Alternative Business Models for FSM System s Perspective

Transcription

1 Alternative Business Models for FSM System s Perspective Kala Vairavamoorthy Practice Leader for Applied Research & Knowledge Transfer Krishna Chaitanya Rao Researcher Business model & Enterprise Development International Water Management Institute Mainstreaming Citywide Sanitation: Opportunities and Challenges for Excreta Management 4-5 April 2016, New Delhi, India

2

3 We need to have a systems perspective of the water cycle Groundwater Stormwater/ Rainwater Surface water Leakage management Desalination Black water Septage Grey water Demand management

4 Modelling allows us to connect all flows with productive uses SURFACE WATER/GROUNDWATER/DESALINATION) WATER SUPPLY RAINWATER/ STORMWATER HARVESTING COMM/DOM/IND/USE IRRIGATION KEY POTABLE WATER RAIN/STORMWATER GREYWATER REUSE FSM/WW TREATMENT GREY WATER RECLAIMED WATER BLACK WATER RECEIVING BODY (SUSRFACE/GROUNDWATER)

5 Analysis is performed using a nested systems approach Unit Block Unit block Road Road Open Space Cluster-3 Community Cluster-1 Cluster-2 Cluster

6 Exploring alternative urban water solutions to rapid population growth Water demand will at least double until 2035 NAIROBI

7 New GW Typical solutions - import more water Unit costs of US$ 0.36/m3 to meet growing needs Demand (2010) Demand (2035) New SW-2 Existing New SW-1 637X10 3 m 3 /d deficit

8 New GW Demand Mgt. Rainwater harvesting(cluster) Greywater (Cluster) Need to consider non-conventional resources a portfolio of options Unit costs of US$ 0.31/m3 (cf. to 0.36) Demand (2010) Demand (2035) Leakage Mgt. New SW-1 637X10 3 m 3 /d deficit

9 New GW Demand Mgt. Rainwater harvesting(cluster) Greywater (Cluster) Reclaimwater (Cluster) Rainwater (HH) Greywater (Household) Need to consider non-conventional resources a portfolio of options Unit costs of US$ 0.40/m3 (cf. to 0.36) Demand (2010) 1.21 Demand (2035) Leakage Mgt. 637X10 3 m 3 /d deficit

10

11 Changing our perspective creates opportunity to do things differently Productive Use RRR Reclaimed non-potable Potable Water Industry Use Surface Water Ground Water Rain Water Energy Urine Brownwater Grey water Solid waste Nutrients Hygienized Sludge Bioplastic

12 Energy-Center Blackwater Foodwaste Greywater

13 Clusters allow maximum efficiency while giving adaptive capacity A machine for each district Semi central supply and treatment unit as part of clustered city structure Use scalability of treatment technology (membranes) Customized supply and treatment for each cluster Utilizing synergy effects and re-use potentials

14 Look for opportunities to create new paradigms (not extend old ones) Outskirts Demand met by informal systems City Core Formalised water & waste system Growth Expansion of existing system to growing areas Distributed & Decentralized

15 Exploring opportunities to do thinks differently in emerging cities Quick growing emerging towns UGANDA

16 Look for opportunities to create new paradigms (not extend old ones) C1 C7 C2 C3 C6 C5 C4

17 Semi-centralized is cheaper? Average Annual Costs 5,148,000 US$ Average Annual Costs 3,787,000 US$

18 IWMI developing comprehensive catalogue of RRR business cases 150+ business cases analysed 60 cases have in-depth analysis 20 business models developed Testing models in 10 cities

19 Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Relationships Customer Segments Key Resources Channels Cost Structure Revenue Streams

20 Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Relationships Customer Segments Proposition1 Segment 1 Proposition2 Segment 2.. Key Resources Channels Cost Structure Revenue Streams Revenue Stream 1 Revenue Stream 2

21 Phyto-remediative wastewater treatment & fish production PPP s Domestic/industrial wastewater (pref. dom.) Alternative source of fish, advanced tertiary state treated wastewater Averts pollution of water bodies Scale: Small to medium/large Location: South Asia, Latin America, Africa

22 Rural Campesinos $ Government Terraqua $ Land Finance Expertise, finance $ Municipality WW WSP Fish Export market Clean water Domestic market Scale: m3/day Cost of investment: $22 M Organizational type: PPP Business model: value-driven & cost-driven end-sales Form of financing: I-A Dev. Bank through Government, equity Driving factors: Water scarcity, abundant ww polluting water bodies, land availability and conducive ownership structures

23 Key Partners Wastewater producers Expertise / R&D provider Central government Farmers External financier(s) Key Activities Treat wastewater Grow duckweed, co-crops & fish Quality control Fish processing & packaging Marketing & sales of fish and co-crops Key Resources Tanks and ponds Expertise duckweed Capital Partnerships with lagoon - & wastewater provider Marketing & sales force Packaging & storage Quality control mechanism Value Propositions Provide quality processed & packaged fish for domestic & export markets. Provide cost effective wastewater treatment Provide highest standard treated water Customer Relationship Channels Marketing channels, local and export Customer Segments Municipality (wastewater producer) Municipality (water consumer) Domestic whole sellers & retail for processed & packaged fish Export processed & packaged fish markets Cost Structure Capital investment O&M, including fingerlings Debt repay & equity value Marketing & sales with retailers and whole sellers Packaging & storage Revenue Streams Sale of processed & packaged fish to domestic whole sellers and retail Whole sale of processed & packaged fish to export markets Potable water sales (potential) Wastewater handling fee

24 Value Propositions Provide quality processed & packaged fish for domestic & export markets. Provide cost effective wastewater treatment Provide highest standard treated water Customer Segments Municipality (wastewater producer) Municipality (water consumer) Domestic whole sellers & retail for processed & packaged fish Export processed & packaged fish markets Revenue Streams Sale of processed & packaged fish to domestic whole sellers and retail Whole sale of processed & packaged fish to export markets Potable water sales (potential) Wastewater handling fee

25 Available Dec 2016

26 Fecal Sludge Management Business Models

27

28 Regular desludging Sanitation tax Economic Viability

29 FSM Busines s Models

30 Call- Center

31 Fecal Sludge Management Feasibility study results from India, Ghana, and Sri Lanka

32 INVESTMENT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Public & private sector, donors BUSINESS MODEL Business Model Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Relationships Customer Segments Key Resources Dist. & Comm. Channels Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder et al.) Cost Structure Revenue Streams Social and Environmental Cost Social and Environmental Benefit Input Supply and Availability Market Assessment Financial Viability Technical assessment Institutional and legal settings and public support Health & Envt. Risk Assessment Socioeconomic Impact Assessment MCA Framework

33 Input Supply and Availability Market Assessment Financial Viability Technical assessment Institutional and legal settings and public support Health & Envt. Risk Assessment Socioeconomic Impact Assessment MCA Framework

34 Gangaghat (based on Survey) Containment Collection Transport Treatment Reuse/ disposal Not treated Discharged in open drains 97% On-site facility Septic tanks, covered pits, VIPs etc. Unsafely emptied or discharged 97% 3% Open defecation 3% Source: Sample HH Survey 100% Land, and indirectly to ground and surface waters via percolation or run-off Directly to surface waters, via drains and/or sewers % 88%

35 Mughalsarai (Survey data) Containment Collection Transport Treatment Reuse/ disposal 7% WC to sewer 7% 44% On-site facility Septic tanks, covered pits, VIPs etc. Unsafely emptied or discharged Not treated but unknown where it goes 49% Open defecation (including open pits) 49% 44% 7% Source: Sample HH Survey 100% Land, and indirectly to ground and surface waters via percolation or run-off Directly to surface waters, via drains and/or sewers % 88%

36 Households Practicing Open Defecation Mughalsarai Gangaghat

37 Open drains and sampling locations - Gangaghat

38 Open drains and sampling locations - Mughalsara i

39 Pollution loads from open drains (kg/d) City WW (MLD) BOD Load Dry weather COD TN TP NO 3 TS VS Unnao 39 2,639 8,796 7, ,678 6,657 Gangag hat 35 4,498 14,996 7, ,438 9,642 Mughals arai 122 4,699 15,728 10, , ,620 39,059 City WW (MLD) BOD Load Wet weather COD TN TP NO 3 TS VS Unnao 58 3,383 11,340 2, ,869 10,240 Gangag hat 42 3,833 12,783 5, ,192 12,052 Mughals arai ,254 60,852 37,058 1,771 7, , ,539

40 Input Supply and Availability Market Assessment Financial Viability Technical assessment Institutional and legal settings and public support Health & Envt. Risk Assessment Socioeconomic Impact Assessment MCA Framework

41 FS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TREATMENT TREATMENT FOR REUSE PROCESS OPTIONS LAND APPLICATION ADVANCED TREATMENT YES TS > 200 g l -1? YES YES NO Is FS Stabilize d? ANAEROBIC DIGESTION NO GRAVITY THICKENER SAND OR PLANTED DRYING BED MIXING WITH STABILIZED LFS leachate MECHANICAL DEWATERING PAVED DRYING BED LIQUID FRACTION TREATMENT STABILISATION PONDS WETLAND DEWATS STABILISATION POND + DRYING BED PLANTED DRYING BEDS + WETLAND TRANSFER STATION DRYING + SEWER (liquid) NO MECHANICAL/TH THERMAL PROCESSES Compostin g? CO-COMPOSTING YES ORGANIC SOLID WASTE available? NO COMPOSTING ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKING FILTERS MEMBRANE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS e.g. pellets as fuel, building material Co-COMPOST BIOGAS CO-COMPOST PELLETISATION COMPOST ENRICHED COMPOST OR CO-COMPOST IN PELLETS CO-TREATMENT WITH SEWAGE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS

42 TREATMENT FS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TREATMENT FOR REUSE Small <100k people PROCESS OPTIONS LAND APPLICATION ADVANCED TREATMENT YES TS > 200 g l -1? YES YES NO Is FS Stabilize d? ANAEROBIC DIGESTION NO GRAVITY THICKENER SAND OR PLANTED DRYING BED MIXING WITH STABILIZED LFS leachate MECHANICAL DEWATERING PAVED DRYING BED LIQUID FRACTION TREATMENT STABILISATION PONDS WETLAND DEWATS STABILISATION POND + DRYING BED PLANTED DRYING BEDS + WETLAND TRANSFER STATION DRYING + SEWER (liquid) NO MECHANICAL/TH THERMAL PROCESSES Compostin g? CO-COMPOSTING YES ORGANIC SOLID WASTE available? NO COMPOSTING ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKING FILTERS MEMBRANE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS e.g. pellets as fuel, building material Co-COMPOST BIOGAS CO-COMPOST PELLETISATION COMPOST ENRICHED COMPOST OR CO-COMPOST IN PELLETS CO-TREATMENT WITH SEWAGE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS

43 TREATMENT FS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TREATMENT FOR REUSE Large >500k people PROCESS OPTIONS LAND APPLICATION ADVANCED TREATMENT STABILISATION POND + DRYING BED PLANTED DRYING BEDS + WETLAND TRANSFER STATION DRYING + SEWER (liquid) NO MECHANICAL/TH THERMAL PROCESSES YES Compostin g? CO-COMPOSTING TS > 200 g l -1? YES YES NO Is FS Stabilize d? ANAEROBIC DIGESTION YES NO GRAVITY THICKENER SAND OR PLANTED DRYING BED ORGANIC SOLID WASTE available? MIXING WITH STABILIZED LFS leachate NO GRAVITY THICKENER MECHANICAL DEWATERING SAND OR PAVED DRYING BED OR THERMAL COMPOSTING LIQUID FRACTION TREATMENT STABILISATION PONDS WETLAND DEWATS ACTIVATED SLUDGE TRICKING FILTERS MEMBRANE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS e.g. pellets as fuel, building material Co-COMPOST BIOGAS CO-COMPOST PELLETISATION COMPOST ENRICHED COMPOST OR CO-COMPOST IN PELLETS CO-TREATMENT WITH SEWAGE TREATED EFFLUENT AND SOLIDS

44 Tool - Septage Treatment Technology Comparison Technology Capital (USD) O&M (USD/yr) Area (m2) Energy (kwh/d) Application Area (ha/yr) RRR1 -Gravity Thickner + (a)sand or (b)planted Drying Beds + (a)ponds or (b)wetland + Composting + Enrichment + Pellitisation TOTAL aa (Sand+Pond) $ 459, $ 89, TOTAL ab (Sand + Wetland) Sand Drying $ 433, Bed + Wetland $ 87, for Composting TOTAL ba (Planted +Pond) $ 606, $ 96, TOTAL bb (Planted + Wetland) $ 580, $ 95, RRR2 - Gravity Thickner + (a)sand or (b)planted Drying Beds + (a)ponds or (b)wetlands + Co-composting + Enrichment + Pellitisation TOTAL aa (Sand+Pond) $ 1,397,779.76$ 453, TOTAL ab (Sand + Wetland) Sand Drying $ 1,371,656.42$ Bed + Wetland 452, for Co-Composting TOTAL ba (Planted +Pond) $ 1,545,015.48$ 461, TOTAL bb (Planted + Wetland) $ 1,518,892.14$ 459, T1 - Stabilisation Pond + Drying Bed TOTAL $ 194, $ 13, Low T2 - Planted Drying Bed + Wetland Stabilisation Pond + Drying Bed for Treatment only TOTAL $ 321, $ 22, Low RRR3 - Land Application TOTAL

45 Input Supply and Availability Market Assessment Financial Viability Technical assessment Institutional and legal settings and public support Health & Envt. Risk Assessment Socioeconomic Impact Assessment MCA Framework

46 Scheduled Desludging with Sanitation Tax Cases: Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia Dumaguete Population: 0.12 million - about 75% septic tank coverage) Service by Municipality Tariff: 2 pesos (USD 5 cents) per m 3 of water consumed Covers O&M and capital costs in 8 years San Fernando Population: 115,000 Service by Private sector Fees through property tax Hai Phong Population: 1.8 million Service by state run utility company Wastewater fee 15% surcharge added to the water bill Water tariff of USD 0.29/m 3 and daily consumption of 0.54m 3 Recover O&M costs

47 Co- Composting - Implementing PPP FSTP in Accra - Guiding municipalities on FSTP in Sri Lanka and Nepal - Agronomic Trials - Compost quality - Enrichment - Pelletization - High applicability in smaller towns to treat both solid and liquid waste

48 Co-Composting Cases Balangoda, Sri Lanka Owner/Operator: Public Waste: 12 ton MSW/day and 10 m 3 FS/day Capital: INR 2.1 crores O&M: INR 85K/month Revenue: FS collection: INR 1,800 to 2,000 per trip Compost: INR 4 per kg (2 tons/day) Recyclable & MSW fees Accra,Ghana Owner/Operator: PPP Waste: m 3 FS/day and 3 tons/day organic waste Capital: INR 3.3 crores O&M: INR 6.5 to 8 lakhs Revenue: Tipping fees: INR 130 per truck Compost: INR 18 to 20 per kg (2 to 4 tons/day) Operational cost breakeven in 3 to 5 years Madhya Pradesh, India Waste: 40m 3 FS/day and 12.8 tons MSW/day Capital: INR 4.4 crores O&M: INR 4 lakhs/month Revenue: FS collection: INR 1,000 to 1,900 per trip Compost: INR 1.4 to 4 per kg 4.4 tons/day

49 CAPEX and OPEX for 100,000 population How should we translate cost recovery from reuse to benefit other parts of sanitation chain? India & Sri Lanka Ghana India & India & Sri Lanka Ghana Sri Lanka Ghana

50 Cost Recovery from Reuse User Charges Case Example Three neighboring towns in Madhya Pradesh (population of 7,784 households) Fecal Sludge: about 40 m 3 MSW: 12.8 tons of MSW per day Compost: 4.4 tons per day Sale price of compost in India: INR 1,400 to INR 4,000 per ton Cost Recovery User charges: INR 84 to 122 per household per month Reduction in user charges from sale of compost: INR 20 to INR 57 per month (depending on the sale price)

51

52 with UN or uptake partners

53 Thank You

54 Pollution from Septic Tanks Insufficient treatment provided to overflow from the septic tank City Not connected to Soak-pit (Percent) Connected to soakpit (Percent) Mughalsarai Shuklaganj 96 4 Unnao 96 4 Total Improper management of septic tank sludge City HH HHs with ST (%) Avg vol of STs (m 3 ) STs emptie d (%) Septage Generati on (m 3 /day) Mughalsar ai 16, Unnao 33, Gangaghat 17,

55 Pollution loads from open drains (kg/d) City WW (MLD) BOD Load Dry weather COD TN TP NO 3 TS VS Unnao 39 2,639 8,796 7, ,678 6,657 Gangag hat 35 4,498 14,996 7, ,438 9,642 Mughals arai 122 4,699 15,728 10, , ,620 39,059 City WW (MLD) BOD Load Wet weather COD TN TP NO 3 TS VS Unnao 58 3,383 11,340 2, ,869 10,240 Gangag hat 42 3,833 12,783 5, ,192 12,052 Mughals arai ,254 60,852 37,058 1,771 7, , ,539

56 Key Findings Gangaghat: The city of Gangaghat contributes a significant quantity of flow and pollution load despite being the smallest city. This is likely due to the direct physical connection between the city and the River. The flows generated within the city are directly routed into the river. Mughalsarai: The open drains flowing through the city of Mughalsarai contribute a large quantum of flow, far in excess of the expected flow from a similar sized city, and significantly greater than the flows generated from the other cities. This is likely a result of agricultural runoffs and flows from surrounding village panchayats flowing through the Hiloni Pulia drain, which flows on the boundary of the city. While this drain receives some flow from the city s households, a major share of the flow may be arising from activities outside the city s municipal limits.