This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee At Martin]On: 02 October 2014, At: 23:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Wastewater management in Ethiopianhigher learning institutions:functionality, sustainability and policycontextAlemayehu Haddis a , Adriaan de Geyter b , Ilse Smets c & Bart Vander Bruggen da Department of Environmental Health , Jimma University , POBox 786, Jimma , Ethiopiab Sia Partners (Oil and Energy) , Antwerp , Belgiumc Department of Chemical Engineering, Biochemical ProcessTechnology and Control Division , University of Leuven , W. deCroylaan 46, B-3001 , Leuven , Belgiumd Department of Chemical Engineering, Laboratory for AppliedPhysical Chemistry and Environmental Technology , University ofLeuven , W. de Croylaan 46, B-3001 , Leuven , BelgiumPublished online: 01 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Alemayehu Haddis , Adriaan de Geyter , Ilse Smets & Bart Van der Bruggen(2014) Wastewater management in Ethiopian higher learning institutions: functionality,sustainability and policy context, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57:3,369-383, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2012.745396

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.745396

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,

proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wastewater management in Ethiopian higher learning institutions:

functionality, sustainability and policy context

Alemayehu Haddisa*, Adriaan de Geyterb, Ilse Smetsc and Bart Van der Bruggend

aDepartment of Environmental Health, Jimma University, PO Box 786, Jimma, Ethiopia; bSiaPartners (Oil and Energy), Antwerp, Belgium; cDepartment of Chemical Engineering,

Biochemical Process Technology and Control Division, University of Leuven, W. de Croylaan 46,B-3001 Leuven, Belgium; dDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Laboratory for Applied

Physical Chemistry and Environmental Technology, University of Leuven, W. de Croylaan 46,B-3001 Leuven, Belgium

(Received 18 April 2012; final version received 29 October 2012)

This study investigates the existing wastewater management situation in Ethiopia,with particular emphasis on university campus wastewater. The investigation wascarried out by reviewing literature, reports, policy documents and field visitsintegrated with laboratory assessment. It was established that from the sevenuniversities only two have functional wastewater treatment plants, but none ofthem meet effluent standards. These mainly centrally prescribed systems lacksustainability because of problems related to technology choice, affordability andtechnical skills. This paper proposes feasible rehabilitation strategies for theexisting wastewater systems. A combination of policy instruments and integratedwastewater management strategies are proposed. Although based on specific datafrom Ethiopia, the findings and recommendations of this study also apply toother, similar, low-income countries where the population is booming but overallwastewater management planning is lagging behind.

Keywords: university wastewater; waste stabilisation ponds; environmental policy;wastewater management; sustainability

1. Introduction

The problems related to water and sanitation in low-income countries emanate fromrapid, unplanned urbanisation and population explosion. The uncontrolled growthaccelerated by migration to urban centres on the one hand and lack of knowledge onthe other has made planning and expansion of water and sewerage systems difficultand in some cases non-existent. Furthermore, many governments in these low-income countries assume that they have more pressing needs than wastewatermanagement, such as dealing with war and conflicts and with food security issues.Wastewater management is often low on the list of priorities (Von Sperling andAugusto de Lemos Cherincharo 2002, Massoud et al. 2009). The discharge ofuntreated sewage into water bodies and into the environment is a common practice,leading to health and economic risks, environmental degradation and disruption ofecological integrity. As indicated by Van der Bruggen et al. (2009), the fact that

*Corresponding author. Email: alemayehu.haddis@ju.edu.et

� 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 201

Vol. 5 , No. , – , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.7457

4

3 369 383 396

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

people live in a condensed urban environment should make water supply and wastemanagement an easy task compared to scattered communities. However, in practice,this has not been the case because of problems related to resources, management andfuzzy urban development. Since the costs of health and environmental problemsemanating from poor waste management are extremely high for developing countries(Guitse 2009), full priority should be given to wastewater treatment and itsmanagement.

In Ethiopia, wastewater treatment facilities are almost non-existent and arepoorly managed when they do exist. Even large cities like Addis Ababa suffer frompoor drainage and wastewater overflow from industries, institutions and residentialareas. No study has been carried out on institutional wastewater discharge inEthiopia, but a report on industrial pollution by the Ethiopian water resourcesauthority indicated that of the 40 industries surveyed, only three (7.5%) had sometype of onsite wastewater treatment system (UNESCO 2004). This figure might havebeen even much lower if studies regarding the efficiency, functionality andsustainability of the available systems had been included.

At present universities in Ethiopia are flourishing. In its ambitious project foreducational expansion, the government of Ethiopia is striving to establishuniversities in almost every major city. The number of federal universities hasgrown from two to 22 in just a decade and another 10 new universities are beingopened. The fact that universities provide full services to students (accommodation,cafeterias, etc.) makes these institutions a potential threat to health andenvironmental pollution. If the waste is not properly managed it will affect thehealth of student communities and the city dwellers. The rapid expansion of highereducation in the country demands investment in waste and wastewater management.Many universities are now planning to construct multi-million Birr1 centralisedwastewater treatment systems. Therefore, it is important that a technologyassessment is carried out in order to offer advice to the universities about whetherthey should continue with their plans or switch to other options.

The overall objective of this study is twofold. On the one hand, the existingwastewater treatment performance and management situation of the country isinvestigated, with an emphasis on university wastewater. On the other hand, there isa need for policy convergence in order to support wastewater managementendeavours and to suggest strategies for overcoming the observed problems basedon existing realities.

2. Methodology

A cross-sectional study integrated with a data survey was made on wastemanagement systems in Ethiopia in 2010. More specifically, the situation ofwastewater management and associated environmental threats was investigated byreviewing literature, reports, policy documents and field visits. The availability, type,treatment performance, overall functionality and sustainability of wastewatermanagement in selected universities in Ethiopia were studied by on-site investigation.Seven of the 22 universities fully functioning in the country were selected for thisstudy namely: Hawassa University (HU), Adama University (AU), MekeleUniversity (MU), University of Gondar (UoG), Jimma University (JU), AddisAbaba University (AAU) and Kotebe College of Teacher Education (KTC). Thisselection was based on regional/geographical distribution, climate and size of student

A. Haddis et al.370

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

population. Accordingly, based on geographical and climatic classification, theUniversities of Gondar and Mekele University represent arid areas where there isonly limited rainfall. Hawassa and Adama Universities represent Eastern andSouthern regions with high temperatures, lying in the rift valley zones with a highfluoride content. Jimma University represents the South West region with highrainfall intensity. Addis Ababa University and Kotebe College of Teacher Educationrepresent the central part of Ethiopia with moderate temperatures. In terms of sizeand age, Addis Ababa, Jimma and Gondar Universities represent the oldest univer-sities with high student populations (420,000), Hawassa and Mekele representmedium-sized universities (15,000–20,000) and Adama University represents theyoungest and least populated, but rapidly expanding, university (515,000 students).

The field visits focused on (1) taking samples to assess the treatment performanceby analysing the most common water quality indicators, and (2) visual inspectionand key informant interviews to assess the overall functionality and sustainability ofthe plant. For the latter a checklist was compiled.

With regard to the sampling campaign, to assess the treatment efficiency, influentand effluent values for the most commonly employed water quality indicators werecompared and interpreted in relation to the standard discharge (to surface water)limits. More specifically, laboratory analysis was conducted for BOD5, COD, TN,TSS, NO3

–N and total phosphorus. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) wasdetermined in the lab by the dilution method. In this method, the oxygen content wasmeasured before and after storage at 208C in the dark for five days to avoidphotosynthetic oxygen generation and the difference of the two was taken as thevalue for BOD5. Total suspended solids (TSS) were measured by the standardAPHA method. All other parameters were measured using DR 5000 HACH Langespectrophotometer and accompanying test kit procedures. The samples were storedin ice packs and the temperature was maintained below freezing point to avoidfurther biochemical processes. The maximum time from the farthest site to thelaboratory of JU was 72 h. Conductivity, DO, pH and temperature were analysed atsite by using a Hach multi-parameter probe.

Overall functionality and sustainability of the technology was assessed by fieldobservation. The checklist designed for the field observation included, therefore,information to assess the overall functionality by noting the flow of wastewater,presence and or absence of clear pathways to the treatment basins for monitoring,and maintenance conditions such as fencing and site clearing. A treatment system islabelled as Functional (F) when there is continuous flow of wastewater to the system,when the site is clear, there is no vegetation on and around the pond, when it hasobservable access signs to the site (not abandoned) and when the site is fenced. It willbe labelled as non-functional (NF) when otherwise. If the treatment plant construc-tion is not complete it will be labelled as under construction (UC). Sustainability wasassessed by pre-set assessment criteria such as availability of reliable water sourcesfor flushing, cost, technical skills for operation and maintenance, environmentalimpact and public acceptance. This will be detailed in the Results section.

3. Results

3.1. Wastewater generation and pollution contribution of higher learning institutes

A large quantity of unmanaged wastewater enters into the nearby water bodies,contaminates the soil and becomes a public nuisance. Table 1 provides an estimate of

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

the quantity of wastewater generated from the selected universities based on thequantity that is produced in Jimma University. With regard to the pollution load, theuniversity water is characterised by approximately 684 mg/L BOD (based on JimmaUniversity measurements). This high value is due to the fact that the wastewater ismuch less diluted than in a common industrial country context.

On the basis of these values approximately 1094.4 kg BOD d71 is entering thenearby surface water bodies downstream of the university effluent in Jimma town. Ifthis wastewater enters the nearby river such as Awetu in Jimma town with a flow rateof 1.5m3/s, it is able to exert a BOD as high as 8.4 mg/L in addition to the base flowconcentration. Hence, it can be seen that universities generate a huge volume ofhighly loaded wastewater, sufficient enough to have a huge impact on the receivingwater bodies, which are, consequently, heavily polluted by urban drainage.

3.2. Adopted wastewater treatment technologies and their functionality

Available wastewater treatment systems in higher education institutions in Ethiopiawere surveyed to identify the systems used most frequently. Table 2 summariseswhich systems are commonly used in the selected institutions for this study.Accordingly, waste stabilisation ponds and septic tank systems with emptying trucksare the most prevalent systems currently in use. A waste stabilisation pond wasfunctional in only two universities (Hawassa and Mekele). The University of Gondarhad just completed its waste stabilisation pond and the one constructed for JimmaUniversity has been interrupted because of public protests.

3.2.1. Overall functionality

It has been observed that most of the septic tank systems that are assumed to befunctional are not functioning as designed because of (1) a lack of trucks to emptythe full tanks, (2) high fuel and maintenance (including spare parts) costs for thetrucks if they are available, and (3) problems related to the operation andmaintenance of the whole system (e.g. clogging). Massoud et al. (2009) demonstratedthat in developing countries the effectiveness of the decentralised approachesdepends on the establishment of a management programme that assures the regularinspection and maintenance of the system. The lack of such a programme has beenevidenced by environmental pollution from the overflows of the university campuses

Table 1. Estimated wastewater generated from the selected universities in Ethiopia based onthe measured quantities at Jimma University.

University Student population Per capita generation Total (m3/d)

AAU 45,000 40L/c/d 1800HU 10,000 40L/c/d 400UoG 30,000 40L/c/d 1200MU 20,000 40L/c/d 800JU 40,000 40L/c/d 1600AU 10,000 40L/c/d 400KTC 800 40L/c/d 320

Notes: AAU ¼ Addis Ababa University; HU ¼ Hawassa University; UoG ¼ University of Gondar;MU ¼ Mekele University; JU =Jimma University; AU ¼ Adama University; KTC ¼ Kotebe College ofTeacher Education.

A. Haddis et al.372

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

and public protests by the surrounding community. If even the most basic system ofa septic tank does not work, it is hardly surprising that the indicated activated sludgesystem is not functional. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was not possible tocheck the state of the respective drainage systems that bring the wastewater to thetreatment plant. There is a high chance that these systems also do not perform asthey should.

3.2.2. Treatment performance

Given that these were the only systems in operation, a sampling survey was carriedout from the influent and effluent of the waste stabilisation ponds in Hawassa andMekele Universities. To ensure representativeness of the samples and to improvereliability, composite samples were taken at 10am, 2pm and 6pm, and these threesamples were then mixed and constituted the composite sample for both the inlet andoutlet of the waste stabilisation ponds. Care was taken to avoid aeration duringsampling and afterwards. The composite samples were analysed in triplicate at thelaboratory of Jimma University. Due to cost constraints, each university has beensampled only once. Table 3 summarises the results by listing the influent and effluentvalues and the corresponding removal efficiencies of both universities and contraststhemwith the Ethiopian Environmental ProtectionAuthority (EPA) discharge limits tosurface water. Although it is not possible to make definite conclusions as data areinsufficient and only two universities are sampled, the following observations can bemade.

In general, a sign of good organic carbon removal performance has beenobserved from the waste stabilisation pond of Hawassa University in that 92% and85% of BOD and COD removal, respectively, was achieved. However, indicativeresults of faulty design and management of the waste stabilisation ponds (especiallythat of Mekele) include:

. The pH of Mekele University waste stabilisation pond (i.e. pH 4) was muchlower than the recommended value and there was no change detected betweeninfluent and effluent wastewater. Anaerobic ponds required pH of 7,facultative ponds a pH of 7–8 and maturation ponds a pH4 9 (Curtis and

Table 2. Type and functionality of wastewater treatment systems commonly used by theselected universities in Ethiopia, November 2010.

Type of treatment system

University

HU AU AAU UoG KTC MU JU

Waste stabilisation pond F UC F UCLagoon NFSeptic tank connected to city drainage F FSeptic tank þ emptying truck F F F F FActivated sludge system UC NFComposting NFEco San F

Notes: Key: F: Functional; UC: Under construction; NF: Not functional.

HU ¼ Hawassa University; AU ¼ Adama University; AAU ¼ Addis Ababa University; UoG ¼ Uni-versity of Gondar; KTC ¼ Kotebe College of Teacher Education; MU ¼ Mekele University; JU ¼Jimma University.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Mara 2006). Accordingly, the pH of both ponds of Mekele University does notseem to be conducive for bacterial removal and anaerobic microbial activity,respectively.

. Effluent BOD of Mekele University wastewater was higher than the influent,suggesting another source of pollution somewhere at the maturation pond andunfavourable pH for microbial degradation as stated above.

. TN removal of 40% and 23% was achieved for Hawassa and MekeleUniversities, respectively. A properly functioning waste stabilisation pond canremove 80% of TN (Mara et al. 1992). This may be indicative of problemsrelated to design and/or loading rate. Further investigation is recommended.

. Phosphorus removal in both waste stabilisation ponds is not only inefficientbut an increment was observed at the effluent of both universities. Furthersampling and analysis should verify this odd result. A possible explanation isagricultural activity around the ponds and poor design to protect theembankments from leaching into the ponds. As a rule of thumb, 50% removalof P can be obtained in a pond, achieving 90% BOD removal (Massoud et al.2009).

Table 3. Performance evaluation of Hawassa University (HU) and Mekele University (MU)wastewater in Ethiopia using selected water quality indicators.

Hawassa University (HU)

Parameter Influent Effluent % removal Discharge limit*

Temp (8C) 22.80 + 0.1 408CPh 7.71 + 0.15 6 to 9BOD (mg L71) 652 + 48.51 26.5 + 6.86 95.93 60 mg L71 at 208C

or 490% removalCOD (mg L71) 1243 + 75 189.5 + 12 84.75 250 mg L71

or 490% removalTSS (mg L71) 0.47 + 0.05 0.01 + 0.0 97.14 100 mg L71

TN (mg L71) 123 + 5.57 73.5 + 1.45 40.22 40 mg L71

or 480% removalNO3-N (mg L71) 0.93 + 0.25 0.68 + 0.18 26.52 20 mg L71

TP (mg L71) 15.13 + 2.5 18.9 + 3.64 724.89 40 mg L71

or 480% removal

Mekele University (MU)

Parameter Influent Effluent % removal Discharge limit*

Temp (8C) 21.63 + 0.5 408CpH 4.01 + 0.44 6 to 9BOD (mg L71) 86 + 15.13 92.13 + 7.7 77.13 60 mg L71 at 208C

or 490% removalCOD (mg L71) 486 + 52.1 246 + 10.82 49.38 250 mg L71

or 490% removalTSS (mg L71) 0.13 + 0.01 0.13 + 0.02 0 100 mg L71

TN (mg L71) 112.8 + 5.6 86.80 + 2.69 23.03 40 mg L71

or 480% removalNO3-N (mg L71) 0.92 + 0.26 0.78 + 0.11 14.91 20 mg L71

TP (mg L71) 23.3 + 2.08 28 + 3.61 720 40 mg L71

or 480% removal

Note: * The discharge limits are taken from the Ethiopian EPA standards.

A. Haddis et al.374

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

3.2.3. Sustainability of the systems

A number of sustainability assessment criteria for wastewater treatment systemshave been developed and tested for the purpose of evaluating alternatives (Balkemaet al. 2002, Agudelo et al. 2007, Muga and Mihelcic 2008, www.iwawaterwiki.org).However, this research focuses on the sustainability of a single type of wastewatertreatment facility (waste stabilisation pond) at two functional locations in Ethiopia,i.e. Hawassa University and Mekele University.

For this evaluation the following indicators were reviewed: presence of acontinuous water inflow; availability of budgets to run the system; presence oftechnical skills for operation and maintenance; implementation of regularmaintenance activities; implementation of a monitoring and quality controlprogramme; availability of side equipment and vehicles (e.g. emptying trucks forseptic tanks); and acceptance by the local community.

As can be seen from Table 4, sustainability of the waste stabilisation ponds inboth universities is below average. This conclusion should, however, be interpretedcarefully because the different criteria cannot have the same score. For example, thelack of a continuous water source is a problem for the whole system even if all othercriteria are acceptable. The development of impact weighted evaluation criteria is,hence, required but is out of the scope of this study.

3.3. Reliability of newly introduced designs

Apart from the above-mentioned problems with existing installations, the sustain-able management of university wastewater is further complicated by the fact that thedesign of future wastewater treatment systems for higher learning institutions isprescribed centrally by design supervisors at the Ministry of Education. The designsupervisors themselves do not have a clear idea of which technology to adopt. Inmost cases, the designs presented during bids by contractors are approved. From apractical point of view, in Ethiopia, as in many developing countries, privatecontractors do not put an emphasis on key sustainability issues in their design. Theyonly select designs which can be profitable for them. More specifically, the

Table 4. Sustainability indicators for wastewater treatment facilities applied to universities inEthiopia.

Indicator

University

HU AU AAU UoG KTC MU JU

Continuous water inlet X X X – X – XAllocation of budget to run the system – – – – – – –Assignment of technical person for O&M* – ? ? ? – X XMaintenance activities – – – – – – –Monitoring and quality control programme – – – – – – –Equipment and vehicles (e.g. emptying truck) – – n.a. – n.a. – XCommunity acceptance – – ? ? ? ? –

Key: X: Present; – : Not present; n.a.: Not applicable; ?: Info not available.

HU ¼ Hawassa University; AU ¼ Adama University; AAU ¼ Addis Ababa University; UoG ¼ Uni-versity of Gondar; KTC ¼ Kotebe College of Teacher Education; MU ¼ Mekele University; JU ¼Jimma University.*O&M ¼ operation and maintenance.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

government has now adopted a wastewater treatment system design for the newuniversities under construction as depicted in Figure 1.

The current design presented to the Ministry by the contractor was adapted fromexperience with GTZ (German technical co-operation) during the construction ofthe first batch of universities. As can be seen, the system is based on the conventionalcentralised activated sludge concept (complemented by a field infiltration system),which will impart high costs for a country with resource limitations (almost ETB(Ethiopian currency) 50 million; EIA JU report 2010). Furthermore, there is a lackof technical manpower to run and monitor the system efficiently. For this reason, thetreatment system easily breaks down and pollutes the environment, which at thesame time increases public protests.

3.4. Existing laws, policies and strategies related to institutional waste managementin Ethiopia

The Ethiopian Constitution (1994) has provisions for sustainable development(Article 43) and gives citizens the right to live in a clean and healthy environment(Article 44). Based on these provisions, the government of Ethiopia issued twoimportant proclamations to ensure environmental sustainability and safeguardpublic health. One is the proclamation number 200/2000 which was initiated byMinistry of Health and the other is proclamation number 300/2002 which givesresponsibility to the Federal EPA. The Federal Environmental Protection Authorityof Ethiopia has formulated policies for the environment. Table 5 summarises existinglaws and regulations on health, environment and development in Ethiopia.

From Table 5, it can be seen that Ethiopia is not deficient in laws and regulationsto protect the environment, but what it lacks is an efficient enforcement mechanism.Therefore, implementation lags behind policy (Haddis 2009). Because of this, many

Figure 1. The new wastewater treatment system prescribed for 10 universities in Ethiopiabased on a conventional activated sludge system followed by a field infiltration system(sketched from the plan at the Federal Ministry of Education).

A. Haddis et al.376

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

institutions and industries still discharge their untreated waste into surface waterbodies. There is no guarantee that the effluent standards and guidelines drafted in2003 can be met because monitoring mechanisms are unclear and the responsibilitydiffuses between the Ministries of Health, Trade and Industry, the Water andSewerage Authority, and the Environmental Protection Authority.

Table 5. Inventory of laws and policies related to water and sanitation in Ethiopia (1947–2002).

No. Legal provision Description

1 Public health proclamation No. 25/1942 Inspection to access premises to seizespoiled food and waste disposal.

2 Public health proclamation No. 91of 1947

Powers given from Ministry of Interiorto Ministry of Public Health.

3 Rules pursuant to the public healthproclamation of 1947 (10/1 (1950)L.145–47, 10/1(1951) L.156–57

Municipal public health rules, rules withregard to water, food safety rules.Communicable disease rules,municipal sanitation rules.

4 The penal code of Ethiopia (Articles503–520 and articles 785–792)

Code of petty offences in sanitation andrelated health issues.

5 National constitution (proclamationNo. 1/ 1995)

Articles 43 and 44 deal with sanitationand sustainable development.

6 National health policy (1993) Focus on sanitation, disease preventionand health promotion.

7 Water resources managementproclamation (ProclamationNo. 4/ 1995)

Mandate on the development of surfaceand ground water given to Ministry ofWater Resources.

8 Public health proclamationNo. 200/ 2000

Provides the basic descriptions of thehygiene and sanitation needs forenforcement.

9 Regional regulations: Addis Ababa(regulation No. 1/ 1994), Amhara(regulation No. 16/ 2000), alsoregulations for Oromia, SNNPRand Tigray.

Sanitary regulations and guidelines thatare enacted by regional statespursuant to their powers and duties.

10 Integrated water resources managementpolicy of 1999

Descriptions to the conservation,exploitation and use of natural waterand their protection.

11 Pollution control proclamationNo. 300/ 2002

Environmental pollution control:wastes, hazardous waste, municipalwaste, needs of environmentalstandards, inspection provisions.

12 Federal EPA Guideline, Ambientenvironment standards for Ethiopia2003

These guideline standards are primarilyaimed at protection of the ambientenvironmental quality within allcomponents of the Ethiopianenvironment including air, water, soiland ground water and noisestandards.

13 Federal EPA standards for industrialpollution control in Ethiopia 2003

The purpose of introducing thestandards is to prevent significantindustrial pollution by indicatingstandards which must be observed byindicating pollution limits beyondwhich the environment would nottolerate.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

The existence of policies and strategies alone is not a guarantee of complianceunless enforcement mechanisms and management strategies are in place. Section 2.1of the Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia (MOH 2005) states that:

Although there is some variance in emphasis and approach, sector policies convergearound overall environmental health goals which emphasise sanitation and hygienepromotion as key interventions to prevent disease, protect the environment and enhancesocio-economic development.

However, actual practice diverges from what is stated in the policy document.Accordingly, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is usually done beforeprojects are licensed in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, there is no monitoring andcontinuous assessment afterwards. Because of the gap created between the licensingand monitoring agencies, compliance to set standards is not met. There is a publicawareness effort using the media, but in a developing country like Ethiopia, publicawareness without practical measures for monitoring, enforcing and demonstrationdoes not become effective. Hence, a divergence between policy and sound practice isobserved.

4. Discussion

In Ethiopia, as in many developing countries, the threats to wastewater managementemanate from a number of root causes which are social, economic and political innature. The main threats that can be cited are: rapid and unplanned urbanisationwithout sufficient infrastructure; poor design and maintenance of sewer systems;inappropriate and unsustainable technology selection; low level of awareness ofintegrated waste management; and poor co-ordination in licensing, inspection,monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

The current trend in university expansion that gives priority to the constructionof buildings without a waste management system reflects the low level of attention bydecision makers for infrastructural development. This trend is dangerous both tohuman health and to the environment. Treatment systems, when present, aredeficient in design. The field and laboratory survey suggests that the existing treat-ment plants are not working properly. The problem of the existing systems has beenexacerbated by the absence of skilled personnel for follow-up and a lack of financialresources to run the treatment plants. Finally, the prescribed systems for the newuniversities are doomed to fail since they are inappropriate for implementation ina developing country context. There is a pressing need to establish a wastemanagement system which is socially, economically and technologically sound. As atechnological choice we need to focus on onsite and/or cluster systems as they can bedesigned for specific sites, thus overcoming the problems associated with siteconditions such as high ground water tables, impervious soils, shallow bedrock andlimestone formations, if a complete sewer network has to be built to bring the waterto a centralised wastewater treatment plant. Moreover, decentralised systems allowfor flexibility in management, and a series of processes can be combined to meettreatment goals and address environmental and public health protection require-ments (Massoud et al. 2009).

The following multi-dimensional strategies are suggested to deal with the existingwastewater generated from universities in Ethiopia and beyond.

A. Haddis et al.378

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Figure 2. Proposed modification for planned wastewater treatment systems for universitiesin Ethiopia.

4.1. Modification of existing treatment system – conversion into an integratedapproach

Good management starts from the concept of integrated waste management, whichin turn influences the design of onsite wastewater management technology thatshould be introduced. Since it is too late to introduce a new design for the alreadyexisting facilities, the best approach would be to upgrade and/or adapt these systemsaccording to the retrospective and holistic approach as proposed by Cuppens et al.(2012). These authors stress that one has to learn from the mistakes made in the pastand that all stakeholders should be involved in defining the rehabilitation strategy.One of their specific recommendations is to regard the treatment system as a sourceof income to enable the financing of the operational (and sometimes requiredadditional capital) costs. In this context, the re-engineering of existing treatmentfacilities is discussed first, with the proposed modified design illustrated in Figure 2.

Most wastewater treatment systems in Ethiopian universities are provided withseptic tanks. If the wastewater has passed through a properly designed septic tankmost of pathogenic organisms will die (Stewart 2005). Hence, it will be safe to use thesludge from the emergency and Imhoff tanks as fertiliser after drying. Evidently, theproper maintenance of septic tanks should be part of the whole renovation package.

There is plenty of sunlight even during winter in Ethiopia and the use of sludgewill save the cost of synthetic fertilisers for agriculture. The sludge can also be usedas compost or for biogas production, which can be a source of energy to sustain thepumping units or provide light for night-time inspection of the site. Richard et al.(2011) reported that in a study made on four universities in Ghana, an annual biogaspotential of about 815,109 m3 was estimated to be obtained which is equivalent toapproximately 4891 MWh of energy that is sufficient to replace about 4532 tonnes offirewood or 326.4 tonnes of LPG.

The other point of intervention, as indicated in the Figure, is the field irrigationunit. This unit can easily be converted to a subsurface flow constructed wetlandwhich is highly efficient in further treating of the wastewater. Besides its ability to

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

further purify the wastewater, subsurface flow constructed wetlands can avoid theproliferation of mosquitoes that transmit disease to both animals and humans, andthe plants that need to be cut on a regular basis can have an economic value (asthatch, cattle feed or rafts). For the existing waste stabilisation ponds, collecting thebiogas produced by the anaerobic waste stabilisation pond is an obvious possibility,considering the highly loaded wastewater in the Ethiopian universities.

In the case of new projects, the most important change would be to replace theaeration unit with an anaerobic tank (cf. the anaerobic waste stabilisation pond)such as an UASB (Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor from which thebiogas can be recovered and exploited. Both the UASB and wetlands are known toencourage ‘zero discharge’ (Ahmed et al. 2009). These modifications will provide anopportunity for water reuse and this is critically important for arid and semi-aridcountries such as Ethiopia, particularly for universities such as Mekele. Further,once passed through this stringent system and with minimal further treatment stepssuch as coagulation, filtration and disinfection, the effluent could be used as a sourceof water for domestic use.

4.2. Informed decision making for technology and site selection for onsite wastewatertreatment

It is clear that the selection of technology (for future plants) should have to passthrough stringent processes before adoption. This involves consultation withprofessionals and researchers in the field before it is brought to the table of decisionmakers. In addition, the community should be engaged in the planning and siteselection process so that public protests are no longer a problem. In any case, thetechnology should be simple, cost effective, efficient and sustainable. Experiencesuggests that the best candidates for low cost, onsite wastewater treatment systemswould be natural treatment systems such as constructed wetlands, waste stabilisationponds or lagoons and slow sand filters (Van der Bruggen et al. 2009, Haddis et al.2012). However, given that the wastewater characteristics differ a great deal fromthose in industrialised countries (e.g. a much higher load), it is not possible to simplyadopt their conventional rules of thumb for the design of the systems. Decreasing thelength to breadth ratio might, for example, be beneficial to cope with the highloading of the wastewater and the accompanying plugging problems at the entranceof the bed. Research based decisions such as local pilot scale experiments arerecommended by Haddis et al. (2012) as the best strategy to support decisions. Insituations where environmental and other quality parameters are comparable for thecandidate technologies, cost and land area requirements could be used in the finaldecision (Mara 2009). Finally, planners should be convinced that mainstreamingwaste management to development activities leads to sustained economic growth.

4.3. Universities as centres of excellence – also in waste management

Universities are expected to be models in waste management for other institutionsand for the general public. If it is agreed that universities are centres for research,technology development and community service, as advocated by Jimma University(http://www.ju.edu.et), then this has to be demonstrated in practice by developingand properly utilising onsite wastewater treatment systems. Diverse research has alsoshown that the role universities play in promoting sustainable practices have a strong

A. Haddis et al.380

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

influential factor for the success of other sustainable programmes in society (Armijode Vega et al. 2010). For this reason, sound waste management systems have to beestablished, and there should be a unit in each university to maintain, monitor andevaluate the performance of the treatment facilities before they become publichazards.

4.4. Establish common understanding between sectors

Policies and laws should be revisited and the mandate diffusion among differentsectors (i.e. EPA, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry ofTrade and Industry), who claim to be legally responsible, needs to be solved. Forexample, duplication of inspectors between EPA and the Ministry of Health is aninefficient use of human power and it will also intensify the conflict between sectorsinstead of working together for the public good. It is, therefore, recommended thatall actors come together around the table and design implementation modalities,setting a common understanding as to who will do what and how others areinvolved.

4.5. Use a combination of policy instruments

Finally, the use of a combination of policy instruments is suggested. Theseinstruments are classified into regulatory, market based and information based(Siebel et al. 2001, Lalita and Nurul Amin 2010).

In communities where environmental awareness is low, regulatory instruments(command and control approaches) may be seen as the most appropriate andeffective means of achieving a desired environmental outcome. Existing laws andregulations should be binding for government institutions, including universities.The government should take the lead in ensuring that no university in Ethiopiashould be established without an appropriate waste management system.

The second policy instrument is a market-based instrument (MBI) or economicinstrument. Unlike the command and control approach, MBIs use price or othereconomic variables to provide incentives for firms when they reduce harmfulemissions. Included in this package are charges, subsidies, marketable (or tradable)permits, eco-labelling and property rights. Universities should be models for otherinstitutions and companies to show that compliance with environmental standards isprofitable by calculating their annual environmental benefits in terms of cost.

Third, information based instruments may be used to provide the right incentive,for example, through the public disclosure of a firm’s environmental performance, aswell as to build capacity within industry, for example, through the publication anddissemination of relevant case studies. The public disclosure of incentives for aparticular university will be an added value to that university in its effort to beconsidered as a centre of excellence, not only in teaching and research but also interms of community service and environmental responsibility.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

Universities are among the major point sources of pollution in Ethiopia. Despite thepresence of a promising effort by these institutions to have an onsite wastewatertreatment system, the treatment efficiency and overall functionality has been very

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

low. Only two out of the seven studied systems were found to be functional, eventhough these were not in compliance with the environmental regulations.

The major gap in compliance with environmental standards is due to the absenceof enforcement mechanisms. The responsibility to monitor and enforce the emissionstandards of these institutions diffuses between many sector offices. Hence, there isan urgent need to designate a (single) responsible organ to lead and co-ordinatelicensing and enforcing institutions for sustainable environmental management.

Furthermore, it is recommended that universities select their onsite wastewatertreatment system based on cost effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Thecurrent trend of prescribing an untested universal treatment system should berevisited, and designs should be based on wastewater characteristics, loading ratesand local environmental and social factors, preferably backed up by some pilot scaletests. Universities should make sure that the selected onsite treatment systems shouldat least comply with the minimal treatment objectives, and they should ensure thatenough skilled personnel are available to properly monitor and maintain the systemsafter commissioning. Existing wastewater treatment systems should be modifiedstepwise with revenues that come from the systems themselves. For example, driedsludge could be used as a fertiliser and biogas from anaerobic treatments might betapped and exploited. As centres of excellence, universities should become modelsfor the general public with regard to introducing innovative and sustainablewastewater management technologies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Flemish Institutional University Cooperation (IUC) andJimma University (JU) partnership programme for funding this study.

Note

1. 100 Birr¼4.10 Euros at the time of writing of this paper.

References

Agudelo, C., Mels, A., and Braadbaart, O., 2007. Multi-criteria framework for the selection ofurban sanitation systems. 2nd SWITCH scientific meeting, 25–29 November, Tel-Aviv,Israel.

Ahmed, N.B., Moshrik, R.H., and Zeyad, T., 2009. Perspectives on sustainable wastewatertreatment technologies and reuse options in the urban areas of the Mediterranean region.Desalination, 237 (1–3), 162–174.

Armijo de Vega, C., et al., 2010. Solid waste management in a Mexican University using acommunity based social marketing approach. The open waste management journal, 3, 146–154.

Balkema, A.J., et al., 2002. Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewatertreatment systems. Urban water, 4, 153–161.

Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 1994. Addis Ababa.Cuppens, A., Smets, I., and Wyseure, G., 2012. Identifying sustainable rehabilitation strategies

for urban wastewater systems: a retrospective and holistic approach. Case study CoronelOviedo, Paraguay. Journal of environmental management, forthcoming.

Curtis, T. and Mara, D., 2006. Waste stabilization ponds. In: Z. Ujang and M. Henze eds.Municipal waste water management in developing countries: principles and engineering.London: IWA Publishers, 168–191.

Jimma University., 2010. Environmental Impact Assessment study report on JU Oxidation pond.A report submitted to Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.

Guitse, L., 2009. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health.Waste management, 29, 2227–2239.

A. Haddis et al.382

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Haddis, A., 2009. Review of environmental health services in Ethiopia with particularemphasis on water and sanitation program management. In: R. Shaw, ed. Proceedings ofthe 34th WEDC international conference on Water, sanitation and hygiene. Sustainabledevelopment and multisectoral approaches. United Nations conference centre, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia.

Haddis, A., et al., 2012. Assessment and selection of Low Cost Onsite Wastewater treatmentsystems in Africa: the case of Ethiopia. In: J.A.Daniel, ed. Advances in environmentalresearch. Vol. 23. NOVA Publishers. [online] Available from: http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/3%29þADDISþABABAþ%28Ethiopia%29þ 3 [Ac-cessed 12 July 2012].

Lalita, R. and Nurul Amin, A.T.M., 2010. Constraints in using economic instruments indeveloping countries: some evidence from Thailand’s experience in wastewater manage-ment. Habitat international, 34 (1), 28–37.

Mara, D.D., 2009. Constructed wetlands and waste stabilization ponds for small ruralcommunities in the UK. Environmental technology, 27, 753–757.

Mara, D.D., et al., 1992. Waste stabilization ponds: a design manual for Eastern Africa.Lagoon technology international. Leeds, England. [online] Available from: http://www.irc.nl/page/8237 [Accessed 4 June 2011].

Massoud, M.A., Tarhini, A., and Nasr, J.A., 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewatertreatment and management: applicability in developing countries. Journal of environmentalmanagement, 90, 652–659.

Ministry of Health (MOH), 2005. Draft Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy. Addis Ababa,Ethiopia.

Muga, H.E. and Mihelcic, J.R., 2008. Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies.Journal of environmental management, 88 (3), 437–447.

Richard, A., et al., 2011. Biogas generation from sewage in four public universities in Ghana: asolution to potential health risk. Biomass and bioenergy, 35 (7), 3086–3093.

Siebel, M.A., et al., 2001. Lecture note on Industrial resources management. The Netherlands:UNESCO-IHE.

Stewart, E., 2005. Evaluation of septic tank and subsurface flow wetlands for Jamaican publicschool wastewater treatment. Thesis (Masters). Michigan Technological University.

UNESCO World Water Assessment Program, 2004. National water development report forEthiopia. MoWR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: UNESCO, GIRDC. Section 8.2,186.

Van der Bruggen, B., Smets, I., and Haddis, A., 2009. Impact of wastewater discharge inJimma, Ethiopia and possibilities for remediation. Desalination, 248 (1–3), 603–609.

Von Sperling, M. and Augusto de Lemos Chernicharo, C., 2002. Urban wastewater treatmenttechnologies and the implementation of discharge standards in developing countries.Urban water, 4, 105–114.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

At M

artin

] at

23:

01 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014