.  The financial burden on the municipalities that comes from operating the WWTP will be estimated from budget figures provided by the municipalities. This will suggest whether municipalities can sustain operations or not.  Interviews are expected to clarify the institutional framework for operation of WWTP, possible fee-based sources of revenue for WWTP operations; and the activities of the donor community related to wastewater treatment. 24 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  Interviews with the plant operators are intended to highlight lessons learned based on their gained experience in operation the WWTP, i.e., what has worked well and what has not; what could be changed to reduce costs, etc. METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Key informant interviews with operations staff and municipal authorities during site visits are the primary data source for this evaluation. Given the short timeline for this study, the evaluation team was not always able to cross-check key informant characterizations of WWTP operations and sustainability. The level of biological and chemical pollutants in the Litani River are so high that the combined pollutant reduction in the Litani River based on the operation of the three plants is likely to be too small to measure. The impact of the WWTP is unlikely to be large when measured through river monitoring. Rather the reduction in pollutants can be measured by comparing plant influent pollutant load with effluent pollutant load to estimate the overall pollutant reduction. However, the dumping of untreated sewage into the Litani River remains a challenge for the municipal authorities (e.g., Bar Elias, Anjar…). Further, it is unlikely that household beneficiaries whose sewage is treated by the WWTP will be aware of the benefits being provided by the plants as these benefits are long-term and indirect. For example, the municipality of Fourzol is reported to still smell like sewage in the Summer months due to sewage entering the Litani upstream. Indirect beneficiaries include those down-stream who use the Litani River water for irrigation. V. EVALUATION FINDINGS: ANSWERING THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS IMPACT: Explain the results and net impacts of activities undertaken, and identify any unintended impacts Analyzing the extent of achievement of the program objective to mitigate wastewater pollution of the Litani River 18 Original population coverage targets not achieved Under the RFP the SVWTS was originally intended to construct 7 WWTP to cover 16 municipalities and 29%, or 101,700 of the population of the Upper Litani River Basin. The reality was much less. Phase I of the project identified locations and designs for waste water treatment plants in the Upper Litani River Basin. Sixteen municipalities comprising 101,000 people in the Upper Litani River Basin were identified as potential sites for the construction of 7 waste water treatment plants. Phase II of the project, under a separate contract, was to 18 Mark Saadeh, Lucy Semerjian, and Nabil Amacha (January 2012), “Physicochemical Evaluation of the Upper Litani River Watershed, Lebanon,” The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, Article ID 462467, 8 pages, doi:10.1100/2012/462467 25 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 construct the treatment plants. The number of plants to be constructed was not specified, but was to be determined by the willingness and ability of the communities to support the construction. This resulted in the selection of 4 WWTP to be constructed. However, one of the four communities, Chmistar, was not able to secure land for the construction and was dropped. . As a consequence 3 wastewater treatment plants serving 20,350 persons in 8 municipalities were constructed. This substantially reduced the extent of achievement originally envisioned for the project. Nevertheless there was a positive affect from the 3 WWTP that were constructed. The contribution of the 3 WWTP to an overall reduction in Litani River pollutants is negligible Flow in the river ranges between 14.2 m3 /second during the wet season to about 4.4 m3 /second during the dry season. The combined volume of treated water from the 3 plants is 4,300 m3 /day (equivalent to 0.05 m3 /second) according to the SVWTS indicator reported above. The plants contribute no more than 1% of the total river flow. As a consequence it is unlikely that river water quality monitoring (done by Litani River Authority) would show any measured improvement in the water quality indicators based on pollutant reduction from the 3 plants (but see below). Measuring pollutants in the final effluent Both the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) tests are a measure of the relative oxygen-depletion effect of a waste contaminant. Both have been widely adopted as a measure of pollution extent. The BOD test measures the oxygen demand of biodegradable pollutants whereas the COD test measures the oxygen demand of biodegradable pollutants plus the oxygen demand of non-biodegradable oxidizable pollutants. The so-called 5-day BOD (BOD5) measures the amount of oxygen consumed by biochemical oxidation of waste contaminants in a 5-day period. Pristine rivers will have a BOD5 below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have a BOD5 value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Municipal sewage that is efficiently treated by a three-stage process would have a BOD value of about 20 mg/L or less. Untreated sewage varies, but the BOD value averages around 600 mg/L in Europe and as low as 200 mg/L in the U.S., or where there is severe groundwater or surface water i infiltration/inflow that dilutes the raw sewage influent (this is the condition for the 3 WWTP). Pollutant reduction design criteria is being met Each of the 3 WWTP underwent a 30-day performance testing program designed to stress the WWTP systems at design conditions and measure individual unit process and treatment facility overall pollution removal efficiencies primarily for the pollutants BOD5, COD, total suspended solids (TSS), and Coliform bacteria. BOD and COD, parameters are tests done offsite since the plants do not have the equipment to do these tests. TSS, BOD and COD are done once a month at a Ministry of Agriculture lab (Tal Amara lab was mentioned) or AUB. Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorous (P) are additional parameter tests mentioned in the WWTP O&M manuals that thus far have not been measured. These are important parameters that indicate the magnitude of Nitrates and Phosphates present in the effluent. High levels of P and N predict pending eutrophication of the river. 26 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Table 4 below shows early data from Aitanit that compares WWTP design criteria with Ministry of the Environment standards. Table 5 below is the lab results for the Ablah 30-day performance testing done at AUB (from the SVWTS final progress report. These treatment plants use aerated trickle down fixed media filters as an efficient way to reduce BOD, while anaerobic digester tanks kill bacteria by reducing the amount of oxygen in the sludge. The sludge is what is sloughed from the trickle down filters, and what settles in the primary and secondary clarifiers. Sludge from the anaerobic digester tanks is pumped to the drying beds 40 to 60 days later. The effluent BOD design criteria is 25 mg/L or less. Recent measurements taken at the plants indicate that the design criteria have been achieved. According to one expert, the fixed media (plastic) in the trickle down filters should last about 15 years before needing to be replaced. Table 5. CDM Design effluent criteria Aitanit WWTP - Overall Treatment Efficiencies Water Quality Indicator Ministry of Environme nt Max. Limit (mg/l) CDM Project Design Effluent Criteria Final Effluent Measured Results 29 April 09 06 May 09 20 May 09 07 July 09 (mg/l) % removed (mg/l)% removed (mg/l) % removed (mg/l)% removed pH 6-9 6-9 n/a n/a n/a n/a Maximum 30o C 30o C n/a n/a n/a n/a BOD5 (mg/l) 25 25 max. Not sampled for this period COD (mg/l) 125 125 max. <50 n/a <50 n/a 89 n/a 40 97% Suspended Solids 60 30 10 82% <10 n/a 13 92% 25 91% Total Nitrogen 30% 20% Not sampled for this period Total Phosphorus 10% 25% Not sampled for this period Coliform Bacteria 2,000 2,000 Not sampled for this period Measuring effects of wastewater treatment CDM provided O&M Manuals for each of the 3 WWTP that instructs operators in how to take the needed samples that measure influent and effluent characteristics at various stations in the WWTP.19 Measurements are to be taken on a daily, weekly, monthly and bi-monthly basis depending on the parameter. According to the O&M manuals sampling is used to measure Dissolved Oxygen (DO), BOD5, COD, TSS, % volatile suspended solids (VSS), pH, Temperature, Total Nitrogen (N), Total Phosphorous (P), Chlorine Residual, and Coliform Bacteria. Some of these measurements are done on-site while others are taken to labs for analysis.20 These measurements can be used to verify the mitigation of pollutants entering the Litani River from each plant. River-based measurements are done by the Litani River Authority (LRA) using monitoring and lab equipment provided (in part) under the USAID funded LRBMS project. Table 6. Ablah WWTP - Water Quality Summary Data - AUB Lab Analysis 19 For example from Ablah see: “Ablah Village Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Manual, Volume 1- Unit Process Operation; Chapter 12 – Sampling and Analysis Procedures 20 At the time of the evaluation the lab tests for P and N had not yet been done. The ability of these types of plants to remove P and N is limited. 27 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Water Quality Criteria MoE Limit 09 May, 2012 29 May, 2012 07 June, 2012 13 June, 2012 20 June, 2012 Suspended Solids (ml/l) 60 7 8.5 9 19 10 BOD5 (mg/l) 25 16 11 10 10 10 COD (mg/l) 125 50 10 50 50 50 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) measures the amount of Oxygen in the water. Low levels of Oxygen in the water can lead to eutrophication of the river. DO in the Litani River Basin shows that most sources have a normal DO level.21 However, some sites recorded dangerously low DO levels of 3 mg/L. At these low levels the river becomes unsuitable for most fresh water species. DO is a measure that is taken regularly onsite at each of the 3 WWTP. . Table 6 shows the MOE standards (Decision 8/1/2001) and the results at the 3 WWTPs for DO, pH, and TSS. Both Ablah and Fourzol were in compliance with the MOE standards. We did not have a report from Aitanit on these parameters, but because Aitanit uses the same plant design it is expected that they are also in compliance. TSS, BOD and COD are done once a month at a Ministry of Agriculture lab (Tal Amara lab was mentioned) or AUB. Table 7. Recent, November 2012, daily effluent readings from the 3 WWTP WWTP DO (Influent/ Effluent) in mg/l pH (Influent/ Effluent) Total Suspended Solids (Influent/ Effluent) in ml/l Temp. (Influent/ Effluent) Degrees Centigrade MoE Standard No standard 6 - 9 60 ml per L N/A Aitanit 8.85/10.7 Not available Not available 3.6C/4.1C Fourzol 4.8/7.47 7.90/8.03 2ml per L/0 16.1C/15.8C Ablah 6.6/6.75 8.15/8.17 3ml per L/0 14.3C/14.4C Aitanit reported that the equipment for measuring the pH was being repaired. The high DO at Aitanit of 8.85 mg/l reflects the rain water that is getting into the sewer – indicating that repairs to the network are needed The volume of sludge removed from the digester tanks and pumped to the sludge drying beds is a clear indicator of pollutants that have been prevented from reaching the Litani. About 300 m3 of sludge is removed from Ablah during one 40-day digester cycle. In Fourzol 320 m3 are removed during a 90-day cycle. In Aitanit 570 m3 are removed on average each 50 days.22 21 Mark Saadeh, Lucy Semerjian, and Nabil Amacha (January 2012), “Physicochemical Evaluation of the Upper Litani River Watershed, Lebanon,” The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, Article ID 462467, 8 pages, doi:10.1100/2012/462467. 22 The number of days vary and depends on when the digesting process has completed and the drying beds are ready to receive another load. Drying takes longer in winter than in summer. 28 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 However, according to the report cited23, the main concern for pollutants in the Litani River comes from Nitrates and Phosphates which have leached into underlying aquifers well beyond permissible concentrations intended for human consumption. The municipalities should be encouraged to have these parameters measured. Problems with sewer networks At the time of the assessment, the SVWTS program had not yet achieved the projected results in terms of “Number of people in target areas connected to functioning waste water treatment facilities as a result of USG assistance”. This is due to the fact that some municipalities were not able to deliver on their commitments- as per the USAID signed MoU- to construct all the communities’ sewers networks and main connections lines to collect and channel raw sewage to the WWTPs. For example, part of the Ablah network coming from Nabi Alya is broken in several places and has effectively become a storm drain resulting in significant infiltration of water into the sewer. This reduces the efficiency of the WWTP making it treat much larger volumes than is necessary. This is indicated when input BOD is lower and DO levels are higher than expected. Such is the case for Ablah and Aitanit where infiltration is an issue. However, recently (December) Fourzol has repaired the network and this has reduced infiltration into the network.24 The lack of completed networks means that not all the sewage generated by the municipalities reaches the treatment plant. Fourzol officials say that Fourzol still smells of sewage in the Summer time. The treatment plants remain vulnerable to blockages of the sewer lines. This occurred in Aitanit and in Ablah when farmers broke the line or blocked it in order to irrigate their fields using wastewater. Awareness raising and policing are needed to prevent this from re￾occurring. More wastewater treatment capacity by 2015 Information gained during the evaluation field research and meetings with various local and central government agencies and leaders confirmed that many waste water treatment plants in the Bekaa have either began operations recently such as Aayat (Baalbeck), Soughbine and Joub Jennine (West Beka’a), or are in the tendering and construction stage such as Temnine WWTP which will cover more than 15 communities, Zahleh city treatment plant and sewers networks and El Marj treatment plant in Aanjar region. These wastewater networks and treatment projects are funded by international donors and assistance programs inter alia the Italian Development Assistance, the World Bank, the Kuwati Bank, the Islamic Bank, and tendered for construction by the Council of Development and Reconstruction (CDR). The combined wastewater treatment capacity of all these projects jointly with the 3 SVWTS plants is expected to reduce measureable pollutants in the Litani River. This is anticipated to 23 Mark Saadeh, Lucy Semerjian, and Nabil Amacha (January 2012), “Physicochemical Evaluation of the Upper Litani River Watershed, Lebanon,” The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, Article ID 462467, 8 pages, doi:10.1100/2012/462467 24 The Fourzol municipality in conjuction with the MoEW constructed 1700 meters of new sewer line. This was paid for by the MoEW ($22,000) and citizen input ($8000). The new line is below the level of the Fourzol treatment plant and a lift station is needed to raise the raw sewage from the sewer line to the WWTP. This is because of the topography near the plant. The cost of the lift station is to be paid for by the Union of Municipalities. Currently the new line is not used pending approval of the lift station design by BWE and the construction of the lift station adjacent to the WWTP. 29 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 occur sometime in 2015 (see Annex C for a list of wastewater treatment plants expected to come online).. Unintended consequences of an added financial burden on municipalities The financial cost to the municipalities for operation and maintenances of the WWTPs creates additional financial burdens on the municipalities’ limited financial resources. The financial implications to the individual municipality’ budgets are proportional to the level of recurrent O&M costs relative to the municipalities’ annual income (see below under “Evaluating the financial capacity of the managing entities” for a comprehensive view.). Service fee recovery by the municipalities seems remote as they have not imposed and do not seem inclined to impose25 additional taxes or tariffs to cover the costs of the wastewater treatment service they provide. In addition, agriculture is the main source of economic activity and income in the area, it is expected that the local population would not appreciate that a large proportion of the municipality’ resources are committed to environmental concerns and to operate a wastewater treatment plant to mitigate the pollution levels of the Litani River rather than being spent on agriculture and local economic development projects. The need for awareness-raising that extols the opportunities for tourism and better health associated with a clean Litani River could be a catalyst for the formation of a local advocacy group. SUSTAINABILITY: What are the prospects for sustainability of the end results produced by SVWTS? Plant vulnerability, weaknesses and life expectancy The WWTP design does not include any advanced technologies that might attract increased O&M costs, for example there is no tertiary chemical treatment of the wastewater. The plant design is relatively simple with a low risk of catastrophic failure. There is no tertiary treatment or high-tech treatment. The wastewater treatment is described as “natural” rather than chemical. The mechanics of the plants are mainly pipes, valves, pumps and filters. Pumps require maintenance and occasional repair, but spare parts and repair is available locally. Submersible pumps are more vulnerable than those above ground. If the facilities are cleaned and maintained according to the O&M manuals they should last 15-20 years. A consequence of heavy reliance on generated power means that plant generators at Ablah and Fourzol will need replacement/repair in the coming years. The current 200KVA generator is in excess of requirements as the plants currently only use 40 amps. Replacement with a smaller generator would reduce costs. The trickle down filter media should last up to 15 years. The greatest threat comes from a possible lack of power or blocked sewer lines both of which could cause the plant to shut down. An extended shut down might damage the trickle filter media and can clog the system. This occurred at the Fourzol plant when diesel fuel was not available to run the plant. It occurred at the Aitanit plant when the sewer lines were blocked and diverted. 25 The authority of the municipalities to impose new taxes and tariffs is vague. 30 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 However, overall there is no unusual weakness associated with the current plant design. The design uses well-proven basic technology and is not be prone to catastrophic failure. Was the scale of the project appropriate? The project RFP envisioned that 7 plants were to be constructed to serve 101,000 persons in 16 municipalities. This was later reduced to 4 plants and then 3. Thus overall, if the original proposal for 7 plants was valid, then the scale is not adequate. However, another interpretation of scale relates to individual plant capacity to serve known network expansion in the municipality. The individual plants each operates at less than full capacity – see Table 7 below. Hence the physical capacity of the plants to treat sewage is adequate as capacity remains to treat additional sewage that may result from added sewer lines in the municipality. Management Sustainability Upon completion of the Advise and Assist phase of the SVWTS project, CDM handed over the operation and management of the three WWTP facilities to the Municipalities and Union of Municipalities signatory of the MOU with USAID. The evaluation site visits confirmed that the three plants were appropriately staffed and operational with sewerage influent reaching the main inlet chambers of the three plants. However, information collected through interviews with the WWTP technical operators and concerned municipal leaders conveyed the following limitations to an effective and efficient management and technical operation of the three WWTPs: Managing the sewer network Managing sewage begins with the household connection where raw sewage is separated from other waste water (e.g., grey water from sinks and baths, or rain water). The WWTP are designed under the assumption that raw undiluted sewage will reach the treatment plant in sufficient volume to operate the plant efficiently. Currently, the sewage influent reaching each plant is less than the planned-for raw sewage volumes. The efficiency of WWTP performance is challenged when there is an inadequate flow of sewage into the plant, or when the sewage is infiltrated with storm water. This has mainly to do with the trickling filters. The trickling filters remove dissolved organics and finely divided organic solids from the wastewater. The trickling filter is an aerobic treatment system that utilizes microorganisms attached to a medium (in this case plastic) to remove organic matter from wastewater. Trickling filters enable organic material in the wastewater to be adsorbed by a population of microorganisms attached to the medium as a biological film or slime layer. As the wastewater flows over the medium, microorganisms already in the water gradually attach themselves to the plastic surface and form a film. A continuous flow of sewage over the media is required to sustain growth of the film and hence the efficiency of the filtration. Low volumes of sewage, or wastewater with insufficient organic matter to feed the system, can result in degraded operation of the biological filter. It may prove to be a management challenge for the municipality to ensure that the quality and quantity of sewage reaching the plant is adequate. Table 8. Plant capacity and 2012 influent flows WWTP Treatment Capacity m3 Influent Flow per day m3 31 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Aitanit 5,000 2,230 highest volume26 Fourzol 1,000 700 average volume Ablah 2,000 700 average in dry season27 – Planned sewer networks and main connection lines are yet to be constructed and linked to the treatment plants in the three projects’ target areas. Though substantial pressures were exerted by municipal leaders to secure funds for these works from the relevant government bodies, these efforts were met, more often than not, with limited success. Taking matters in their own hands, Baaloul municipality (sewer network to be connected to the Aitanit WWTP) is currently constructing sections of the village network with monies collected from its local population. Other concerned municipal leaders reported during interviews that they are still following up to secure funds and thus deliver on their MoU commitments to upgrade existing networks and to construct remaining sewer and connecting lines. Upgrades to existing networks should reduce rainwater and groundwater infiltration that cause lower organic load to the filtration system possibly reducing efficiency, while increasing the flow of raw sewage to the plants. Reduced infiltration means there is more capacity to serve additional users, and a more efficient plant operation. Informal Staffing Agreements All three WWTPs are adequately staffed with CDM trained operators. Aitanit, the largest of the three facilities, employs 2 guards, three operators and one chief operator. The plants in Fourzol and Ablah are staffed with one guard and one operator each with a chief operator supervising both facilities. Due to the government freeze on employment, the staff at the three facilities are hired and paid as daily workers. This staffing arrangement managed to overcome the municipalities’ barrier to hiring plant operators but fails to provide the appropriate employment social security and benefits hence, could possibly affect the plants’ long term management sustainability if the trained staff find more secure jobs. The Ablah and Fourzol municipalities and the BWE however did not provide enough trainees to learn how to operate the plants. No trainees were provided for the Ablah plant. Fortunately, a former CDM employee who is a certified wastewater plant operator was hired by the municipalities of Ablah and Fourzol as the chief operator. He is a key person who supervises the other operators. Should he decide to move on, plant operations could be at risk. It is uncertain where new operators would come from or how they would be trained. Yearly service maintenance contract agreements not in place Yearly service maintenance contract agreements for plants’ equipments (generator, pumps, and control panels) are not yet in place for the Aitanit plant. Fourzol is already covered by a maintenance agreement and Ablah equipment are still under warranty.28 Breakdowns in electro mechanical equipment might occur unexpectedly and cause lengthy periods of plant’s 26 At the time of the site visit, the influent was much less because Mashghara sewer line was diverted directly to the river to avoid intrusion of olive press residues. 27 1,500 m3 in rainy season which reveals storm water intrusion with the sewer lines. 28 The duration of the warranty varies according to the type of equipment. Pumps are under warranty until 2015 32 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 shutdown for repair works as was the case with the Aitanit pump (two months to repair the pump in Beirut). Maintenance contracts with specialized companies would insure timely repair and maintenance work. Validation of water quality measurements needed The regular monitoring of effluent conformity to environmental standards is part of the oversight needed to ensure proper plant operations. Plant operators are taught to carry out various tests on the characteristics of wastewater as it passes through the stages of processing and as a final effluent. The tests required are described in the O&M manual for each plant. Some tests are completed on site, while others have to be analyzed in more specialized laboratories such as the ones at the Ministry of Agriculture in Tal Amara or the American University of Beirut (AUB). Thus far municipalities have paid for these tests. What’s critically missing at present is an external entity – a regulatory and monitoring organization- such as the Ministry of Environment, the Beka’a Water Establishment, or the Litani River Authority- to impose water quality tests and corroborate their conformity with environmental standards for effluent discharge to rivers. USAID’s Litani River Basin Management Project has recently proposed that LRA monitor wastewater effluent entering the Litani.29 Financial Sustainability To ensure sustainability of investments in the wastewater sector, the ‘managing entity’ needs to demonstrate appropriate management and technical capacity to operate such facilities as well as the financial resources to cover or recover operations and maintenance costs (O&M) and depreciation or re-investment costs for the replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. Operational costs defined Operation costs usually cover staff, administration, energy and other consumables whereas maintenance covers all expenditure costs for maintaining the assets operational and safe. Re￾investment costs (depreciation) vary depending on the assets lifespan e.g. civil works, equipment and electro-mechanical devices, vehicles etc. To simplify our analysis of the financial sustainability of the three USAID-funded WWTPs, we will consider in this assessment only the short term operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of operating the plants. “Managing entities” sources of revenue The Union of the Lake and the municipalities of Fourzol and Ablah- the ‘managing entities’ of the three USAID-funded WWTPs- are covering the O&M costs of the plants from their own municipal resources since no fees are presently levied as service charge for wastewater treatment from the connected households. No other direct or indirect income is yet 29 LRBMS: Restructuring the Litani River Authority, page 15, and Mark Svedsen, Senior Water Resource Specialist, IRG, “The Role of the Litani River Authority: Present and Future, page 15. Both report state that the LRA should monitor effluent discharges. This proposal was endorsed by the LRA. Further the Litani River Basin Management Plan, Vol 1. provides that LRA should annually assess the operating status of wastewater treatment plants. 33 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 generated by the plant operations either from reselling the treated water for irrigation or possible composting of the stabilized sludge as agricultural fertilizer. Hence, to assess the financial sustainability of the three USAID WWTPs, the ‘managing entities’ own financial means were appraised i.e. whether their municipal income is ‘large enough’ to sustain the management of the plants and to cover O&M costs of operations. In general, municipal revenues are secured from two main sources: Direct taxes levied by municipalities from building permits, property taxes, billboard advertising…etc. and allocations received from the Central Government through the Independent Municipal Fund (IMF). Individual municipality’ share of the IMF is proportional to the size of its population and to the percentage of charges collected locally. Additional IMF allocations can be obtained for development projects. Union of Municipalities revenues are mostly generated from membership fees of member municipalities and from IMF allocations. According to the Lebanese law, 25 percent of the total IMF fund is transferred to the Unions on the basis of their population estimates and for specific or earmarked development projects. Evaluating the financial capacity of the managing entities To evaluate the financial capacity (municipalities and union) to sustain operations and cover the plants O&M costs, the financial revenues of the WWTPs managing entities were analyzed and compared with the budgeting requirements for plants’ operation and maintenance. Union of the Lake - Aitanit Wastewater Treatment Plant: Based on CDM financial figures reported in the Advise and Assist Quarterly report # 4 ending June 201030, the O&M estimated monthly budget of Aitanit WWTP is US$ 7, 860, the yearly total equivalent of US$94,320. Actual costs incurred operating the plant, according to the same reference, have averaged less than the budgeted figure i.e. US$ 6,287 monthly or the yearly total equivalent of US$ 75,444 based on the following table average calculations of highest and lowest during the reported period. Table 9. Aitanit WWTP – O&M Financial Report Cost Items CDM Estimated Budget Costs Highest Incurred Costs - May 09 Lowest Incurred Costs - Oct 09 Average Monthly Cost Electric Power $4,250 $5,277 $1,213 $3,24531 Generator Diesel Fuel $250 $520 0 $260 Staff Salaries $2,380 $2,410 $2,450 $2,430 Insurance (Staff & Facility) $200 -- 0 032 Hypochlorite Chemical Costs $300 0 0 0 Office Supplies & $50 $117 76 $96.5 30 No updated figures were reported in subsequent CDM reports. 31 The Union of the Lake is currently not settling its electricity bills to the Litani River Authority (LRA). 32 Aitanit plant is not yet covered by a maintenance service contract for the plant’ electro mechanical equipments. A work accident insurance cover is issued for two workers only. 34 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Consumables Maintenance & Spare Parts Costs $100 $30 60 $45 Water Sampling & Analysis $300 $270 80 $175 Phone service 30 $34 37 $35.5 Monthly Total US$ $7,860 $8,658 $3,916 $6,287 To note that the Aitanit plant is connected to the electrical grid of the hydro electric power generated by Lake Quaraoun thus receiving electricity 24/24 hours. Hence, generator diesel fuel consumption is at a minimum. This is not the case for the Fourzol and Ablah WWTPs which are connected to “Electricity of Zahleh” and experiencing a total absence of electrical current for extended periods of time. To appraise the financial capacity of the Union of the Lake to secure O&M costs for the Aitanit plant, the official financial budget of the Union was requested and quoted in Table 9 for the past three years. Table 10. Union of the Lake: Yearly Income & Sources Year 2011 Year 2010 Year 2009 Contributions of member municipalities L.L. 200,000,000 Eq US$ 133,333 L.L. 200,000,000 Eq US$ 133,333 L.L.200,000,000 Eq US$ 133,33333 Independent Municipal Fund L.L. 2, 300, 000,000 Eq US$ 1,533,333 L.L. 2,000,000,000 Eq US$ 1,333,333 L.L. 1,150,000,000 Eq US$ 766,666 Various Resources L.L. 300, 000, 000 Eq US$ 200,000 L.L. 395,000,000 Eq US$ 263, 333 L.L. 260,000,000 Eq US$ 173,333 Irregular / Exceptional Income L.L. 1, 500, 000, 000 Eq US$ 1,000,000 L.L. 500,000,000 Eq US$ 333,333 L.L. 500,000,000 Eq US$ 333,333 Total Yearly Income L.L. 4,300,000, 000 Eq US$ 2, 866, 666 L.L. 3,095,000,000 Eq US$ 2,063,333 L.L. 2,110,000,000 Eq US$ 1,406,666 The Union’ financial revenues witnessed a steady increase over the past three years and averaged around US$ 2, 112,221 per year. Comparatively, the O&M yearly financial costs for the Aitanit WWTP is estimated at US$ 75,500 i.e. 3.6 percent of the Union’ average revenues. Those numbers indicate that overall, the Union has the financial capacity and resources to sustain the plant’s operation and cover O&M costs out of their own budget. IMF allocations do not usually constitute a reliable revenue source specifically in terms of the exact amount of proceeds or timing of the transfers. Therefore, the extent of the Union’ budget dependence on IMF proceeds can be considered as an indicator of revenue ‘dependability’ i.e. financial sustainability. From the Union financial excerpts above, we note that IMF proceeds constituted 53 percent, 64 percent and 54 percent of the Union yearly income respectively for the years 2011, 2010 and 2009. This percentage indicates an average reliance on the IMF and can be considered as a rather encouraging indicator of the Union, consequently of the WWTP, financial sustainability. Municipality of Fourzol - Fourzol Wastewater Treatment Plant: CDM reported O&M monthly budget estimates of US$ 6,96034 for Fourzol WWTP i.e. the yearly total equivalent 33 US dollar equivalent amounts are rounded to the next whole number. 35 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 of US$ 83,520. Again, actual O&M costs incurred operating the Fourzol plant averaged less than the CDM budgeted figures i.e. US$ 5,329 monthly or the yearly total equivalent of US$ 63,948 based on the following table average calculations of highest and lowest during the reported period. Table 11. Fourzol WWTP – O&M Financial Report Cost Items CDM Estimated Budget Costs Highest Incurred Costs - August 09 US$ Lowest Incurred Costs - May 10 US$ Average Monthly Cost US$ Electric Power $1,500 $1,000 $1,270 $1,135 Generator Diesel Fuel $2,000 $4,092 $750 $2,421 Staff Salaries $2,380 $1,600 $899 $1,250 Insurance (Staff & Facility) $300 -- $187.5 $187.5 Hypochlorite Chemical Costs $300 -- -- -- Office Supplies & Consumables $50 $95 $39 $67 Maintenance & Spare Parts Costs $100 0 0 0 Water Sampling & Analysis $300 $231 $250 $240.5 Phone service $30 $41 $15 $28 Monthly Total US$ $6,960 $7,059 $3,411 US$ 5,329 To note from the financial analysis above that the highest cost item is for diesel fuel to run the generator. As mentioned earlier, Fourzol plant is connected to ‘Electricity of Zahleh” power grid and has been experiencing (along with the rest of the country) extensive power cuts for long periods of time. Thus, the plant’ generator was running for long hours and consuming large quantities of fuel to maintain the Fourzol plant functional 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.. To appraise Fourzol municipality’ financial capacity to secure the WWTP O&M costs, their latest official budget was analyzed: Table 12. Fourzol Municipality 2012 Budget: Projected Yearly Income & Sources Year 2011 Direct taxes and fees collected locally by the municipality L.L. 151,000,000 Eq US$ 100,66635 Municipality’ share of fees collected by government and semi￾independent agencies. L.L. 155,000,000 Eq US$ 103,333 Municipality share of the Independent Municipal Fund L.L. 324, 000,000 Eq US$ 216,000 Other various revenues L.L. 70,000,000 Eq US$ 46,666 Total Yearly Income L.L. 700,000,000 Eq US$ 466,666 34 As reported in CDM Advise & Assist Quarterly report #4, June 2010. Again, no updated figures were reported in the subsequent CDM reports. 35 US dollar equivalent amounts are rounded to the next whole number. 36 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 The projected total revenues of Fourzol municipality for 2012 are estimated at US$ 467,000. Comparatively, the O&M yearly average cost of the plant, as calculated earlier, is estimated at around US$ 64,000 or 13.7 percent of the municipality’ total revenues. This percentage is relatively higher than the Union of the Lake - Aitanit plant estimated at 3.6 percent. The Fourzol ‘sustainability indicator’ simply means that the plant’ operations and maintenance would consume close to 14 percent of the municipality’s total revenues. It is our assessment that the Fourzol municipality might find it increasingly difficult over the years to secure funds for O&M from their own resources if no additional revenues are secured through other ways. Noteworthy to mention in this context that this rather ominous financial sustainability indicator is- can be offset by the following: First, Fourzol municipality is currently covering the cost of diesel fuel consumption-which is the highest cost budget item- form the Union of Zahleh’ budget thus bringing down the O&M cost paid out of their revenues. Second, the municipality would expect to receive higher revenues from the IMF either through the current law which allocates more monies to municipalities undertaking rural development projects36 or through a draft law under discussion, planning to allocate more monies to municipalities undertaking environmental projects of solid waste and wastewater treatment and disposal. At present, IMF proceeds constitute around 46 percent of the total municipal revenues and collection rate of local fees and taxes is estimated at 50 percent of total collections dues according to the Mayor of Fourzol. Both numbers are rather encouraging as the first one indicates an average dependence on the central government proceeds and the second one give us an assessment of the local population ‘willingness to pay’ should users fees for wastewater treatment be instituted at some future date. Municipality of Ablah - Ablah Wastewater Treatment Plant: CDM did not report on the O&M budgeting requirements to operate the Ablah WWTP. We were also not able to secure such information from the Ablah municipality as their accounting system does not report such costs under a separate budget line item. Hence, our best estimate for Ablah O&M have been based on the Fourzol plant i.e. US$ 64,000 per year. Despite the fact that Ablah WWTP is double the treatment capacity of Fourzol – 2,000 m3 versus 1,000 m3 per day- other indications of costs37 tend to confirm O&M cost estimate of Ablah as very close to Fourzol. The Ablah municipality’ financial capacity was analyzed through reviewing their latest official budget of 2011: Table 13. Ablah Municipality 2012 Budget: Projected Yearly Income & Sources Year 2011 Direct taxes and fees collected locally by the municipality L.L. 342,000,000 Eq US$ 228,000 Municipality share of fees collected by government and semi independent agencies. L.L. 169,000,00038 Eq US$ 112,666 Municipality share of the Independent Municipal Fund L.L. 233, 000,000 36 The Union of the Lake 2012 budget quoted a projected amount of L.L. 1,000,000,000 or US$ 666,667 additional funds from the IMF for development projects. 37 Such as diesel fuel and staff salaries – the largest two items – are almost the same for both plants. 38 US dollar equivalent amounts are rounded to the next whole number. 37 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Eq US$ 155,333 Other various revenues L.L. 585,000,000 Eq US$ 390,000 Total Yearly Income L.L. 1,329,000,000 Eq US$ 886,000 The projected total revenues of Ablah municipality for 2012 are estimated at US$ 886,000. Comparatively, the O&M yearly average cost of the plant, as estimated based on Fourzol figures, is around US$ 64,000 or 7.20 percent of the municipality’ total revenues. The Ablah ‘sustainability indicator’ simply means that the plant’ operations and maintenance would consume close to 7 percent of the municipality’s total revenues. Additionally, IMF proceeds constitute only 17.5 percent of the total municipal budget and indicate a relative independence on the IMF support for municipal revenues.Moreover, Ablah plant has been settling its generator fuel bill through the Union of Zahleh and can expect to receive increased IMF proceeds in support of rural development or wastewater treatment project in the future. Overall, Ablah municipality is in a better financial position to sustain O&M cost of its wastewater treatment plant compared to Fourzol municipality though it would encounter more difficulties raising the funds for O&M than the Union of the Lake which enjoys much larger financial revenues. Concluding remarks To conclude the financial sustainability analysis of the three WWTPs, it is imperative to point out that modern economic management principles discourage subsidizing service delivery from the national treasury. The municipalities and union of municipalities should not continue to cover the O&M costs of operating the plants out of their municipal revenues i.e. subsidizing the wastewater treatment service to the local population. Such a strategy can be effective only for the short term pending the application of other cost coverage strategies to ensure the long term sustainability of investments in the wastewater sector. Pilot schemes for collecting wastewater tariffs are currently being applied by the Water Establishments in certain areas of Lebanon, following the provision of sewage water treatment services, such as in Saida – South Lebanon and Baalbeck in the Beka’a. The results of these pilot initiatives are awaited. In November 2010, GIZ convened a working group to inform a new water and wastewater tariff strategy – see Annex G. Discussions at that meeting between decision makers at MoEW and WEs in Lebanon showed that all were in agreement that consumption-based tariffs for water supply together with newly introduced wastewater tariffs were needed. Participants confirmed that existing regulations generally permit the introduction of a new tariff system. Conclusions of the management and financial sustainability analysis In summary, the management and financial sustainability analysis of the three WWTPs funded by USAID through the SVWTS program revealed the following:  The three plants are currently operational and staffed with trained technical operators. The wastewater treatment plants are operating below capacity due to delays in securing funds for the construction of some communities’ sewers networks and main connection lines to the waste water treatment plants. Construction of some of these sewer lines and connections is currently underway while others are in the planning stage. 38 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013  Management and monitoring of the WWTPs performance should be improved through contracting specialized companies for regular maintenance of the electro mechanical equipment and institutionalization of an external monitoring system.  Unions of Municipalities present a ‘more sustainable financial partner’ for the implementation and operations of wastewater treatment plants with USAID than individual municipalities because of their higher income and financial resources.  The MoIM committee did not fully deliver on their role and responsibilities as signed in the MOU with USAID to support selected municipalities “for all legal and procedural actions needed for the success of this activity”. Participating municipalities are still working to secure funds for the implementation of sewers network protection and repair, construction of new sewers and connection lines and most importantly funding for O&M costs. Various initiatives in the form of draft laws are being discussed to resolve the O&M funding issue.  In spite of the financial burden of the O&M cost and challenges for operating the WWTPs, interviewed municipal leaders verbally confirmed their municipality’ and union’ ability and willingness to operate the wastewater treatment plants. How other donors are treating O&M costs When consulted on the issue of O&M costs, other international donors committing resources to wastewater treatment projects, either through grants or soft loans, have taken into budgetary considerations cost coverage of O&M for two to three years before handing over the financial and management responsibility of the plants to the Lebanese government. Interestingly also to mention that the Italian Development Cooperation is actually lobbying the Lebanese government to amend the wastewater governing laws to hand over the management responsibility of the Zahleh treatment plant and networks to Zahleh municipality rather than the BWE. Their argument is based on the ownership of the treated water (for possible re-use in irrigation) by the community since the wastewater has been generated by this same community. Social Soundness Analysis: USAID SVWTS project started back in the year 2005. Meetings with USAID COR and the project’s stakeholders confirmed that, at the onset of the project, consultations with the local population –community groups took place to inform and consult with the local people about the SVWTS project. No further coordination, engagement or awareness raising activities seem to have taken place at later stages of the project’ executions except with the direct partners namely the mayors and municipal councils. Aside from Baaloul village, community funds invested in this project were drawn from municipal or government sources. This limited awareness and restricted engagement of the ‘large base’ of the SVWTS project beneficiaries might be the cause behind some of the incidents that affected project’s implementation such as breaking the sewer network and diverting sewage flow to irrigate farms in Mashghara, dumping solid waste in the Litani River bed at the effluent outlet of the WWTP in Fourzol, contamination of raw sewage with olive press residues that hamper plants’ biological treatment processes … etc. These incidents indicate that awareness raising activities, enhanced coordination with and direct engagement of the local population needs 39 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 to run concurrently with project infrastructure development. Awareness raising and engagement of the local population jointly with the municipal councils is critical in light of two facts:  The benefits of wastewater collection and treatment will be felt only in the long-term and possibly more so for the communities downstream rather than in the project’ target areas. Thus, raising awareness of the beneficiary communities and groups on the direct and indirect, short and long term, and negative impact of untreated sewage on water sources, health, the general environment, and the economic development potential of these communities will help improve the communities’ acceptance of the project; hence their compliance with proper wastewater disposal practices and willingness to pay for the waste water treatment services.  The MoEW and the WEs are planning to impose, following the provision of sewage treatment services, wastewater treatment tariffs to be collected with the water fees. Lebanon should not continue to subsidize this service for the long run and should generate income from the subscribers to this service to cover O&M costs. Again, raising awareness of the local population and community groups on the Polluter’ Pay principle, the need to pay for such services in the future, as well as the negative environmental and health impacts of untreated sewage, would facilitate acceptance of the WE imposed tariffs. Finally, it is practically difficult and rather costly to ‘police’ local populations into compliance with proper waste water disposal practices and appropriate environmental behavior without their tacit consent. This consent can be reached with improved awareness of the local population and enhanced engagement of all community groups and influential leaders. Long term management and financial sustainability of the waste water sector depends on good governance practices especially in such challenging geographical areas like the Beka’a valley. Long-term Operation of WWTP: CDM reported during the course of SVWTS program implementation numerous challenges that stemmed from the inability of the project’ local partners (municipalities and union) to secure their contributions to the project as stipulated in the MoU with USAID. Moreover, the MoIM committee, whose coordination role was critical to the project success, had only limited success in supporting the local governments to deliver on their MoU commitments. To insure the long term sustainability of the three WWTPs operations, consideration has been given to handing over the management and operations of the three plants to the Beka’a Water Establishment (BWE). The ability and willingness of the BWE to provide better management and operations of the three plants compared to the Municipalities and Union is questionable. To answer the question of who is best suited to manage and operate the WWTP, the legal institutional framework of the Waste Water Sector in Lebanon is analyzed below: In 2000, the Lebanese Parliament approved law 221 and its amendments (law 377 and 241) to reform the water sector in Lebanon by modifying the responsibilities of the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) and merging the 21 former Water Authorities into four regional Water Establishments: Beirut/Mount Lebanon (BMLWE), North Lebanon (NLWE), South 40 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Lebanon (SLWE) and Bekaa Water Establishments (BWE). In addition to providing potable water supply services, the newly formed WEs became in charge of wastewater management and irrigation (except SLWE where irrigation remains under LRA). Though formally and legally in charge of wastewater management, the Water Establishments (aside from Beirut / Mount Lebanon), are not yet institutionally, technically, or financially prepared to take over the management of the sector. The following table gives an overview of the legal framework of the water sector in Lebanon versus actual practices: Table 14. De Jure and De Facto practices in wastewater management De Jure – The Legal Situation De Facto – Actual Practices Master Planning Under the Lebanese Legal Framework, the MoEW is responsible for preparing and updating national wastewater master plans. - Most investments in the field of wastewater are channeled through CDR, which has considerable experience. - CDR has a form of “de facto” responsibility for wastewater master planning alongside MoEW. Legal Responsibility MoEW and WEs have overall responsibility for wastewater collection, transportation and treatment - Existing sewer networks in Lebanon are mainly operated and maintained by municipalities. - Some municipalities have their own small treatment facilities but most of these are not functioning. - CDR-constructed WWTPs are operated through CDR contractual agreements with private contractors. Effluent Monitoring - Effluent monitoring is done to measure performance and compliance. - WEs are responsible for protecting water sources from adverse effects of wastewater effluents. - Monitoring obligations are part of MoEW regulatory duties. WEs must monitor effluent at the outlets of WWTPs. - MoE has introduced national effluent standards. - Self-monitoring is done in few facilities such as Al Ghadir and Saida pre-treatment plants and some smaller plants operated by private contractors or municipalities as is the case with the three USAID WWTPs in Aitanit, Fourzol and Ablah. Cost Recovery Law 377/2001 has introduced the Polluter Pays principle into the restructured sector by amending law 221/2000. Water legislation assumes eventual cost recovery and by-laws suggest a wastewater tariff calculated as a percentage of the water tariff. Few WWTPs are operational to date and wastewater charges have not been introduced yet except in pilot schemes. - Municipalities charge and collect an annual tax of 1.5% of the house rent for “pavements and sewers”. - Municipality’ construction permits include a fee of 0.5/1000 % of the selling price of the m2 land area for the creation of sewerage and sidewalks. - The municipalities use the funds for urgent maintenance work and expansion of the sewer networks and sidewalks. Customer Data WEs should collect comprehensive data on population densities, wastewater production, industrial pollution and sewers. Such data is important for reliable WWTPs design and future charging of wastewater treatment tariffs. - Little customer data is available. - Cooperation between WEs & municipalities is needed to identify wastewater customers, sources of industrial pollution and to eliminate storm water intrusion. 41 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 This overview of the Lebanon waste water sector clearly indicates that although MoEW and the WEs are mandated with the overall responsibility for WW collection, transportation and treatment, they did not yet assume their full legal obligations in this sector. Various donors, including USAID, EU and GIZ, are presently providing technical and other development assistance to support MoEW and the WEs in developing their management and technical capacity to manage the water sector. This is yet a work in progress especially in wastewater treatment. An interview with BWE General Director established BWE’s inability and unwillingness to manage the three USAID WWTPs. BWE’ inability is due to a lack of appropriately trained staff39. Moreover, the financial burden of operating the WWTPs will not be offset, according to him, by additional income from wastewater treatment tariffs especially in the Beka’a valley where BWE collection rates for water are 21% compared to the Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment (BMLWE) at 70%.40 Coordination with Wastewater Sector The SVWTS did not coordinate with CDR or the MoEW. One consequence of this mentioned by CDR is that the plants may have non-standard equipment not readily available when/if the plants fall under the control of the MoEW, or under maintenance contracts funded by CDR. CDR has generally been responsible for the construction of all wastewater facilities in Lebanon. CLIENT SATISFACTION: The evaluation expert met and interviewed with USAID direct partners namely the president of the Lake Union and the mayors of Fourzol and Ablah as well as some of the project’s beneficiary’ municipalities such as the mayors of Aitanit, Mashghara, and Baaloul. The municipal leaders confirmed their overall satisfaction with the project and partnership with USAID through CDM contractors. Additionally, the mayors of Ablah and Fourzol expressed their concerns and appealed for USAID continued support with the Lebanese Government – MoIM to come forward with the MOU commitments for O&M costs. The meetings also discussed the potential of processing dried sludge for agriculture fertilization and investments in additional infrastructure to catch and store treated water effluent for re-use in irrigation. Treated water would be a valuable source for irrigation during the summer season when usual water sources dry up.41 However, ownership of the treated effluent may be an issue according to the Italian Cooperation which is active in the sector. These ventures were discussed from the perspective of generating income to cover part of the plants O&M costs. Detailed plans and economic feasibility analysis are not available at present to assess the value of such ventures. 39 BWE is currently in the process of securing the MoEW and government approval for hiring 71 new staff. 40 USAID/LEBANON PMPL PROJECT, Project Site Visit to Lebanon Water and Waste Water Sector Support Project, 17April 2012, the purpose of the visit was to verify data for selected indicators from the Q2 FY 2012 quarterly report. One of the indicators was the “Percent of water revenues collected by targeted water entities” from which the reported results were obtained. 41 Nitrates and phosphates in the wastewater need to be considered as these could infiltrate into ground water and become a health concern. The reuse of wastewater is not allowed in Europe or the USA. 42 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 RELEVANCE: How relevant is the SVWTS to the GOL short, middle and long term National Wastewater Management Strategic Plan? An interview with Dr. Yousef Karam, Director of Water and Wastewater Projects at CDR, ascertained the government of Lebanon’s continued commitment to this sector, specifically for the Beka’a valley. This interest and commitment was expressed in a resolution passed by the Council of Ministers to form a parliamentary environment committee headed by the Minister of the Environment to follow up on pollution mitigation measures with special focus on the Beka’a valley. The President of the Lake Union of Municipalities mentioned meeting with this parliamentary committee and discussing/providing updates on the actual field situation in this sector. Eng. Guido Benevento, Italian Cooperation Attache and an expert in wastewater treatment, gave an overview of Italian commitment to water and wastewater treatment in the coming years. Italian Aid works through CDR, and according to Eng. Benevento CDR is committed to constructing 35-40 wastewater treatment plants, of which 10 are “nearly ready.” The Italians are financing 5 of these plants. The Eng. Stated that the “commitment of the government is significant.” The recent release of the National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector42 confirms an aggressive strategy by the government to develop wastewater treatment plants throughout Lebanon. The details for the development of specific plants and their networks are provided in Annex C. A list of the USAID funded small treatment plants is a part of the National Strategy. Furthermore, the five initiatives of the National Strategy presented below are in general agreement with the findings and recommendations of this report. “Strategic initiative # 1: An integrated and prioritized investment program for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse The strategy targets increases in wastewater collection, treatment and re-use rates. To reach these targets, MoEW will take the lead in working with CDR, WEs, the municipalities and the private sector to prepare and obtain financing for an integrated investment program. Top priority will be completing existing treatment plants and rapidly increasing the effective connection network to bring treatment rates to the level of installed treatment capacity. Strategic initiative # 2: Legal, regulatory and policy measures In order to set and regulate national standards for wastewater treatment and reuse, MoEW will work with other concerned agencies to put in place the needed legal, regulatory and policy measures. Strategic initiative # 3: Institutional measures to define responsibilities and to create capacity for service delivery WEs will progressively take over responsibility for service delivery. WE capacity will be developed, and the private sector will be used where appropriate. On a case by 42 Made available to the evaluation team in January, 2013. 43 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 case basis, WEs may agree with municipalities that the municipalities operate facilities by delegation. MoEW will build its capacity for sector oversight and support. Strategic initiative # 4: Financial measures for viability and affordable services Following the 'polluter pays' principle, full recovery of O&M costs will be introduced progressively to generate revenues and the conditions of financial viability, and transparent operating subsidies will be paid during the transition period until WEs can cover their costs. Strategic initiative # 5: Measures to optimize private sector participation in the wastewater sector. The advantages of partnerships with the private sector will be explored and private enterprises will be increasingly involved through partnership approaches, including the financing and implementation of investments, and the conclusion of management contracts and possible BoT arrangements.” VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTIONS: The MoU has been approved by the Council of Ministers and published in the official gazette. This is the highest commitment from the country’ executive body (CDM report “Completed per the distribution of the approval of the MOU by the Council of Ministers as mentioned and published in the official gazette”). There has been no national budget approved for Lebanon since 2008, and reports by the Office of Technical Assistance, US Department of the Treasury advisor to the Public Accounting Directorate (PAD) of the Ministry of Finance noted that the Cabinet and Parliament have not received final national accounts since 2005. Given this, it is not surprising that the MoEW and the Bekaa Water Establishment have not been able to meet their wastewater management responsibilities; while simultaneously the Independent Municipal Fund (IMF) has not had sufficient funds to allow Municipalities to support their O&M responsibilities at the WWTP. It was known, and well-reported by the implementing partner in bi-weekly progress reports, that some of the municipalities were unable to provide plant operators to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the WWTP. Plant operators were to receive training in the operation and maintenance of the WWTP, and each plant has a detailed O&M manual. Without trained operators overall plant operations are at risk. In some cases the municipality has insufficient resources to provide generator power to sustain plant operation when main electricity power is not available (as much as 12 hours each day). Site visits in May 2012, determined that the Ablah plant had not yet been provided with operators, and that the Fourzol plant was not operating due to lack of available funds to purchase diesel fuel to run the generator. As a result the Fourzol plant had ceased operations; this condition prevailed until early July 2012 when funds were provided. The plant was then flushed and normal operations resumed. Thus the critical assumption that the municipalities had the necessary resources to do WWTP operations & maintenance was not valid. 44 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS  Reduce energy costs/consumption at the plants: o Reduce the number of trickle filter blowers. o Reduce the size of the generators.  Assist in developing municipal policy that encourages septic tank pumper trucks to deposit septic waste at the plant septage receiving stations. Impose fines for violators.  Assist municipalities to develop a policy for use/disposal of dried sludge from the drying beds.  Policy development for the measurement of wastewater treatment plant effluent to be discharged into the Litani River. Define different agency’s responsibility. For the three plants this may best be the Litani River Authority who already see this as part of their future role and responsibility. This has been encouraged under the USAID funded Litani River Basin Management Support (LRBMS) project. The LRBMS could be requested to determine how best to implement this policy. Part of the effluent monitoring should include measurement of Total P and Total N because, according to recent research cited in this evaluation , the main concern for pollutants in the Litani River comes from Nitrates and Phosphates which have leached into underlying aquifers well beyond permissible concentrations.  Support the wastewater tariff discussion and implementation. Introducing user-based tariffs is the best long-term solution for WWTP O&M sustainability and expansion and is now supported by the NSWS 2012.  Support awareness raising in the Upper Litani aimed at increasing the number of water rate payers as this is linked to proposed wastewater tariff collection schemes. The Litani Water & Wastewater Sector Support (LWWSS) project has initiated awareness raising campaigns achieving positive results, and this can be encouraged.  The municipalities and union of municipalities appear to be the best option for operation of small scale WWTP and their engagement for this task should be continued. In general, support for decentralization of wastewater treatment plant operation should be encouraged based on the experience gained from SVWTS.  The source for training of wastewater treatment operators is not apparent. This should be supported through technical education opportunities. Many new treatment plants will come on line in the coming years that will require trained operators. VII. LESSONS LEARNED  To assess the financial and administrative soundness of the partners before committing USAID resources. The situation of municipal, water establishment and 45 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ministerial finances and their ability to provide adequate staffing for a project or initiative is complex in the Lebanese context. Understanding this or preparing for uncertainty might avoid or mitigate the brinksmanship that caused the Fourzol plant to be inoperative for several months.  To undertake awareness-raising campaigns in parallel with infrastructure development. Awareness raising can mitigate the diversion of sewage to irrigate fields and the indiscriminate dumping of sewage into the Litani River.  To assess the entire sewer system as a condition for investment. The sewer network serving the Aitanit plant was at one point broken by farmers to divert sewage to their fields. The Niha and Nabi Alya were to construct sewer networks to connect with the Ablah plant, but have not yet done so. The Fourzol municipality, however, did complete needed repairs.  Phase I of the project identified locations and designs for waste water treatment plants in the Upper Litani River Basin. Sixteen municipalities containing 101,000 people were identified as potential sites for the construction of 7 waste water treatment plants. Phase II of the project, under a separate contract, was to construct the treatment plants. The number of plants to be constructed was not specified, but was to be determined by the willingness and ability of the communities to support the construction. This resulted in the selection of 4 WWTP to be constructed. However, one of the four communities, Chmistar, was not able to secure land for the construction and was dropped. As a consequence 3 wastewater treatment plants serving 20,350 persons in 8 municipalities were constructed giving the impression that targets were not met. It would have been preferable to positively identify the communities and sites securing the necessary commitments during Phase I.  Union of Municipalities affords a financially more reliable partner for USAID investments in waste water projects than individual municipalities due to possible economies of scale in treatment processes, and second due to the larger revenues at their disposal than individual municipalities.  The Memoranda of Understanding is a viable legal framework that certifies the Lebanese government’s willingness through the MoIM, Union and Municipalities- to achieve the common purpose stated in the MoU. However, the MoU does not cover the financial ways and means –capacity- to deliver on these commitments. In light of the government’s past and current budgetary issues, more specifics on the financial process by which this support will be realized has to be included in future agreement mechanisms. Other donors have provided project funding to cover 2-3 years of forecast O&M costs; this strategy may simply be kicking the can down the road as the resolution to covering O&M costs must come through user-based revenue.  Wastewater projects entail costs for operation and maintenance of infrastructure and equipment that goes beyond the construction and commissioning phase. Future studies of wastewater projects would be inclusive of the long term ‘sustainable sources’ by which these costs should be covered. Such means can be legal such as levying wastewater treatment tariffs (draft law under process) or raising voluntary 46 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 contributions from the local population as is the case in Qsarnaba for wastewater treatment or Baaloul for networks construction.  To assess the entire sewer system and industrial pollution sources as a condition for investment. Sewers networks and wastewater treatment plants are technically considered as one unit of treatment. For the SVWTS assessment of the network occurred after the commitment to construct the WWTP. Assessment of the network was possibly assumed not to be necessary as this was a responsibility of the municipalities under the MoU. The ability of the municipality or union to meet this responsibility was not assessed. VIII. CONCLUSIONS  The prospect of the WE taking over operation of the WWTP, once a favored idea, seems unlikely in the short run. Municipalities and the Union of Municipalities are capable of operating the small WWTP such as those built under SVWTS.  There is a significant commitment by other donors to the wastewater sector. Should USAID wish to return to funding WWTP close coordination is imperative with other donors and the CDR.  Third party monitoring of treatment plant effluent is desirable. The LRA would seem the likely institution to do this.  WWTP plants should not be considered apart from the sewer network to support them and consideration for the long-term administrative support needed for O&M and 3rd party effluent monitoring.  Maintain the management of the WWTPs with the municipalities and unions of municipalities until a determination of how a fee-based formula to fund plant O&M will unfold. The Water Establishments are currently not capable of operating the WWTP although they have a legal mandate to do so. 47 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEXES 48 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEX A. PERSONS CONTACTED Organization Name Title Telephone - Mobile Council for Development and Reconstruction Joseph Karam Director of Water & Wastewater 01 980096/7 -ext 164 - 172 Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)-Lebanon Water & Wastewater Sector Support Program Sam Coxson Chief of Party 04 724473 ext 111 Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)-Lebanon Water & Wastewater Sector Support Program Jimmy Zammar Program Manager 04 724473 ext 114 Embassy of Italy-Italian Development Cooperation Office Guido Benevento Italian Cooperation Attache 05 451379/406/494 GIZ- Assistance to the Water Sector Reform Younes Hassib Technical Advisor 70637743 - 05 451624 Lebanese Ministry of Electricity and Water - Beka'a Water Establishment Maroun Moussallem General Director 03 600226 Lebanese Ministry of Interior and Municipalities Khalil Hajal General Director 03 342224 - 01 610120 Municipality of Ablah Robert Semaan Mayor 03 806147 Municipality of Aitanit Assaad Najem Mayor 03 612971 Municipality of Baaloul Basim Ahamed Al Fakih Mayor 03 854394 Municipality of Fourzol Ibrahim Nasrallah Mayor 03 774908 Municipality of Mashghara Georges Debbs Mayor 03 098532 Municipality of Qaraoun Yahia Daher Mayor 03 630901 (was not available) 49 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Union of the Lake Municipalities Khaled Shranek President of the Union 03 424058 USAID Lebanon Heath Cosgrove Director- Office of Economic Growth 04 542600 USAID Lebanon Rami Wehbeh Program Management Specialist - COR SVWTS 04 542600 ext 4597 Wastewater Treatment Plant Fourzol & Ablah Mohamed Bodaye Chief Operator 71001273 - 76756101 Wastewater Treatment Plant Saida Joseph Kassab Director of Plant 03 714547 50 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEX B. REFERENCES Ablah Municipality, Financial Budget." 2011. EU Water Coordination Group. "List of Projects -Water Sector Lebanon." Status 29 February, 2012. First Municipal Infrastructure Project-Municipal Finance Studies Program. "Final Roadmap for Modernizing Municipal Finance in Lebanon (Final Report of Studies 1, 2 &3)." Submitted by ICMA with its subcontractors CRI & TCGI, February 8, 2011. Fourzol Municipality, "Financial Budget." 2011. German Agency for Technical Cooperation. "Key Issues of Waste Management in Lebanon." Reference paper. February 2010. German Agency for Technical Cooperation. "Towards a New Water and Wastewater Tariff Strategy in Lebanon-Main Principles." Workshop report. November 2010. Lebanese-German Technical Cooperation, Assistance to the Water Sector Reform in Lebanon (GTZ # 2006.2130.0). "Assessment of Key Issues Related to Wastewater Management in Lebanon." November 2009. LWWSS Program Description, Contract EPP-I-00-04-00023-00/04 Section C- Description / Specifications /Statement of Work. Memoranda of Understanding among the Government of the United States of America, the Municipality of Ablah, the Municipality of Nabi Ayla and the Municipality of Niha for Roles and Responsibilities Regarding the Regional Ablah Wastewater Treatment Plant. April 27, 2009. Memoranda of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Lebanon and the Government of the United States of America for Mutual Cooperation to Address Pollution of the Litani River and Lake Qaraoun through the Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems Project. December 21, 2005. Ministry of Energy and Water, Lebanese Government (Resolution No. 35, Date 17/10/2012), National Strategy for the Wastewater Sector. PMPL Project Site Visit Report, "Indicator Data Verification." CDM SVWTS, June 8, 2012. PMPL Project Site Visit Report, "Transferable Asset Inventory." CDM SVWTS, May 31, 2012. PMPL Project Site Visit Report, August 2011. PMPL PSV Report, "Installed Inventory Verification and Use Check of Fourzol WWTP." CDM SVWTS, August 23, 2012. PMPL. Small Village Wastewater Treatment Systems (SVWTS): Final Evaluation Scope of Work, July, 2012 Saadeh, M., L. Semerjian, and N. Amacha. "Physicochemical Evaluation of the Upper Litani River Watershed, Lebanon." The Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012,Article ID 462467, 8 pages, doi:10.1100/2012/462467. 51 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 SVWTS Phase II Project for Upper Litani River Basin. "Performance Management Plan." Prepared by CDM, September 17, 2010. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-00066-00 Section C￾Description/Specifications/Statement of Work. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-00066-00 Section C-Modification #2. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-0066-00 Section C- Modification #3. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-0066-00 Section C- Modification #5. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-0066-00 Section C- Modification #6. SVWWTS Program Description, Contract 268-C-05-00-0066-00 Section C- Modification #9. The World Bank. "Lebanon Social Impact Analysis-Electricity and Water Sectors." Social and Economic Development Group - Middle East and North Africa Region. Report # 48993-LB, June 18, 2009. Union of the Lake Municipalities, Financial Budget." for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. USAID Lebanon, "SVWTS Project Phase II - Year 1- Project Management Plan." October 2005. USAID Lebanon, "SVWTS Project Phase II - Year 4- Project Management Plan." March 2009. USAID Lebanon, " SVWTS Project Phase II - Year 5- Updated Management Plan." July 2010. USAID Lebanon, " SVWTS Project Phase II - Year 6- Updated Management Plan." July 2011. USAID Lebanon, " SVWTS Project Phase II - Year 7- Updated Management Plan." February 2012. USAID Lebanon, Lebanon Water & Waste Water Sector Support. "Quarterly Report: July 1, 2011- September 30, 2011." DAI Contract # EPP-I-00-04-00023-00/04, October 15, 2011. USAID Lebanon, Lebanon Water & Waste Water Sector Support. "Year Two Work Plan." DAI Contract # EPP-I-00-04-00023-00/04, August, 2010. USAID Lebanon, SVWTS Project Phase II for Upper Litani River Basin. "Operation and Maintenance Manual - Ablah Wastewater Treatment Plant." CDM Smith. July 2012. USAID Lebanon, SVWTS Project Phase II for Upper Litani River Basin. "Operation and Maintenance Manual - Aitanit Wastewater Treatment Plant." CDM Constructors Inc. March 2011. USAID Lebanon, SVWTS Project Phase II for Upper Litani River Basin. "Operation and Maintenance Manual - Fourzol Wastewater Treatment Plant." CDM Constructors Inc. March 2011. USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.1, May 1-September 30, 2009." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.2, October 1-December 31, 2009." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River 52 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.3, January 1- March 31, 2010." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.32, January 1- February 29, 2012." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.33, March 1- April 30, 2012." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.34, May 1- July 31, 2012." USAID Small Villages Wastewater Treatment Systems-Phase II Project for the Upper Litani River (CDM Smith). "O&M Advise & Assist Progress Report No.4, April 1- June 30, 2010." USAID/Lebanon. “COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS REPORT WATER AND WASTEWATER SECTOR, LEBANON.” Prepared under Task Order # 01/AID-OAA-TO-10-00018 under the WATER II Indefinite Quantity Contract, #EPP-I-00-05-00010-00, Mendez England & Associates, authored by Barney Popkin, Jean Karam, and Gebran. Karam. March 31, 2011. 53 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEX C. Wastewater Plants Investments Identified in the National Strategy 2012 Total Investment Requirements Short and Medium Term (2011 to 2015) Strategic Initiative Strategic initiative # 1: An integrated and prioritized investment program for wastewater collection, treatment and reuse Short Term 2011 - 2012 (Million US$) 692 Medium Term 2013 - 2015 (MilliQn US$) total Budget 2011 - 2015 (MillipnUSS) 1,123 1,815 Strategic initiative # 2: Legal, regulatory and policy measures to set and regulate standards 5 5 Strategic initiative # 3: Institutional measures to define responsibilities and to create capacity for service delivery 11 17 28 Strategic initiative # 4: Financial measures for viability and affordable services 8 30 38 Strategic initiative # 5: Measures to optimize private sector participation in the wastewater sector 3 6 9 Total - 719 1,176 1,895 Funds already available at CDR 380 300 680 Funds to be made available 339 876 1,215 Long Term ( 2016-2020) Initiative Continuation of the integrated national investment program (19 unfunded inland schemes, the schemes of the inland areas not covered by the already identified 42 inland schemes, and Sarafand wastewater scheme). Budget (Million US$) 835 Upgrading preliminary treatment plants (Bourj I-lammoud, Ghadir and Saida) to secondary treatment, and extension of Jbeil treatment plant 278 Investments for re-use of treated wastewater for irrigation 100 Total 1,213 Investment Summary Short – Medium Term (Million USD) Long Term (Million USD) Total (Million USD) Government of Lebanon 115 113 228 Donors 250 250 500 Private Sector 200 350 550 54 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Municipalities 650 500 1150* Available at CDR 680 - 680 Total 1,895 1,213 3,108 Table A.2: Funded Inland Treatment Plants Requiring Additional Funds tment plant Population Equivalent Status Available Funds. (Million USD) Actual Cost (Million USD) Additional Funds Required (Million USD) Operational Under construction Under design Treatment Plant Networks + house connections Total North Lebanon Bakhoun 48,000 X 19.80 8.25 14.05 22.30 2.50 Bcharre & AI Arz (2 TPs) 25,000 X 6.90 4.83 3.75 8.58 1.68 Mechmech 68,000 X 10.30 6.80 24.70 31.50 21.20 4 treatment plants in North 141,000 0 0 4 37.00 19.88 42.50 62.38 25.38 Mount Lebanon Barouk & Fraidis 8,000 X 6.1 1.60 2.90 4.50 Nabba Safa & Ain Zhalta 20,000 X 4.00 7.26 11.26 9.66 Hrajel 40,000 X 9.30 6.00 14.52 20.52 11.22 Kartaba 13,000 X 5.00 3.00 4.00 7.00 2.00 Jeita and Kferzebiane (2 TPs) 35,000 X 19.00 6.30 12.70 19.00 0.00 6 treatment plants in Mt. Leb. 116,000 0 0 6 39.40 20.90 41.38 62.28 22.88 :South Lebanon Kfarsir, Yahmour & Zawtar 35,000 X 9.50 4.80 9.70 14.50 5.00 Nabatieh 100,000 X 13.80 8.90 9.90 18.80 5.00 Tibnine & Chakra 100,000 X 14.00 8.40 41.60 50.00 36.00 Aarkoub 25,000 X 5.20 3.75 ` 9.10 12.85 7.65 6 treatment plants in South 260,000 0 5 1 42.50 25.85 70.30 96.15 53.65 Treatment plant, Population Status: Available Funds (Million USD) Actual Cost (Millions USD) Additional Funds Required {Million USD} Operational Under construction Under design Treatment Plant NetWorks + house connections Total Beqaa Baalbeck 100,000 X 17.00 6.30 19.70 26.00 9.00 Yammouneh 6,000 X 2.60 1.05 2.55 3.60 1.00 Zahle 150,000 X 35.40 32.00 20.50 52.50 17.10 West Beqaa (Jib Jenine + Saghbine) 100,000 X 37.00 12.00 35.00 47.00 10.00 Aanjar 300,000 X 36.25 30.00 66.00 96.00 59.75 Laboua 47,000 X 4.56 7.00 17.00 24.00 19.44 Timnine EI Tahta 100,000 X 8.90 10.00 36.00 46.00 37.10 7 treatment plants in Beqaa 803,000 2 2 3 141.71 98.35 196.75 295.1 153.39 23 Plants in total 1,320,000 2 7 14 260.61 164.98 350.93 515.91 255.30 55 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Table A.3: Inland Treatment Plants Requiring Complete Funding Treatment Plant Population Equivalent Funds available (million USD) Actual Cost of Works (million USD) Cost to finalize all works (MUSD) Treatment Plant Networks + house connections North Lebanon Al Bira and Manjaz 52,500 0.00 5.50 20.00 25.50 Beit Mellat and Akkar El Aatika 75,000 0.00 7.50 27.23 34.73 Hasroun 4,800 0.00 0.96 1.74 2.70 Kferhelda 30,000 0.00 4.50 5.50 10.00 Tannourine 10,200 0.00 2.00 3.70 5.70 Qobayet 38,000 0.00 5.70 13.80 19.50 6 treatment plants in North210,500 0.00 26.16 71.97 98.13 Mount Lebanon Aakoura 16,250 0.Q0 3.25 5.90 9.15 Deir El Kamar 42,000 0.00 6.30 15.25 21.55 Jisr El Kadi 40,000 0.00 6.00 15.00 21.00 Khinshara 20,000 0.00 3.00 7.26 10.26 Sawfar 35,000 0.00 5.25 12.70 17.95 5 treatment plants in Mt. Leb. 153,250 0.00 23.80 56.11 79.91 South Lebanon Bent Jbeyl 25,000 0.00 3.75 9.10 12.85 Jbaa 10,500 0.00 2.10 3.80 5.90 Jezzine 30,000 0.00 4.50 11.00 15.50 Hassbaya 26,500 0.00 4.00 9.62 13.62 Nabaa El Tasseh - Nabatieh 54,000 0.00 8.10 19.60 27.70 Marjeyoun 30,000 0.00 7.00 10.90 17.90 6 treatment plants in South 176,000 0.00 29.45 64.02 93.47 Beqaa Hermel 96,000 0.00 9.60 21.00 30.60 Rachaya 22,000 0.00 8.00 12.40 20.40 2 treatment plants in Beqaa 118,000 0.00 17.60 33.40 51.00 19 Treatment Plants 657,750 0 97.01 225.50. 322.51 56 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Table A.4: Inland Treatment Plants Funded by USAID No. Treatment Plant Region Population Served Capacity (cum/day) Completion Date USAID Investment (USD) South Lebanon 1 Haytoura Jezzine 1000 100 2006 64,500 2 Snayya Jezzine 600 60 2004 62,000 3 Aychieh Jezzine 1500 150 2005 119,000 4 Ghobbatieh Jezzine 2800 250 2006 183,000 5 Wadi Jezzine Jezzine 1500 150 2005 78,000 6 Barteh Jezzine 1300 195 2002 88,000 7 El Rihane Jezzine 4500 820 2002 NA 8 Jibaa 1&2 Nabatieh 1000 150 2002 95,000 9 Kfarkila Hasbaya 3500 525 2002 93,000 10 Chebaa Hasbaya 6000 900 2002 100,000 11 Hasbaya/Ain Qenya Hasbaya 14000 2100 2002 108,000 12 Ain Qenya 2 &3 Hasbaya 7500 1125 2002 NA 13 Ain Qenya 4 Hasbaya olive press 8 2002 NA 14 Khiam Hasbaya 6000 600 ,2002 90,000 15 Ouazzani Hasbaya _ 175 26 2001 45,000 16 Ain Jarfa 1 . Hasbaya 2500 375 2002 49,000 17 Ain Jarfa 2 Hasbaya Olive press 8 NA NA 18 Abou Qamha Hasbaya 600 90 2002 14,000 19 Kfeir Hasbaya 3000 450 2002 180,000 20 Klaya 1 Marjeyoun 4000 600 2002 208,000 21 Klayaa 2 Marjeyoun 1300 200 2002 NA 22 Deir Mimes Marjeyoun 1300 200 2002 NA 23 Marj el Zouhour Hasbaya 1200 120 2000 133,000 23 Total. South Lebanon 65,275 9,202 1,709,500 North Lebanon 1 Bqerzia Akkar 1,800 NA 1998 177,000 2 Hmaira Akkar 600 40 2002 65,000 3 Charbila Akkar 1,152 NA 1999 80,000 4 Kaws Akkar Akkar Atika 1,000 100 2000 120,000 5 Maakouda Akkar Atika 1,000 100 2002 65,000 6 El Mrahet Akkar Atika 550 60 2000 80,000 7 Andeq Qoubayat 9,000 1350 2001 299,000 8 Markibta Dennieh 1,300 195 1999 89,000 8 Total North Lebanon 16,402 975,000 57 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 NO. Treatment Plant Region Population Served Capacity (cum/day) Completion Date USAID Investment (USD)) Bekaa 1 Bakka 1 Bekaa 1,000 160 1998 87,000 2 Bakka 2 Bekaa 6,000 160 2002 55,000 3 Rachaya Bekaa 6,000 600 2005 240,000 4 El Housh Bekaa 1,000 100 2005 126,000 5 Aitanit Bekaa (Aitanit, Baaloula, Machghara & Qaroun) 35,700 5000 2009 6,000,000 6 Forzol Bekaa 7,500 1000 2009 4,000,000 7 Ablah Bekaa 15,000 2000 2012 4,000,000 8 Jabbouleh Bekaa 1,000 80 2001 39,900 9 Deir El Ahmar Bekaa 3,000 300 2002 93,000 10 Chouaia Rachaya 700 50 2007 117,000 11 Al Fardis Rachaya _ 1,200 120 2007 414,500 12 Hebbaria Rachaya 9,200 920 2007 350,000 13 Kfar Hamam Rachaya 1,700 115 2007 128,000 14 El Mari Rachaya 1,300 220 2007 131,000 15 Kawkaba Rachaya 2,000 135 2007 225,000 16 Yanta 1 & 2 Rachaya 3,000 300 2002 160,000 17 Mimes 1 & 2 Rachaya 3,000 120 2002 160,000 18 Ain Harcha Rachaya 1,200 120 2002 145,000 18 Total Reqaa 99,500 11,500 16,471,400 Mount Lebanon 1 Ammatour Chouf 6000 900 2007 876,000 2 Maasser El Chouf, Ammatour, Ain Qani, Baadaran, Haret Jandal Chouf 3000 450 2007 518,000 3 Bater Chouf 6000 900 2007 1,228,000 4 Moukhtara Chouf 3000 450 2007 530,000 5 Mrosti Chouf 1500 225 2007 267,000 6 Khraibeh Chouf 3000 450 2007 880,000 7 Jbaa Chouf 2000 300 2007 241,000 8 Hammana Baabda 7000 1050 2000 166,000 9 Kornayel Baabda 6000 900 2002 183,000 9 Total Mount Lebanon 37,500 5,625 4,889,000 58 Grand Total 218,677 24,044,900 A 58 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 ANNEX D. List of EU & Other Donors Wastewater Projects Project Title Objective / Remarks Details Sewage Network and waste water treatment plant The purpose of the project is the construction of three wastewater schemes in Southern Lebanon including infrastructure for wastewater collection and treatment for the villages of Yahmor, Zaoutar and Kfir Sir start/end date: 2/8/2007-6/30/2011 status: ongoing Commitment:8,000,000 Donor Agency :European Commission/ Partner: CDR Greater Beirut Wastewater The construction of a wastewater treatment plant and preliminary treatment in Dora, rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing sea outfall and construction of related main collectors, waste- and storm-water networks and secondary lines. Location: BMLWE administrative area start/end date 6/1/2010-2015 status: On hold. Donor Agency: EC subsidy Commitment: 60,000,000 South Lebanon Wastewater Upgrading and extending the sewerage infrastructure of the coastal cities of Saïda and Sour and their surroundings in Southern Lebanon., including the construction of main collectors, treatment plants (preliminary for Saïda, secondary for Sour) and sea outfalls. Location: SLWWE administrative area. Status: On going start/end date 10/16/2009- 2013 Donor Agency: EC subsidy Commitment: 60,000,000 Tripoli Wastewater The construction of a wastewater treatment plant and related sea outfall, the rehabilitation and expansion of the sewerage system and the construction of a stormwater drainage network for the greater Tripoli area, which comprises the municipalities of Tripoli, El Mina and El Bedawwi. Location: NLWWE administrative area //Greater Tripoli Status: ongoing Start/end date 1996-2012 Donor Agency: EC subsidy Commitment: 100,000,000 Kesrwan Water and Wastewater Wastewater treatment plants with secondary treatment in Jounieh and Zouk Makhael with relevant outfalls, main wastewater collectors, inland sewer network, secondary network and house connections (100,000 inhabitants, Phase I), additional sewer networks and house connections for 200,000 inhabitants (Phase II). Location: BMLWE administrative area start/end date: 2012-2013 Status: EIB: finance contract signed and ratified by Parliament , AFD approved Donor Agency: EC subsidy Commitment: 150,000,000 Al Ghadir Water and Wastewater Phased construction of a waste water treatment plant with secondary treatment for the southern areas of Beirut, integrating possibly the existing pre-treatment facilities, including construction and upgrading of networks in this catchments area. Location: BMLWE administrative area start/end date: 2012-2016 status: New FS in progress Donor Agency :TBC Commitment:NA Water Supply and Sanitation in North Lebanon 1. Generalization of management results obtained in Tripoli to whole North Lebanon Water Establishment. 2. Building sanitation networks for 3 cities (total 100 000 equivalent habitants) and 1 wastewater treatment plant (50 000 equivalent habitants). Location: North Lebanon start/end date 11/1/2008-12/31/2012 status: On going. Donor Agency: AFD Commitment: 30,000,000 Wastewater projects in Qadisha Valley Implementation of an integrated waste water policy in three parts: master plan for waste water management in Qadisha valley; pilot project of semi-collective waste water management; assistance for the reinforcement of the "Etablissement des Eaux du Nord" capacities in order to develop new technologies for waste water management. Location: North Lebanon start/end date 11/15/2007 status: Completed. Donor Agency: French Ministry of Finances Commitment: 345,380 Assistance and supervision for the 5 treatment plant financed by the Franco￾lebanese protocols Cabinet Merlin is in charge of technical assistance and supervision for the construction of the 5 wastewater treatment plants financed by french-lebanese "protocoles financiers"(Nabatiyeh, Ras Nabi Younes, Chekka, Jbeil, Batroun) Location: Lebanon start date: 2003 status: On going Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 1,104,007 € Nabatiyeh wastewater treatment plant Building of one wastewater treatment plant in Nabatiyeh (100 000 equivalent inhabitants) Location: South Lebanon start date: 2003 status: On going. Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 2,648,971 € Ras Nabi Younes wastewater treatment plant Building of one wastewater treatment plant in Ras Nabi Younes (88°000 equivalent inhabitants) Location: Chouf start date: 2003 status: On going. Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 4,437,382 € Chekka wastewater treatment plant Building of one wastewater treatment plant in Chekka (24 000 equivalent inhabitants) Location: North Lebanon start date: 2003 status: On going. Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 3,946,501 € Jbeil wastewater treatment plant Building of one wastewater treatment plant in Jbeil (48 000 equivalent inhabitants) North Lebanon start date: 2007 status: On going. Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 2,629,528 € Batroun wastewater treatment plant Building of one wastewater treatment plant in Batroun (30 000 equivalent inhabitants) North Lebanon start date: 2007 status: On going. Donor Agency: France/Partner: CDR Commitment: 1,902,919 € Al Ghadir Wastewater Project The program’s objective is to improve the environmentally sound and hygienic wastewater disposal in the catchment area of the Ghadir River and to keep the waters off the coast of Beirut clean. Location: Ghadir river catchment area start date: 2008 status: tender document in preparation. Donor Agency: BMZ/Partner: CDR Commitment: 16,200,000 Rehabilitation of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Southern Lebanon The overall objective is to reduce the health risks arising from war related damages to the water infrastructure. The program’s objective is to contribute to the improvement of the continuous and hygienic supply of water and disposal of wastewater. (Emergency Program, Phase I & II) South Lebanon, West Bekaa, and Southern Beirut status: completed. Donor Agency: BMZ/Partner: CDR SLWE, Council of the South Commitment: 12,000,000 59 Small Village Wastewater Treatment System Program: Final External Evaluation, January 2013 Project Title Objective / Remarks Details Rehabilitation of Sanitation System – Northern Lebanon (Emergency Program, Phase III) Overall program goal is to improve the living conditions of the Lebanese population (6 municipalities) and the Palestinian refugees (two refugee camps) in the North of Lebanon. The program’s objective is to improve the collection of the wastewater in the project area in a hygienically and environmentally sound manner. The following components will be given priority: waste water main collector between Tripoli wastewater treatment plant and the Bared River; secondary and tertiary wastewater collection systems in the “catchment area” including house-connections; and necessary accompanying consultancy services. Coastal towns north of Tripoli: Beddawi to Bared River start date: 6/30/2007- 2012 status: ongoing. Donor Agency: BMZ Partner: CDR UNRWA, Municipalities of Tripoli, Beddawi, Deir Ammar, Minnieh, Bhannine Commitment: 16,000,000 Technical Assistance to the Water Sector Reform / Rehabilitation of Water Supply and Wastewater Systems in Lebanon Strengthening of technical- and management capacities in all of the four WEs. the program aims to strengthen the capacity of the ministry in its regulatory and policy roles and promote benchmarking based on performance indicators, capacity building, know-how transfer, and the improvement of customer relations. National with offices in all WEs (Beirut, Saida, Zahle, Tripoli) start date: 2/1/2008- 4/30/2014 status: on going. Donor Agency: BMZ/Partner: CDR all of the four WEs Commitment: 8,000,000 Water supply system in Koura water supply system in Qalamoun, Majdlaya and Ras Masqa Tripoli and Koura Caza start date: 2008- 2011 status: on going. Donor Agency: Italian government for development coop. Partner: CDR Commitment: 5,911,145 Water supply and Wastewater management in Jbeil Caza Supply of safe drinking water and proper sewage collection and treatment to the targeted populations of Jbeil Caza, in the year 2020 ( Afqa and Qatra springs Jbeil, Aabboud, Mazraat Es Siyad and Qartaba) Jbeil Caza start date: 2008- 2012 status: on going. Donor Agency: Italian government for development coop. Partner: CDR Commitment: 39,089,097 Construction of 2 wastewater treatment plants and networks in Michmich and Hrajel The program foresees the realization of the needed works for the collection and treatment of the waste water in the areas objects of the intervention. Michmich (Akkar Caza), Hrajel (Kesrouan Caza) start date: 2008- 2015 status: on going. Donor Agency: Italian government for development coop. Partner: CDR Commitment: 13,839,384 Lebanon Water Policy Program Overall objective is to help the water establishments solve their institutional and technical problems in order to become strong, viable utilities capable of attracting investment and providing responsive and high quality services to their customers. Ministry of Energy and Water, Beirut start date: May2002-Sept. 2008 status: on going. Donor Agency: USAID Partner: MoEW, SLWE, BMLWE. Commitment: 5,100,000$ Small Village Wastewater Treatment Plants project Construction and operation of 4 wastewater treatment plants at the upper Litani River Basin: Qaraoun/Aitanit; Fourzol; Ablah; Chmistar with the aim of reducing pollution of the Litani River and Lake Qaraoun. Bekaa start date: 10/1/2005- 6/1/2011 status: on going. Donor Agency: USAID Partner: MoIM, MoEW. Commitment: 18,000,000 Baalbeck Water and Sanitation Project (a) develop and strengthen the institutional capacity of the Ba'albeck Hermel Water and Irrigation Authority and the Zahle and Chamsine Water Authorities; (b) improve the access of customers to satisfactory water supply and wastewater services; (c) involve the private sector in the operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater facilities; (d) rationalize the use of water through water meters. Baalbeck City & Neighboring Villages start date: 31/07/2003- 15/12/2012 status: on going. Donor Agency: WB Commitment: 43,000,000$ ANNEX E. MoU between USAID and MoIM 1'\of:Ert10RAND(Iñ.f OF UNDERSTANDlNG BETWEEN THE GoVERNMlllNT OF THE REPUBLlC OF LEBANON AND TKE GoVERNMENT OF TJIE UNlTED S'TA't"ES OF A1t1E.RlCA FoR MUTUAL COOPERATION TO ADDRESS POLLUTION OF1'8:ELrrANI RIVERAND LAKE QARAOUN 1'B:ROUGH 'CHE SMALL YILLAGE W ASTEWA TER '!'REA l'MENT SYSTEMS PROJ'Ecr ArtIcle 1-Purpose 1.1 TIle purpose of tlris Memonmdum of UnderstnndiDg (MOU) by IIlld betwoen tbe Govemment of fue Republic of Lebanon (GOL), acting through me Ministry of Inferior and Municipalities (MoIM), and lhe Government of the Uruted States of America (USO), aoting through the Uuited States Agency for Int~IIlational De-velopment (USAlD). is te set forth !he agrcemeIlt oC the GOL and USO (collectively, fue "Partiesj to coopcratc on assisUUlc¡e p rovided by the Small ViUage Wastewater Trealment Systems Project lo aJleviate the poUution oí the upper Litani Rjver añd Lake Qamoun, ArticJe 2- Tbe Froject 2.1 Tho Small Villago·Wastewa1.er Treatmcnt Systems Project (fue "Project): a.) Assists selected Beba Munioipalitics iD addressing uncontrollod discharges oi uutreated domestic wastewater into fue upper Litani River basm by providing tbero wítb viable treatmeot systems aud desigDs fOl tlu~ir domestic wastewater discharges in fue Lif.lUri River¡ and b) A.ssj¡;rs lbe selected Bcw Munícipalities in establisbing domestlc wastewat.er treatment facilities based On those design.s; 2.2 Tbe Projeet seeks to mitigate water quality degrarlation oC tbe Litc.ni River Basin frem UD.controlled discharge of untr-....at.ed domestic was!ewa1er within the upper Lit2IlÍ Rlver basin. (I'he Project does uot cover treatmeDl of industrial and agricultural wastewater). The P roject supports the preparation of designs and tender documeuts of multiple waswwater trealment facilities in the regíon, and ilion construction of these facilities, TIle fina1llumber oC trcatment facilities and final number of villages served wUJ be determined before Ihe constnlc . on funds are allocated. 2.3 USAID pro,.jdes assistance to strongtheu Lebanoo's wastewatcr sector tbJ'Ougb fue Project All USAID fuDding for the Project 1S ¡>rovided by US.J\JD to 11. 11.8. privare sector ' controclor engaged directly by USAID lo provido Project assistance, is subject ,lo the tel1llS and conditiollS of USADYs COQ'tract aIld notbing in lhis MOU n.mends or modifies that cont:mct For thcse pUIposes USAID has ent.e[ed iDto a COlltraC! with Camp Dresscr & McX.ee. Á$ used in 2.' tbis MOU -mM" iDeludcI !he orpnillti .... ; itt .f!jJj' "" fUbsidiaricl, siAer company ~ bn.DchcI1WDCd in !he pi.: e dinsaenteDCe oC lbiJ soebou. .Of lI1)' IIlCCCSsnr or oomp)emcntary oipniz,tim(l) enp¡od by USAID lO prov1de tbe usistaz»e de8cn"bed berciJI.. CDM may dinIdIy enp¡o LebaDelo IIIId other AlbcoDtracton in providiu¡ tbe needed auiltIIIIce 10 lb' Projecl Such U&Ístance il COIItcrn.pl&tcd Ibrou¡h September 2007, aDd iI de.eribed mOTI puticu\arly beteinbe.low. . ID c.ooMination wim Beba Water Establishment aod !he ¡electcd Beba. MUDicipalilies, • tocbnieal team. provided by CDM ("CDM T~ Teamj wiIl cooducl spoci5c: ~ throvgbout !be tire oC !he Projecl Wbi1e!he Corm orthif uris!aDeo wOl va¡y cIurin¡ !be !bree pb.ucJ oC tbe Project - dcsign. comtruetioo. lIIId eommiuiouin¡ • as de$m"bccl be1o.w, !be CDM Tecbmeal Team wil1 caD)' out Pro}cet acdvities lo support !he deve10pment or domestic wurewatm" treatment Cacilities with !he participatioa oC ltakeboldcn coucemed, e:DCOUr&ging local leve! partieipation .in pllDDiD¡. construetion, and opcntioD or wastllwatef treatmeD.I ractlitiel Ibrougb tbe Projecl Durina !he deliin phue, which bcgun in OclOber 2004 IIIId haI ended in Novembcr 200S, the CDM Teclmical Team CODductcd wutewater treatmenl initilti_ Ihrou¡h eommunity inVOlvemCDl lUId teclmical cooperation, ~lored leuons leamed from bese prteticeI rOI application in Lebanou, idem:ified apptOjiÚate domestic waste tre&!meot systems &lid prepared desigDI md leDder documeDt:I C« lo"tIr"DI wilh pop!lI&ti!W or up 10 15,000 poople . • Dorin¡ !he COI1JtNCtion plwe. which be¡iD:s in Qctobu 200S lDd is now expectcd 10 eDd in Seprcmbcl; 2007, !be COM Tocbuical Team wilI ovence CODStrUCtioo. or YiWCWl.1ICf trealmenl Cacilitiell as deIi¡ood. Qualifiod Vhrn-se and ofher contrKton will be used ror !he COIlItrUCtion. 1be municipaUtiell wiU ba~ specific tasb lo complete wi!h n:ptd to COllItI'Uction, aDd wiU have !be opportJ.mity to periodiCIUy review tbe ~ p:togress. 2.7 DuriD¡: !he oornmissioniDg pblse, which will commence 11 Cacility .tart up and will CODtinue COI up 10 twelve montbs, Cacilitiea will be eommissioncd, municipal open.!On: will be tn.ined &¡Id ~tioo oC !he f'leilities OY'llneeD by CDl>< ~Each MwUcipality IClecled CO[ 1 ~ trealmelll faeili[)' will bue .Y lespOlllibililiCl as preICIltcd iD • . sqwratc MOU betwcen il aod USAID. Thcsc tesponn"bilitiCl iDclude proYidia¡ laDd for !he faciljty, initi.al .ice clearing. CODSZructiOD or lIOIt-prOCIIA JIn1ctIueI 00. rrite, IDO!Ii.toriD¡ intluent and effiueul qu&lity, ud ideotityiDg facility ltIff. 1be Jtd" wm rcceive tninin¡ lDd will operate!he ácility during Ihc complissiooing pa:iod oC 0lIC year, dllring: which CDM wí1l aRist wilh!he open.tiom aod mainfalaDce. Altef the commissionio¡ period, !he MlIIlieipalitiu wUI be whoIly responsible rOI !he open.tiOnl lDd maWlCIIlOOe oC tho Caciüty ror Ibe rcmainder oriu rei.sooahle lifclime. 2 Article l-Roles and RespDnribiUties ofthe arties 3.1 To eDiUIe the ~ccess af the Project, USAID ;md MoIM: Wlll cany out specific roles lUld respODSJoDities. 3.2 USAID. acting through CDM (and its ~ubeoDtractor-s) unJess otherwi e indicated, wID: ,a) Devel0p' sclec . on criterl and prepare l3i li 'oI candldate viJ]ages,; b} Eup,g8 COIl'ltnmDces in· the. P:roject -dressing any oomm,ents and CODGems" e) Select Bekaa Municipalities me! sign MOUs, b (we8D USJúD and selectcd Munieipalities Q ' the de -ign and, consttucno,n 'ofmumcipal waste: ale tIca1lDent mciliti _ 1 and rol" opara1Íons w¡dmain ' IDas o[ tite facilities" d) P are de ign aud tender dOCUUl n . rol thtl fnci 'ties' e Salee!. cousltriletio CQntractom', t) g) Construct tbe. se lected f.acili ~ "thin tbe budget avnilable; ,and r Provide o entioo and mm:nt 11 - ce 'traic.Utg CO, responsibJe Municipalities or C) 1- er meagemeIrt bodie urin tbe ~ssiQ " g phase. . 3.3 !be Mo1M[ will: a) De.signate il $ mili g roup QI f ,ey l\:inistJ)' - pre -, ntn.tives ooe in volved wjththe Projec.l imple eptatio chaircd by tbeAfini ter 'orbis, , go. , who will, facilitare clase communications wi1lttbe -e ected Muni;cipalities in addition te otber Ministries an e Ita} agencies, invo:fved iD tbe Prog¡am &Cope. InfOIm o ther stabholder L ebaues go. emment minismes of his MOU, nnd rcques:t th ir: coop er-a· '00 with the. ,prqj ect lo quickJy reduce the domesti,cpoU 'OD disoruuged lo the Litmí River. e) Provide the 'Iecwd Municlpnlities ~th. support fOr pr cedUIi!ll tiOtlS lleeded for tbe succe5S ~ tOe acthdty. legal and I d) Ensure thnt 'lbe selected MUIÚcipaliti,es ful1 maoagmneIlt and maDeja] ~oDS'Ioility for the operation and maiotenanoe cos of fu_ wasL water treaJment facilitieE~ mcJudiD,g but notlimited to tbe folloWÍng: needed lDllUpOWet lar tbe pa-oper ,operario,1] 'of the facili.ty; powerl'icqurremrmts; SIUclg,6 remova! and disposal; necessary spare parts and chemicals: sampIiug and Ja b oratory analysis and reporting for ~ff:1uent monítoring S reauired by the ]diIDstrv oC the Envimnment"in tbe El:l'v1ronmeotal ImDac: , ) J1 ') 1) Asses~1 Report; monlto:ring lb: p roper OperabOIl o [Ibe [I cility; l od obtaining assistaooe in !be event of a problem or bru.kag!: tba.t 18 1101 ",parahle by !he Mwricipality it5elf. Facilitate Ibe administrati·.e procedures neces~ for Ibc ¡¡¡:lect::d MuDicipalitics to compJy wilb Ibe Pmj~t requiremcnts, ineluding me provision of suitabJe land 10 has! !he wastewater trealmen! facility Iba! meets curren! and finDTc necd!:, and Ibe signing by eaeh selectl:d MlIllicipaJity of an MOU witb USAlD sepaate from lhis MOU. Encourage and faciJiwe e:WlliDg Municipal "public worlaK or " Wllttr ond w"tcwater" (OT $inli1a:r) cC)fD!!littees \O overue facility funding lUId opemons wilhin each eonln'buling villag. or supporl Ibe fonnatiO/l of new mnmi~ to perfon» t!:ris "'sic. Support and facilita!e an WteNllnnicipality Wast<: WIIer TrcatmCDt hojee! (WWTI') III/WIgcm . ... t b ady, i 11 C&Ses whcre Ib~ WWTP will b C serving moro than one Municipa1it)', 10: o\'er!l<:c upcntion.s Il!d mainWl:mce o( !be fncilily and SIIJlPOrt !he Jcad m!llÚci~ ty (usuaUy .... heno Ibe W'IVTI' is located) iD obtaining Ibe necessary conpel1ltioD frnm Ibe otber pMticiptti.,& munici""lities. • Support th~ iieJec!ed MUD.kipllities u Ibey enfortc remoYlll or pre￾treatment of industIjaJ w,astcWltel' discbalEes to tbeir """$I" .... ,,11If COllcetiOIl sys1em pl'r \be Mininry ofEevironmeet requitements. Amln~ ucmptions for al! IILXes, including tOllial ~e<:urity taxb for sal4fY and compensatioo paid fur alllocal.oo foreigu cmployees and cODSullllnt5 hired by CDM (or Ibe im lcllKlD~tiOD oflbe projecr. as "'cll as all Valuc￾Added Tues (VAl) rebted 1:0 goods o.nd mvice~ fOl Project CODsiIUCDon and implemenwion. Am.nge cxcmpDon from aoy uwi all ll!Dolls! a.nd loes! cU5toms duúes and f~es 00 eqwpmeD! and vehit:1"" pureb3Stld foe Ibe PlOjee!, incJ ... diiig tbc minimum requirod tues. Amm~ cxemption from aU municipal' laXes ilIld fee:; related !O !he offiecs of CDM in Lcbanoo iooluding renta! value fus, 5C"'e1' IlDd sidewalk IIllintenaooe fees, aod Ilppli,:ablc sigñage fces of tltose offiees for tlte duraulI.II of thl: Proje<:L M.o.inbiD Ol CIIU5C 10: ~ IIIJIintaincd, as IppmpriMt!:, rl'!<;Oros related 10 !he usiswJcc descnbed hen::iD iD 8 mamtCl' I dcquate 10 lhow use and =ipt of $Ilcb l.SIi istou>t:e. $ucb ¡eco;rt!s shaU be maintamed for a period oC three (l) y~ a&e Ibis as!ristanc:e bu boen ftunisbcd. MoIM ,ball afford ~eo.ta.tiVC$ oC USAID, 'lr tbeit deSignces, tbe opportunity 1I aIl =nahle times !O inspect !he sit.l(s) of such a5SÍstance ~lld rooords rolating \O !he provision or su.c:h a .. inanee. 4 ArtLde 4 - Guenallro·visfoDS 4.1 'Ibis MOU may be amended or modi:fied witb me wrltle:D oonsent of both Partles. 4.2 'Ihis MOUsñaU eotcr mm' fuU force l!IpoD ~ by all Parties 8lld dter approWl! by !he GOL Qmncil of Ministcrs oc Parli:ament. This MOU ma)' be ameDded af modified by the ml1ftW wrltten ag:recm~by the duJy autboriz.ed represenfatives ofboth 'Panies. 4.3 EitherParty may temünate: Qf su.sp~Dd tbis memomtidbl by giving 90 (Dinety) days written DD1:i.ce:., TlmIlinatiOD ofthis MOU win termmale all mspoDsibilitics: ofthe Parties on aad aftéJ' thc date oÍ~tiOD. 4ANaitber p:arty obligatcs OI commi~ OIPromlses to ,obligate or commit, any fundiqg lo any Party to this MOU or- ,aDy odlcc party by signing tmsMOU. N.e:ve:nhele~ it i$ the inteQti,oñ 'of tbc Pamcs, subjcct to avaiJa1iilinr oC th~ir respective ñmdhlg lar thls PUIpO&~to, C8IIY Qut. in good rai~ tbeir roles 81Dd rcspODSibílities as ikscn1>eii in tbis MOU. 'IN' 'WI'INSSS WHBR.BOP. the PartioSJ acl:Úl¡ tbrougb theit OOIy autJÍ.o~ represeutativc, Uve cansed tbIs MOU tobe signcd in. their oames beJow. GOVII:1/.NMJI'N :~c Ol'LEBANON H.B.lI8saD El Sa~h MiDister, MhQstty. oflnteri.ot md Mtmie paliti~ Dale: . --------~--------~~~ GOVERN'MENT OFTIlE VNlTED $TATES O; AMERICA 5 ANNEX F. MoU between USAID and Municipalities ME~IOIlANOUM or USm:RSTANOI!'G AMONG Tm: GOVERNME.Vf or TitE UNITEO STATES or A~ ER CA, TU I: l\!USICIPAUTV or ASt.AII, TitE MIINICIPAUTV or NAsl A ,'u, "''':0 TitE UN1CII'A LlTV or NIIIA FO. ROLES ANO RESI'Q,":SIBIUTIES REGAROL":G TillO REGIO:-lAL Auu,u WASTEWATER TlltATME.,,.I'u,,Vf FOR Aau,u, NAUI Avu, "" .. o NIIIA Anide 1 - Preamble 1.1 TIte Go\'ernmenl oftbe Republic of Lebanon (~GOL "l, aeting tbmugh Ihe Minislr)' of Interior and Municipalilies (M Mo ~n, ond !he Go"cmmenl of Ihe United S131e:s of Americn ("USO"), acting through Ihe United States Agency for Intcmational Dcvelopment ("USA ID"), entered into a Mcmorandum of Understanding, on December 21, 2005, for Mutual Cooperation to Address Pollulion of !he Litani Ri\'er and Lake Qaraoun Thmugh !he Small Village Wastewater Treatmenl Systems Projeet (tbe "MoIM-USAID MOU ~), a copy ofwhich is annexed 10 this MOU, 1.2 The MoIM-USAID MOU describes the Small Vil1age Wastewater Treatement Systems ?rojccl ("?rojee!"), and seIS forth the mies and responsibilities of !he MolM and USAID in carT)'ing out the Project. 1.3 The MoIM-USAID MOU statcs Ihat ¡he I'rojeet suppon slhe preparalion ofdesigns and tender documenlS of mulliple wastewaler lreatment facilities in Ihe region, the selection of oonstruction contractors, tbe constl'\Jction of selected facilities, and !he provision of operation and maintenance training 10 responsiblc Municipalities, The MoIM·USAID MOU funher states that eaeh municipality selected for a waslewater trealmen! facility will have TC'sponsibilities as presented in a separnte MOU belween il and USAID. These responsibilities inelude providing land for ¡he facility, initial site clearing, construction of non-process StruClures on site, monitoring influent and cmuent quality, and idenlifying facility staff, 1.4 The Ablah cadostral area has becn sdected for a regional wastcwater treatment facility or plan! (hereinafter. the "WWTI)") and !he Municipalities of Ablah. Nabi A}'la, and Niha all ha\'e intcrests in !he successful completion and opention of !hat facilily. ¡ele 2 - Purpo 2.1 he purpo e of thi 1emorandum of nd anding (MO b and among A ID. and th Muni ipaliti of Ablah, abí la and iha eoll cti ely the unieipaliti ") j lo el forth the re pon ibiliti of tbe Municipaliti or lh \ WTP a called f¡ r by he Mol -U AJO MO rUcfe 3 - R 'pon ibilitie oC tb Partie 3.1 The re pon ibiliti of U 10 with re. p t to con truction tart-up and comrni ioning of th WWTP an all oth r asp of Project implem ntation are t forth in tlle Mol - AJD OU and are in orporated b ref¡ r nce ¡nlo thi I U . . 2 ll1e 1 nd dedi ated for (he WV TP b th unicipalily oC blah h an area of 4.682 quarQ ro t rs nd i ídcntified as parcel num er 698 n th offi i I cada tral map of blah. 3.3 Prior lo lh tru1 of con truetion of th WWTP, th Municipality of AblaiJ will obtain p 'nni ion for an a ces r ad to the ¡te a well as th authority t con tnl t and maintain the road through a \ rirten lat m nt from lile Municipality of blah ami/or oth r land wn rs and ma b r quírcd b la v . .4 [n addition lo pro iding land for the it f Ule Vol ;VTP a d ribed h r ¡nabo e th Muni ipaIitíes \ ill fund op rat and maintain the \ WTP n lhe he for a p riod of not le than t\i enty ars from he date of omp! tion or wi 11 formaJl p op rati n and maint nance to a p iaJiz d public e t.abli hOl nt uch as the B kaa \Val r and \ a t \ at r abli hment. Thi pro i ion, once th 'WTP ¡ mpl ted, hall continu in force and efli t until fulfillment regaren of llI1 piration oflhi O ",5 The unicipalítie. as p ified in thi to: Hon h r inb low will al o b re p n ible . -.1 R mo eany un Uila. I mot nal (non- oiJ oregetati e fr m th site.. u h th plantJ d vine ard dump il refu an utting f tr'e . in -repar tion for ite rading. 3.5.2 Pro ¡de an un ter during and aft r th on truetí n ha e. 3.5.3 Facilitale me electrical eonnection lo the Electricite Du Zahle (EDZ) grid with the capacily required by Ihe design engineer. 3.5.4 [nslall a publie woter supp[y «mnetlion al a poinl designllted by Ihe conslruelion manoger for WWTP conslruclion and fulure operolion. 3.5.5 rrovide regulBr removal of conslruclion debris and domcstic-type solid wasle generoled by conlmclors during eonstrutlioll. The schedule wiIJ be agreed upon by the responsible MunicipalilY and the construction manager. 3.5.6 Pay for public utilities (ineludin, water, eleclricity, fuel for generotors ... . ) lO the site during construetion, through planl start up and during Ihe operations and maimenance period, through planllifetime (20 years). 3.5.7 Grade and pave the KCess road aner conslruction according lO the WWTP design pl:lns and specifications by luly J 1, 2010. 3.5.8 rrovide Hnd instatl landscaping \'egelalion and olher details for visual impacI reduclion and odor reduclion PS indicaled in Lhe WWTP design plans by Augusl 14,2010. 3.5.9 Implemenl a $e\\er protection and repair progrom lO mll1gate potenlial for excessi\'e inflow and debris entenng the system. This program wilt include inspection of incoming lines and removal of e:c.cess innuenl (patching, rtplacing broken pipes) by May 31. 2010. J.5.10 Construct sewcr networb from Ihe contribuling villages (Niha &. Nabí Ayla unicipH¡¡ties) lO convey row waslewater 10 Ihe moin effiuenl tine lO tbe WWTP by April JO. 20tO. !he Municipalities of Niha &. Nabi Ayla will be responsible for carrying OUI this aClivity. l5.1 i Accepl ownership and responsibilily lo opcrnle and mailllain me WWTP from Iheir budgets from me time of handover. !he Municipalilies acknowledge ¡hal operation and maintenance COSlS inelude bUI are nOl limiled lO tbe following: manpower for the proper opernlion of the planl, power rcquiremenlS, spare pans, chemicals. depm:iation COSI of equipmenl. sampling and laborolory analysis costs ror effiuent qualilY monitoring and reponing as rcquired by \he MiniSlry of \he Environmcnt and 10 monitor operalion of lhe WWTP, and assistancc from a contractor in the event of a problem or brt'akage \hat is nOl reparable by \he Municipalities directly. J \' I P and impl ment an op r tion and maint nane o t haring program Wilh lhe tuní ipaliti b pril30 20]0. 3.5.1 A ign comp t nt luni ipa]ity per onn I t en ure prop r operalion and maintenan e of lh W\ TP. ..1 Di p ·off sile the w t ludg gen ral d b !he treatmenl plant to the near st olid \.! Si t facility or landfiU Jo ation. 3.5.1- FumÍ h lh plant admini trati buildino ¡Lh om de k, hair filing cabin and oth r urni hin..,. and equipm nt including laborato quipm nt a nece ary to · onduct plant u ine s and operation by A ril30 2010. rticJe .t - ontact and ommun ication 4.1 Th primar point of onta t for U ID \1 ith tbuni ipalitie wiII b th Ma or o blah MunicipaJity. U JO; contractor for con truction managem nt DM on tru tor. [n. \i ilI o rdinat \ ilh lh Ablah unicipality and \ ith th Muni ipaliti indi idually and jointly required for th W\VTP and om r Proj t lnatters .. .2 U ID \ ilI k P th Dir: torat G n ral of the 'nistry of Ener~ and \ a ero througb the ekaa \ ater and \, tabli hm nt, regu.lar! infi rmed of!he Project and its progre . ID \i ill me ton r guIar ba i \ ith Lh d t rmin d b Lhe mutual agr m nt of Lh \ 'orking relad n hipo on dates and place t b n ur; a olid and fruitfuJ The Muni ipalitie hnlJ end the AID contra lor DM on tru tor , In . quart rly repon on th tatu and op raLional ents o he TP during th commi ionjng p riod (i month follo\\dng e n tru tion and in taHati n of eql.1ipm nt. rticl - - n eral Provi ion - .] hall enter into full for upon ignature by all Partie. hall ha a duration of tv year (unl extended b he mutual writt n agr me", fall Partí ) and ma b amended or modifi d by the mutu ] writt n agre m nt b the dui auth riz d r pr; ntativ of all Parti . 5.2 This MOU is entered inlo by USAID in accordance with the provisions of ¡he MoIM-USAID MOU, and general provisions !herein pertaining lo !he rights. responsibililies and liabililies of USAID shaJl apply 10 Ihis MOU. Any modificalion, Bmcndment. suspcnsion or tennination oC the Mol M-USA ID MOU shall be appl icable 10 Ihis MOU. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Porties, each acting through Iheir duly aUlhorized representative, hove caused this MOU 10 be signed in Iheir names below. Municipality oCNabi Ayl::J Mohamad Amin EI-Sayycd Mayor ofNabi Ayla US Agency for Intemational DevclopmcnI Dei1iSeA:Herbol Mission Director USA IDILebanon Date:,_.1.( r'\ F·",-",;J.o.7.;,{~~Jt,,~,--'1L-__ MunicipalilY ofNiha . I :r. f'1 f1 D ti. t1 A j(