Transcript Slide 1

The Forgotten Sector:
Sanitation and Sewerage
in the Philippines
Ben Eijbergen
Infrastructure Sector Coordinator
World Bank Office Manila
1
The Forgotten Sector:
Sanitation and Sewerage
in the Philippines

Sector overview and performance

Policy and institutional framework

Market structure of water service providers

Investment needs and financing

Main issues

Recommendations
2
Sector Overview



Sanitation – interventions (usually
construction of facilities such as latrines)
that improve management of excreta; onsite facilities such as toilets and septic tanks
Sewerage – the entire system of wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal; pipe
networks to off-site treatment and disposal
Sanitation and sewerage investment usually
lumped with water supply
3
Sector Overview


Indiscriminate disposal of wastewater is one main
reason for degradation of water quality
Adverse effects:
– Health: Spread of disease-causing bacteria & viruses
– Aquatic ecosystem: Decline in fishery production due to
pollution
– Aesthetics: Poor quality of water makes water unfit for
recreation
4
Sector Overview
Health
In 1996-2000 approximately 31% of
illnesses monitored were attributed to
waterborne sources
PhP3.3 billion per
year in avoidable
health cost
Aquatic
ecosystem
Fish yields reported to have declined
by 30%- 5% due to sedimentation
and silt pollution;
PhP17 billion lost
due to
degradation of
fisheries
environment
Tourism
Decline in occupancy (e.g. Boracay
island in 1997 due to high levels of
coliform);
P47 billion for
avoidable losses
in tourism
Others
Damage claims due to environmental
degradation (e.g. income and
livelihood)
Overall economic loss due to water pollution: $1.3 billion a year
5
Sector Performance
Access to Sanitary Toilets, 2004
All families
86%
Upper 70%
income stratum
93%


Lower 30%
income stratum
70%
Access rates
compare favorably
with neighboring
countries
BUT does not
necessarily reflect
access to satisfactory
sanitation
Source: NSO
6
Sector Performance
Sewerage Access, Selected Asian Cities, 2001/2002
Vientiane
Jakarta
Manila
Ho Chi Minh City
Kathmandu
Dhaka
Colombo
Phnom Penh
Ulaanbaatar
Karachi
Delhi
Shanghai
Kuala Lumpur
Tashkent
Chengdu
Seoul
Osaka
Hong Kong


0
20
40
60
80
Only about 4% of
the population
had access to
sewerage in 2000
Outside Metro
Manila, access to
sewerage
network almost
non-existent
100
Percent
7
Source: Asian Development Bank. 2004. Water in Asian Cities: Utilities Performance and Society Views. Manila.
Main Laws and
Regulations
1959
1975
1976
National Plumbing Code
Sanitation Code
Water Code; establishment of NWRB
1977
1991
National Building Code;
Philippine Environmental Code
Local Government Code
Shifted responsibility of water supply and
sanitation services to LGUs
2004
Clean Water Act
8
Government Institutions
Involved in
Sanitation and Sewerage
DOH
Promotion and formulation of standards and rules
and regulations on proper waste disposal
DENR
Regulation of effluent quality and quantity
MWSS Provision of sewerage systems in Metro Manila
through MWCI and MWSI
LWUA Development of water districts to plan and
implement municipal sewage or sewerage
systems
LGUs
Enforcement of anti-pollution regulation from
domestic wastewater; provision of sanitation
services
9
Market Structure of
Water Service Providers
79% with access to formal levels of service
44% Level 3
WDs PU
14% 10%
LGU/
CBO
20%
10%
Level 2
25% Level 1
LGU/CBO - 35%
21% no access

Institutional
fragmentation
Private wells
Tankered/vended
water
Piped supply
– At utility level:
proliferation of
provider models
and their small sizes
SSIPs and/or self
provision by
households - 21%
– At national level:
fragmentation of
oversight
responsibilities
Complementary services provided by SSIPs and/or Self Provision
Legend:
CBO = community-based organization
LGU = local government unit
PUs = private operators
SSIP = small-scale independent provider
WDs = local water districts
Level 1 = a protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but
without a distribution system
Level 2 =a piped system with communal faucets
Level 3 =a piped system with individual household taps
10
Investment Needs and
Financing
Annual Average Investment in
Water Supply vs. Sanitation and Sewerage
Sanitation
and
Sewerage,
3%
Water, 97%
Source: C. Ancheta (2000), WPEP: Urban and Sanitation - 3 Years of Experience and Lessons
11
Investment Needs and
Financing
Coverage
Area
Population
(in million)
Service Coverage
(in million)
Investment
requirement
(in PhP B)
2005
2015
2005
2015
2005
2015
Urban
48.85
(58%)
55.58
(60%)
9.77
(20%)
27.79
(50%)
55.69
158.40
Rural
35.37
(42%)
37.06
(40%)
17.69
(50%)
18.53
(50%)
50.42
52.81
Sub-Total
84.22
(100%)
92.64
(100%)
27.46
(33%)
46.32
(50%)
106.11
211.21
Operating Costs Urban
3.91
11.12
Operating Costs Rural
6.28
6.58
130.09
256.37
Program Support
Total
Notes: Investment requirement was computed based on constant 2002 rates. Support activities were estimated at 13% of the Capital12Cost.
Source: ADB, 2001
Main Issues




Lack of leadership; no identified lead
authority on sanitation
Low priority given by the National
Government and LGUs
Low demand due to inadequate information
on appropriate sanitation practices
Underinvestment and lack of financing
13
Recommendations




Reinforce public awareness-building measures
regarding the impacts of inadequate S&S
Review and clarify accountability for planning,
construction, operation and regulation of S&S
infrastructure
Assist LGUs and local utilities develop strategies and
plans for sanitation improvement
Allocate funding from the government to provide
incentives for LGUs and utilities in sewerage
investments
14