Uttar Pradesh’s leap in faecal sludge management—but can the system sustain it?
In just five years, Uttar Pradesh has made big strides in managing toilet waste by setting up 59 faecal sludge treatment plants by the end of 2024—up from just one in 2018. This shows a strong push to improve sanitation, especially in places that rely on septic tanks and other on-site systems. But while building these plants is a big achievement, keeping them running smoothly is just as important. Their long-term success depends on how well they are operated and maintained.
For towns without sewer lines, waste from toilets often goes into pit latrines, septic tanks or other onsite sanitation systems. This waste, called faecal sludge, needs to be collected, emptied, transported, treated, and safely disposed of or reused. That whole process, from emptying to treatment, is called Faecal Sludge and Septage Management (FSSM). It’s not just about creating infrastructure for each stage; it’s about making sure the system works smoothly with trained staff, proper contracts, and regular payments. But many plants remain underused or poorly maintained.
A recent study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) looked at the performance of operation and maintenance (O&M) models in faecal sludge and septage management plants across 21 Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in Uttar Pradesh. They found that three main models are being used: plants run by local municipal bodies (ULBs), those managed by women’s self-help groups (SHGs), and ones handled by private contractors, highlighting their financial, operational, and institutional strengths and weaknesses. The report also offers pragmatic recommendations for improving the sustainability and scalability of these sanitation systems, with implications far beyond Uttar Pradesh. Each model has its own benefits and challenges.
A closer look: How are these plants being managed?
In faecal sludge treatment, infrastructure is only the beginning. The regular and reliable operation of these facilities is essential to safeguard public health, prevent environmental contamination, and promote water security. The CSE study finds that the actual utilisation and maintenance of these plants vary dramatically depending on the type of operations and management arrangement in place.
From the study’s sample, eight plants are operated by ULBs, four by SHGs, and nine by private contractors. Each of these models comes with trade-offs in terms of cost-effectiveness, performance, and administrative feasibility.
Key insights into O&M models
ULB-managed plants: ULBs that opted to manage the plants themselves typically did so to reduce costs or due to difficulties in contracting. These plants were generally cost-effective, with annual expenses ranging between Rs. 4–7 lakhs. However, the trade-off was often poor plant utilisation. ULB-managed plants averaged just 18% utilisation, largely because desludging services—essential for plant operation—were not systematically prioritised or promoted.
SHG-managed plants: Under the AMRUT Mitra programme, women SHGs have been entrusted with plant operations in four ULBs. This model promotes inclusive livelihoods and community participation, yet the plants remain underutilised, and SHGs often face delays in salary disbursement due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. Despite being relatively affordable (Rs. 8–10 lakhs per year), their low technical capacity and poor integration with desludging logistics limit their operational effectiveness.
Contractor-managed plants: Contractors demonstrate the highest average plant utilisation (42%), suggesting better technical performance and managerial discipline. These plants, however, incur higher operational costs (Rs. 17–25 lakhs per year), making them less financially attractive for ULBs. Additionally, payment delays and ambiguous contract terms undermine the long-term sustainability of these partnerships. Notably, in the city of Jhansi, contractor mispricing has led to exorbitant costs of over Rs. 55 lakhs annually.
Financial and governance challenges
The study reveals significant inconsistencies in financial flows. Of the 21 ULBs studied, 13 rely solely on their own-source revenue, two supplement this with State Finance Commission (SFC) funds, and four benefit from AMRUT Mitra support. One ULB (Chunar) receives funding from the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG).
Despite advisory-issued cost ceilings by the state’s Department of Urban Development, O&M costs in Jhansi, for example, far exceed prescribed norms. Additionally, payment delays of more than three months were observed in seven facilities—four of which are SHG-managed—raising concerns about operational continuity and workforce retention.
Contractual ambiguity compounds these issues. Only four out of seven reviewed contracts included comprehensive clauses detailing performance indicators, payment conditions, penalties, and responsibilities. Three contracts lacked even basic operational standards or start dates, making dispute resolution difficult and oversight weak.
The Banda model: A cautionary innovation
The Banda ULB presents a unique case. Here, a contractor manages both the desludging service and the treatment plant with no direct financial support from the ULB. Revenue is generated entirely through desludging fees collected from households. While innovative and cost-free for the government, the model suffers from fragmented service requests—split between the contractor and the ULB—leading to insufficient monthly revenue (Rs. 25,000 – Rs. 45,000), well below sustainability thresholds. The contractor has warned of potential withdrawal after the defect liability period ends in 2025, unless fee collection is centralised.
Recommendations for systemic strengthening
Based on the analysis, CSE proposes a suite of practical recommendations:
Standardise handover protocols: Formalise the plant handover process with third-party verification and provision of essential documents such as detailed project reports, operation manuals, and warranty papers.
Contracting reforms: Mandate the use of the state’s model contract for all outsourced O&M engagements. Contract durations should exceed two years to ensure continuity and reduce administrative burden.
Financial mechanisms: Establish escrow accounts for timely payments to SHGs and contractors, linking disbursements to performance metrics, especially the quality of treated outputs.
Boost utilisation rates: ULBs must prepare desludging calendars and promote awareness among citizens and institutions. Regular scheduling ensures plant viability and reduces environmental risks.
Strengthen monitoring and record-keeping: Enforce the use of digital and physical logs as per state guidelines. Regular testing of treated water and bio-solids should be institutionalised to assess compliance and plant efficiency.
Replicate and refine the Banda model: While promising, the Banda model requires redesign—ensuring all service requests and fee collections are routed through a single operator. If optimised, it can offer a zero-subsidy, scalable model for other towns.
Lessons for India and beyond
Uttar Pradesh’s journey in scaling up FSSM infrastructure reveals both progress and pitfalls. The state’s experience shows that building physical infrastructure is only the first step. True sanitation transformation requires institutional innovation, transparent governance, financial sustainability, and continuous community engagement.
For other Indian states and countries across the Global South, the report offers a roadmap for contextualising sanitation solutions. Embracing hybrid models that blend municipal oversight with community and private sector participation can unlock more resilient urban sanitation systems.
Crucially, the future lies in building capacity—not just plants. Training municipal engineers, empowering SHG members, and enforcing accountability through robust contracts and monitoring will determine whether India can deliver on its promise of safe sanitation for all.
Citation: Hari Prakash Haihyvanshi and Subrata Chakraborty 2025, Enhancing sustainability and efficiency in FSSM plants: Assessment of O&M arrangement in Uttar Pradesh, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi