WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT FORUM
THE CASE OF MOROCOO
Valuation of Wastewater
Mr. Abderafii Lahlou
Adviser to the Director General, ONEP
Ministry of General Affairs
Beirut, LEBANON – June 2002
Rainwater drainage problems
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF COST RECOVERY
Detailed calculation of PEE
Ministry of Interior
National Drinking Water Office (ONEP)
River Basins Agencies
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Development of renewable resource potentials
By inhabitant/year (Fig.1)
Development of urban wastes (Fig.2)
Classification of wastewater (Table 2)
Sanitation fees (Table 3)
Investment needs 2000-2005 (Table 4)
Investment by town (Table 5)
Main wastewater reuse zones (Table 6)
I-1 Water resources
In Morocco, the volume of available water per inhabitant per annum, indicator
of a country‟s abundance or poverty of water, is around 1000 m3/inhab./year, commonly
accepted as the critical threshold of scarcity. This rate presently varies between 180
m3/inhab./year for zones known as poor in water resources (Souss-Massa, South
Atlantic, Sahara) and about 1850 m3/inhab year for the relatively water rich Loukkos
Basin, the Tangérois and the Mediterranean coasts.
Water resources by inhabitant is expected to about 720 m3/inhab./year by 2020.
By then, about 14 million inhabitants, i.e. approximately 35 % of the total population of
the Kingdom, would have less than 500 m3/inhab./year.
Figure 1: Development of renewable resource potentials by inhabitant/year
1200 m /yr/hab.
I-2 Wastewater potential in Morocco
The annual volume of wastewater has grown from 48 to over 500 million m3
from 1960 to 1999 and is expected to reach about 900 million m3 in 2020 (CSEC,
1994). Thus, it would have almost tripled during the past decades.
The transient development of urban wastes is given in Figure 2
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 2: Development of urban wastes in Morocco
The main factors contributing to this increase are:
Growth of the urban population, which increases at a rate ranging between
4.4 and 5 %;
Increase of connectivity rate to the drinking water network in urban areas,
which has moved from 53 % in 1972 to 79 % in 1993 and to 85 % in 2000;
Increase in connectivity rate to the sanitation network has been able to reach
75 % in the major towns in 1999;
Increase in individual consumption of drinking water in major towns, which
has grown from 85 to 116 liters / inhabitant / day between 1972 and 1992.
In 1999, the volume of wastewater produced by the urban population stood at
546 million m3. More than 58 % of this volume flow to the littoral and the remainder to
oueds and talwegs without prior treatment (Table 1).
Table 1: Distribution of wastewater discharge by receiving environment
Receiving Environment Volume of flow in million m3 Percentage
Atlantic and Mediterranean littoral 316 57.8
Oueds and Talwegs 230 42.2
Total 546 100
Qualitatively, a classification of urban wastewater in Morocco was undertaken
for ONEP (1998). The findings of this study give an accurate idea of the quality of
wastewater in Morocco, of the development of ratios and recovery rates, according to
the size of the population center (Table 2).
Table 2: Classification of wastewater in Morocco
Parameters Small Centers Medium Centers Major Towns National
(less than 20,000 (bet. 20,000 & 100,000 (over 100,000 Average
inhabitants) inhabitants) inhabitants)
BOD5 (mg/l) 400 350 300 350
DOC (mg/l) 1000 950 850 900
MES (mg/l) 500 400 300 400
Recovery rates (%) 50 75 80 65
Endowment x recovery rate 40 70 80 60
Source : ONEP-GTZ (1998)
The larger the town, the less is the concentration of pollutants expressed in terms
of BOD5, DOC and MES. In fact, major towns use a larger quantity of water, thus
leading to a stronger dilution of wastewater.
I-3 Conditions of sanitation
Continued flow of such wastes without treatment leads to a serious degradation
of water resources with detrimental effects on drinking water supply and has occurred in
several regions of the country. In any case, sanitation infrastructure has not been
developed sufficiently. Thus, we note:
a- Lack of network equipment
All major towns have had a wastewater collection network for decades, but such
networks have not kept pace with the rapid extension of the towns. There is a lack of
infrastructure, especially in outlying districts of towns.
The connection rate reflects the equipment level of towns regarding collection of
effluents. This rate is an average of 70% with disparities according to the size of the
b- Shortage or lack of treatment systems
Investigations and studies carried out at the beginning of the 1990s have shown a
lag in wastewater treatment. In fact, the “treatment” component constitutes an area
where particularly significant efforts have to be exerted. The total number of treatment
stations comes to 63, of which 26 are operating normally, 31 are out of order and 6 are
not connected to sanitation networks. The outcome of this situation directly affects the
receiving environment and public health, especially in the outlying districts which may
constitute potential centers for development of water borne diseases.
c- Rainwater drainage problems
A significant proportion of towns suffer problems of floods. In fact, 70% of
urban centers are affected by more or less serious floods due to either overflowing of
oueds, or defective collection or transportation of rainwater by the network.
Such deficiencies are due to a number of factors which may be summarized as:
Very intensive urbanisation accompanied by marked extension and
development of industries without associated establishment of industrial
pollution pre-treatment systems;
High costs of sanitation and treatment works;
Inadequate systematic maintenance of installations which lead to a rapid
deterioration of networks.
In fact, all these constraints stem from an obsolete institutional and cost recovery
framework. According to the Communal Charter, sanitation is a communal duty that
Communes may in other respects delegate or entrust to a specialized body. But
Communes have directly undertaken this activity with limited financial as well as
human resources and techniques.
Cost recovery has been carried out by way of taxes constituting fiscal returns not
directly allocated to their specific goals, while expenditure was being made according to
budgetary procedures not compatible with the type of administration and functioning of
a department known to be of a commercial and industrial nature.
A new strategy has been adopted since 1987, related to the strengthening of local
financing capacities and means of controlling urban equipment. The objectives
comprise improvement of peoples‟ living conditions, protection of the environment and
public health, optimal utilization of water resources and protection of persons and goods
This strategy has led to the establishment of a public-private partnership for major
towns, involvement of ONEP in the control of sanitation of medium towns and small
centers, thus starting the implementation of an important study programme of a master-
plan and investment scheme regarding rainwater drainage and treatment.
II – TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF COST RECOVERY
To support this strategy, the cost recovery system set up on a case-by-case basis
comprises two main aspects:
Participation in the first establishment (P.P.E) aiming at covering investments;
Sanitation dues based on water consumption of users aimed at covering,
progressively and finally, current operating costs, depreciations, renewal and
debt-servicing, and also to remunerate private capital eventually tied up
(concession), while completing the P.P.E. in order to cover investments.
The cost recovery system also comprises two secondary aspects:
Cost of individual connection (real costs increased by 20 %), its
implementation being borne by the owner, but undertaken by the
operator or for his account;
Cost of implementing tertiary networks (real cost increased by 10 %),
which is entirely borne by the developer or promoter.
II-1 Detailed calculation of P.P.E
Any owner of a particular construction, not forming part of a development
operation calling for connection to the public sanitation network, remains subject to a
P.P.E defined by the following formula:
PPE = (T1+KT2)*(R+nr)^1/2*I/I0
(R+nr)^1/2 : The construction‟s equivalent linear.
T1: Unitary participation in investments related to the general structure
and to installations located on the downstream side of the tertiary
networks. The calculation takes into account, for a given year, the
replacement value of the existing heritage as well as the relevant
investment programme of the following year.
T2: Unitary participation in equipment of the tertiary network. The
calculation takes into account, for a given year, the replacement value of
the existing heritage as well as the relevant investment programme of the
T1 and T2 values should stem from a study of tariffs and cost recovery, drawn
up by the manager, accepted by the Commune and approved by the Ministry of Interior.
R: Area of each lot.
n: Number of levels, reduced by two when buildings to be constructed on
the lots were to have more than 3 levels.
K: Weighted coefficient whose value depends on the sanitation system
adopted by the tertiary network connected to the construction.
n: Built-up area of different levels.
I/I0: Revision coefficient.
Notwithstanding the provision in situ of his lot with sanitation network which is
fully borne by him in accordance with the prevailing legislation, every developer has
to contribute to the connection of his lot to the public sanitation network in PPE
(participation in first establishment) costs related to the general structure and
installations located downstream of the tertiary network of the lot, applicable to each
lot and defined by the following formula:
PPE = K’ T1*(R+nr)^1 /2*I/I0
T1,R,n,r and I/I0 : Same definition as above,
K’ : Weighted coefficient depending on the type of
accommodation which should stem from the tariff and cost recovery study.
II 2- Sanitation fees
Sanitation fees comprise a fixed and a proportional part based on the drinking
water consumption of the user. The Table below gives the level of such fees as applied
Table 3: Sanitation Fees
RAMSA RADEEM RAID RADEEC RADEET RADEEN RADEEF RADEMA LYDEC
Agadir Meknès Tangiers Settat Beni Mellal Nador Fès Marrakes Casa
a- Particular customers
Fixed part in Dh/yr 36 36 45 40 37 37 37 37
Proportional part Dh/ m
* 1st instalment 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.51 0.73
* 2 instalment 0.78 0.65 0.90 1.10 1.28 1.28 1.01 1.28 1.45
* 3 instalment 1.36 1.30 1.80 2.10 2.55 2.55 2.03 2.55 2.91
b- Turkish baths
Fixed part in Dh/yr 180 180 148 148 148
Proportional part Dh/ m 0.78 1.80 3.06 3.06 2.43 2.47
Fixed part in Dh/yr 72 72 90 80 74 74 74 74
Proportional part Dh/ m 0.58 1.30 1.50 2.50 2.55 2.55 2.03 2.55
d- Industry & hotels
Fixed part in Dh/yr 180 180 180 160 148 148 148 185
Proportional part Dh/ m3 2.73 1.30 2.00 3.00 3.06 3.06 2.43 2.55 3.56
III- SOCIAL ASPECTS
Consideration of the social aspect appears at two levels:
PPE: It may be noted that the imposition of such participation is amply justified by the
value- added to the property through its connection to sanitation.
The factor K’ varies according to the accommodation reflecting a social standard and
constituting a solidarity by equalization among social strata (existing and projected
typologies of the accommodation) at the level of the whole built-up area concerned.
Fees: A social standard also comes in at the level of sanitation fees.
If we call the variable part of the fees « a ” and the fixed part « b » applied to the
first instalment, the modulation may be of the type:
- First instalment : b+a*V
- Second instalment : b+2 a*V
- Third instalment : b+4 a*V
- Fourth instalment : b+8 a*V
It is generally admitted that the global invoicing for water and sanitation should
not exceed 3% of the income of households. Some economists fix this rate at 5%. In the
framework of projects studied by ONEP, calculations show that assuming an average
sanitation fee of 2 DH/m3 (slightly less than US $ 0.2), the global invoicing water +
sanitation is always limited to 1% of the average income of households and to 2% for
the poorest households (US $ 150 /month).
For the average invoice, the impact on the user is:
Consumption section Average Drinking Sanitation Global Impact
(m3/month) consumption water invoice invoice invoice on user
(m3/month) (Dh/month) (Dh/month) (Dh/month) (%)
Section 1 (0 – 8 m3) 4 12 5 17 30
Section 2 (9 – 20) 13 60 15 75 20
Section 3 (21 – 40) 28 194 43 237 18
Section 4 (>40) 99 952 201 1153 17
Moreover, payment facilities are granted to new low-income users.
An agreement in principle is given so that the State may subsidize the sector as of
2003, in favour of small centers, taking into consideration the high cost price,
because of their size.
Finally, it is important to evaluate the readiness to pay, through investigations. It
is clear that households pay in any case for liquid sanitation. In the absence of collective
sanitation, households resort to individual sanitation, which should definitely be
promoted under technically acceptable circumstances, pending the implementation of
projects which would radically solve the problem raised.
IV- FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Considering the lag in sanitation, investments to be mobilised are very
significant. The master plan for liquid sanitation had estimated such investments for the
period 2002-2025 to the tune of DH 35, 662 billion.
Table 4: Investment needs for 2002-2025
Groups of towns Networks Treatment I Treatment II Total I Total II
Greater 3, 812 3, 109 3, 374 6, 921 7,184
Other major towns 10,300 2,714 5,181 13,014 15,480
Medium towns 5,438 582 2,111 6,021 7,549
Small centers 4,034 405 1,412 4,439 5,446
Total 230,585 6,811 12,077 30,395 35,662
Treatment I and Total I correspond to preliminary treatment and Treatment II and Total
II correspond to tertiary treatment.
The amount of such investments is colossal. If agreed that primary treatment is
acceptable in the first phase, the amount of investments required would come to
DH 30,395 billion.
For Greater Casablanca, Rabat and Tangiers-Tétouan, the concessionnaires have
taken turns with the State control units and have made commitments to secure over a
period ranging between 25 and 30 years the required amounts (DH 16 billion for Casa,
DH 6 billion for Rabat and DH 1.7 billion for Tétouan and Tangiers). For the other
major towns having independent administration, investments already decided stand at
DH 2,758 billion.
Table 5: Investments for towns having independent administrations
Town Administration Cost TTC (all
Agadir RAMSA 460
Fès RADEEF 873
Marrakesh RADEEMA 750
Meknès RADEM 483
Settat RADEEC 192
Grand Total 2,758
For medium towns and small centers, ONEP is undertaking an investment
programme related to 37 centers for a portfolio of about DH 2,180 million, financed by
donations and communal contributions.
IV-2 Operating costs
In most major towns, operating costs of sanitation and debt-servicing would
range between 3 and 4 DH/m3. When networks would fully cover the towns with
adequate treatment stations, the cost would reach DH 5, that is, the present price of
water would be doubled. That is not surprising, because in most countries, sanitation
costs exceed those of drinking water by about 20%.
For medium towns and small centers, unit costs are higher because of scale
effects. A strategy is proposed to the government combining equipment subsidy,
solidarity contribution of major towns in favour of small centers and fees with financing
under preferential terms, relieving debt-servicing.
IV-3 Financing plans
Financing plans depend on auto-financing through net earnings released from
sanitation fees, connection costs, and participation in first establishment (PPE). External
financing constitutes a significant source of funds, but remains subject to rules of sound
management and financial feasibility of both projects and the institution. Such external
financing is often extended sometimes under preferential terms, considering their
impact on projects financed on the environment. The most dynamic donors in the sector
are the European Union, the German Cooperation (KfW, GTZ), the French
Development Agency, the European Investment Bank, the World Bank, the Japanese
Development Bank, the Belgian cooperation.
It is important to point out, moreover, that concessionnaires also bring in capital
contributions and the amounts depend on the financial mobilization for approved
investment projects. Contributions have so far focused on the three sectors: drinking
water, sanitation and electricity.
It may also be stressed that for financial projections, prudence is advocated
regarding PPE estimates because it has been found that the recovery rate of such
participation is not only fluctuating but perhaps small, according to the urban
Finally, it remains difficult to meet financial needs out of resources referred to
above, especially in small centers. A State subsidy is expected as of 2003. It is fully
justified by external results of sanitation. Moreover, it is well targeted, because it is set
aside for small centers where income is lower than in major towns.
V- INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
The main participants in the sector are:
The institutional and organizational framework of Communes in Morocco is
based on the Dahir concerning Law No. 1-76-583 of 30 September 1976, related to
communal organization. This text is the basis of the decentralization policy. Section II,
Chapter IV, defines the responsibilities of the Communal Council which are listed in
eleven paragraphs, the fourth of which stipulates:
It (the Council) takes decision regarding the creation and organization of
communal public departments and their administration, either directly or by
autonomous administration, or by concession.
Communes are therefore free to decide on the type of administration of their
sanitation department. In fact, it may be noted that:
1. 56 communes entrusted their sanitation to private concessionnaires
before 2000: 17 in the vicinity of Rabat to REDAL and 39 around
Casablanca to LYDEC;
More recently the towns of Tangiers and Tétouan and neighbouring
communes have also entrusted their sanitation to AMENDIS;
2. Several towns have, by decision of their Communal Council, entrusted
sanitation control to their autonomous administrations with the institution
of a specific tariff (Fès, Agadir, Marrakesh, Settat, Meknés, Béni
About thirty small centers and medium towns, where ONEP participates in water
distribution, have transferred to ONEP their sanitation control, in the framework of
projects benefiting from external financing;
3. All other communes run their sanitation directly through direct
Direct Administration means that there is no specific budget for sanitation and it is
possible to know the real expenditure of the sanitation department. Such a system
forbids the request of loans from external donors.
Autonomous Administration has long been operational for drinking water. It often
ensures its balance through equalization among 3 sectors: drinking water, sanitation and
It must be pointed out that the movement of delegating control to private companies
will continue; it is expected that they would relieve Communes of the concerns of this
service, while enhancing its performance.
V-2 Ministry of Interior
The Ministry of Interior ensures the supervision of the Communes through the
General Directorate of Local Organisations, which comprises the Water and Sanitation
Authority. It also ensures the supervision of distribution administrations and therefore
takes part in the approval of major decisions, particularly tariffication.
V-3 Communal Equipment Fund (CEF)
The Communal Equipment Fund was set up in 1969 as a public financial
institution and in 1996 it has been transformed into a bank specialized in the financing
of Communes. Considering the interest increases it introduces to cover its expenses and
in view of the commissions for the guarantee provided by the State, CEF loans are
relatively expensive with rather intricate procedures.
The main pre-requisite for eligibility to CEF loans lies in the fact that the annual
instalment of the loan sought, added to the instalments of ongoing loans, should not
exceed 40% of operating returns, and this makes CEF project-financing difficult.
V-4 ONEP (National Drinking Water Office)
ONEP was set up in 1972. A public institution of an industrial and commercial nature,
having legal status and financial autonomy, ONEP is affiliated to the Ministry of
Equipment. In 2000, the powers of ONEP have been extended to sanitation; it is
henceforth at the disposal of the Communes which request it to run their sanitation
In fact, the involvement of ONEP in sanitation satisfies the need to deal with the
water cycle globally to reduce the pollution arising from increased drinking water
In order to abide by the spirit of decentralization, some form of particular
management has been set up. It is what we call co-management, for which a Convention
is concluded between the Commune concerned and ONEP, providing for the
establishment of a sanitation unit having the technical and financial means of running
independently sanitation installations.
The sanitation project is managed by a Steering Committee made up of local
representatives, representatives of the Ministries of Interior and Equipment. This
Committee is vested with extended duties. The Commune concerned should contribute
to the financing of the project to the tune of 30% of its cost (which is always fraught
with some problems) and remains the owner of the installations.
The Convention defines the cost recovery modalities based on the above
components and further stipulates that the Communes shall collect the surplus returns
on the taxes and shall bridge the gaps.
The cost recovery components are negotiated with the Commune with the help
of departments of the Ministry of Interior. They are submitted to the Communal Council
for decision, approved by the Minister of Interior before being fixed by Order of the
delegate of the Prime Minister.
V-5 River Basins Agencies
Their mission is to valuate, plan and run water resources at the level of the
hydraulic basin. They may grant donations to co-finance treatment or cleaning up
VI- LEGAL ASPECTS
Fixing of sanitation tariffs is governed by the same rules and regulations as those
for drinking water with one characteristic, however, namely, prior agreement of the
Communal Council concerned.
Thus with regard to ONEP, an additional tariff clause is attached to the
management contract; this Annex lays down the tariffs to apply and is the outcome of a
detailed cost recovery study based on the prevailing sanitation condition at the time of
the study, the project to implement, actual and foreseen operating costs with due
consideration to the operation of new installations, and debt-servicing.
Following approval of this Annex by departments of the Ministry of Interior and
by the Communal Council, a tariff request is presented to the Pricing Directorate (Prime
Minister) which convenes the Pricing Inter-Ministerial Commission in accordance with
the prevailing regulations; the proposal of this Commission is submitted to the
arbitration of the Prime Minister or his delegate.
The Law on competition adopted recently has not modified the situation as this
department is considered as monopolistic for which prices should remain under State
Moreover, Law No. 10-95 on Water promulgated by Dahir No. 1-95-154 of 16
August 1995 has created at the level of each hydraulic basin or of all the basins, under
the denomination of Basin‟s office, a public body having legal status and financial
autonomy. The mission of these offices is to valuate, plan and manage water resources
at the level of hydraulic basins. They may extend loans, aids and subsidies to any person
committing investments for development or preservation of water resources. Financial
resources are made up of taxes recovered from water users, loans, subsidies, donations,
Through taxes, these offices should help Communes develop wastewater
treatment; they would set up a solidarity system among users of the same basin.
VII- ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
It is well-known that sanitation has an environmental impact which cannot be
denied and wastewater treatment helps to improve sanitary and health conditions of
populations while preserving water resources.
In this framework, public authorities should encourage this sector, ensure its
promotion in particular through a rational tariffication based on sound principles as the
„collector-pays‟ or „polluter-pays‟. The tariffs laid down stipulate relatively high rates of
sanitation fees for industrialists both regarding fixed fees (4 times that paid by
household users) as well as for the variable part (over 4 times than that paid by the
particular user). But no link has been established with waste pollution.
It must be pointed out, however, that a programme aimed at encouraging pre-
treatment of industrial wastes through discounted loans is being set up with the help of
the German cooperation; this programme, entitled FODEP (Industrial Clean up Fund)
is promoted by the Environment Department. It contributes to the financing of industrial
cleaning up projects introduced by small and medium-scale enterprises. Two types of
projects are eligible:
Downstream project of the production process contributing to a reduction of
Project integrated to the production process aimed at reducing pollution at
source, besides savings in resources through use of appropriate technology.
VIII- ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Sanitation invoicing is done for drinking water; the two tariffs applied are
progressive and therefore dissuasive to some extent for major users. They give users the
signal on the scarcity of water, its cost, and the pollution generated.
Dissuasion should continue to put off investments both at the level of producing
drinking water as well as sanitation. External results related to sanitation are often
presented to authorities to make them aware and justify investments in this field which
may, moreover, be valued through treated wastewater reuse. This may be taken as a
potential resource to be used to set aside better quality of water for use demanding such
In Morocco, reuse of raw wastewater is a common and very old practice. Its
reuse in agriculture is, in fact, a widespread valuation practice in the country. It is used
in the outskirts of major towns where agricultural lands are available downstream of
effluent flow, and in small plots neighbouring the evacuation of sanitation networks.
Weather constraints naturally lead farmers to irrigate their crops wherever water
resources are available.
During the past few years, wastewater reuse has also developed around some
built-up areas recently provided with a sanitation network. A total of over 7,000 ha is
directly irrigated with raw wastewater evacuated by towns, that is, approximately
70 million m3 wastewater reuse annually in agriculture without taking any sanitary
precaution (WHO standards, for example). A wide variety of crops are irrigated with
wastewater (fodder, market-garden and major crops, arboriculture).
Irrigation of market-garden crops with raw wastewater is forbidden in Morocco.
But this ban is not complied with, thus exposing both the user of agricultural produce
and the farmer to risks of bacteriological or parasitological infections. Table 6 gives, for
some towns, an estimate of volumes of wastewater reuse in agriculture.
Table 6: Main zones of raw wastewater reuse in Morocco
Province Area (ha) Crop type
Marrakesh 2000 Cereals, market-garden, arboriculture
Meknès 1400 Cereals, market-garden, arboriculture
Oujda 1175 Market-garden, cereals, arboriculture
Fès 800 Arboriculture, market-garden
El Jadida 800 Market-garden, fodder
Khouribga 360 Cereals, market-garden
Agadir 310 Arboriculture, market-garden, soya, floriculture
Béni-Mellal 225 Cereals, market-garden, cotton, beet
Ben guérir 95 Market-garden, fodder, arboriculture
Tétouan 70 Market-garden, fodder
Source: CSEC 1994
Globally, volumes of wastewater reuse represent hardly more than 0.5 % of water
used in agriculture. This situation tends to become widespread in all built-up areas and
fitted with a sanitation system where wastewater is discharged. According to a survey
conducted in the framework of SNDAL (1998), there is a total of about 70 wastewater
reuse zones distributed throughout the territory. This practice is not without detrimental
repercussions on human health and the environment. For example:
1. Increase difficulty and extra treatment costs for production of drinking
2. Several sections of the country‟s waterways contain very low quantities
of dissolved oxygen, indeed even a deficit in oxygen when discharges are
significant, and this causes massive fish mortality; and
3. Several dams show signs of eutrophication, as a result of significant nitrogenous
and phosphorous discharge.
For a decade, several important multi-disciplinary research projects related to the
treatment and treated wastewater reuse in agriculture have been undertaken.
IX- FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Major towns will be treated by the private sector or distribution administrations.
Small centers and medium towns entrust sanitation control to ONEP.
This Office can mobilise financing under preferential terms, and even donations,
for sanitation; however reference has to be made to some difficulties as has been
documented throughout this paper. Steps have to be taken to simplify the procedure of
taking over responsibilities, to amend the co-management Convention to give the
operator increased autonomy of action and finally to support Communes in the
mobilization of their contribution through State subsidies which are amply justified by
the external consequences of sanitation and international practice. With regard to cost
recovery, a discriminating tariff of treated or non-treated evacuation should definitely be
adopted to promote actions against pollution. A prerequisite is the adoption of explicit
regulations defining the ultimate values of discharges.