Non-state provision of WASH services in east Asia and the

Comments

Transcription

Non-state provision of WASH services in east Asia and the
NON-STATE PROVISION
OF WASH SERVICES
IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Andy Robinson, UNICEF EAPRO Consultant
Content: WASH NSPs





WASH in the East Asia and Pacific region
Key features of NSP services
Key issues around NSP services
Challenges to improving NSP services
Success factors
Water Supply in the EAP region

Improved water supply coverage (JMP 2008 data)
Regional averages:
50% Oceania
0%
Papua New Guinea
Cambodia
89% Eastern Asia
Timor-Leste
Myanmar
Mongolia
Indonesia
30%
20%
16%
0%-60% unimproved WS
6%-100% piped WS
60%
70%
38%
53%
31%
57%
6%
31%
65%
29%
19%
57%
23%
24%
57%
20%
83%
6%
48%
Thailand
Republic of Korea
6%
97%
54%
44%
93%
98%
Malaysia
97%
Water supply Piped
9%
72%
Japan
Singapore
11%
43%
22%
Tuvalu
100%
39%
29%
13%
90%
43%
45%
16%
80%
60%
33%
Philippines
Vietnam
50%
37%
China
High range across region:
40%
30%
Kiribati
Solomon Islands
20%
10%
Lao PDR
86% South-eastern Asia
High rural population
10%
5%
100%
Water supply Other improved
Water supply Unimproved
Sanitation in the EAP region

Improved sanitation coverage (JMP 2008 data)
Regional averages:
56% Eastern Asia
69% South-eastern Asia
0%
Cambodia
Kiribati
10%
20%
29%
Timor-Leste
5%
60%
80%
3%4%
Indonesia
52%
10%
45%
38%
12%
26%
39%
50%
16%
28%
Philippines
76%
Vietnam
75%
9%
4%
17%
81%
69%
100%
Limited data
29%-100% improved san. Republic of Korea
96%
100%
Singapore
100%
Thailand
96%
Improved
Shared
15%
24%
11%
31%
Malaysia
8%
11%
55%
Japan
13%
15%
84%
Myanmar
100%
43%
3% 6%
China
90%
49%
53%
Solomon Islands
70%
13%
Lao PDR
Tuvalu
0%-64% open defecation
50%
64%
50%
Mongolia
High range across region:
40%
5%2%
33%
Papua New Guinea
High rural population
30%
Unimproved
Open defecation
6%
5%
4%
7%
Equity in WASH services
Water supply
Lower access by poor
 Much lower service quality
(time to collect, contamination,
reliability, consumption)

Richest
89%
4th
80%
3rd
77%
2nd
68%
Poorest
56%
0%
20%
40%
Sanitation


Much lower access by poor
Higher disease and economic
burdens from unsafe disposal
80%
100%
Improved water supply
Richest
97%
4th
76%
3rd
19%
60%
2nd
Source: UNICEF (2009) Status and trends in drinking water
and sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific
60%
32%
47%
Poorest
40%
29%
0%
20%
Improved
57%
40%
Unimproved
60%
80%
Open defecation
100%
WASH: Non-State Providers
Water Supply NSPs

Piped network operators
(utility supply, independent source)

Point source operators
(kiosks, standposts, boreholes, handpumps, tanks, bottled water producers)

Mobile distributors
(tankers, trucks, carts, carriers)

Support services
(drillers, well diggers, pipelayers, plumbers, mechanics electricians)

Manufacturers
(pipes, pipe fittings, water meters, pumps, generators, water tanks, precast
concrete goods)
Sanitation NSPs

Builders
(latrines, sewer connections, septic tanks, soakaways, drains, toilet blocks)

Mobile waste collectors
(hand emptiers, mechanized systems, vacuum trucks, garbage trucks)

System operators
(sewer networks, treatment works, dumps, sanitary landfills, incinerators)

Support services
(marketing, hygiene promotion, community development)

Manufacturers
(latrine pans, pedestal toilets, washbasins, plastic tanks, pipes, potties, diapers,
soap, detergents, precast concrete goods)
Who are the Non-State Providers?
URBAN
Network water and sewerage operators
Non-network water providers
International
Corporate
Formal
Private
Informal
Private
International
NGOs
Local
NGOs
Community
Groups
Toilet providers
RURAL
Waste management
services
WS: Volume of NSP services

Small-scale water providers (World Bank, 2005)
> 10% in Cambodia & Philippines
> 30% in Vietnam
> 50% in Indonesia

Cambodia Small Towns Survey (BURGEAP, 2006)
17% paid for delivery by water vendors
3% connected to mini piped networks

Metro Manila water supply (ADB, 2004)
30% using small-scale water providers (for some or all water)
50% urban poor households using small-scale providers

Rural water supply in the Pacific (Willets et al, 2007)
NGOs & FBOs providing primary water services in many areas
(due to limited public and private capacity in remote island states)
SAN: Volume of NSP services
Higher proportion of NSP services than water supply
 Septic tank coverage in urban areas (AECOM, 2010)
40% in the Philippines
63% in Indonesia
77% in Vietnam

40%-80% septic tank coverage in SE Asia
Private provision of new rural latrines (various, 2007-09)
65% in Timor-Leste (lower due to small market and large UN & NGO presence)
87% in Cambodia
88% in Lao PDR

Sanitation entrepreneurs (BPD, 2008)
10% sanitation treatment and disposal by private providers
70% sanitation transport by private providers
90% household facility provision by private providers
Key NSP issues
Lack of recognition or inclusion
NSPs often excluded from sector activities:
 Little recognition of the volume of NSP services
 Few alternatives to NSP services in many low-income
communities (i.e. critical services; quality affects health)
 Significant capacity and resources in NSPs
 High household investment in NSP services
(both non-poor and poor households)
Failure to include NSPs in sector activities affects scale, costeffectiveness and sustainability of interventions.
Affordability
Profiteering
Low quality +
high prices =
high profit?
Serving
the poor
Flexible and
convenient services
Studies suggest that informal provider prices are often similar to public service
prices (despite subsidies) … where competition exists.
Service quality
Assumption that NSP service quality is low?
 Independent network WS comparable to utility
 WS satisfaction surveys (e.g. Manila) find few differences
between NSP and other services
 Competition important to service quality?
 Water quality issues among all providers?
(evidenced by complementary use of bottled water)
Sanitation: service quality problems
 Badly designed septic tanks and latrines
 Limited knowledge of key hygiene principles?
Public finance
Bulk of WASH public finance to non-poor?



Utility water and sanitation subsidies (non-poor urban)
Household latrine subsidies (non-poor rural)
Septage management finance (non-poor urban, commercial)
Ideology that expanding utility and CBO supply will (eventually)
reach the poor … but a slow process in practice?
 Inadequate targeting
(reliance on processes influenced by local political economy)
 Little public finance to support NSP services
Policy alignment
NGOs, FBOs, CSOs, CBOs:
 Independent objectives, policies and constituencies
 Limited coordination and co-implementation
(risk of undermining other provider interventions)
 Little sharing of resources and capacity
 Sustainability issues (linked to finance & objectives)
Private sector (formal and informal):
 Prohibition ineffective (enforcement limited)
 Few incentives or support mechanisms
Challenges to improved NSP services




High uncertainty and risk(asset seizure, corruption, rent seeking,
lack of protection)
Vested interests
providers, politicians, profiteers)
Administrative, legal and financial barriers
paperwork, fees, registration)
(public
(tenure,
Ineffective regulation(limited capacity, resources or authority for
enforcement)
Success factors (1)





Information (service mapping, evidence of costs of
inaction, identification of high-risk areas)
Pro-poor units and funds (explicit objectives, specialist
skills, performance incentives)
Asset protection and investment guarantees
(for competent providers)
Political support (high-level advocacy, evidence of
investment benefits, outcome-based incentives)
Phased approach (recognize capacity & resource
constraints; willingness to pay; scale requirements)
And ….
Success factors (2)




Appropriate finance (demand-side, performancebased, objective targeting, and enabling environment)
Effective regulation (encourage registration and selfregulation through incentives & social accountability)
Professional support services (business development,
capacity building, access to credit)
Partnerships (local government facilitation + NGO
skills + private sector efficiency)
In Summary





Non-State Providers = diverse + complex group
Important services (with potential for more)
Enabling environments inadequate (for NSPs)
NSPs hard to monitor and regulate
Need a more incentive and performance-based
framework (rather than regulations and penalties)
Thank You!
Recent sanitation campaign in the Philippines:
“Check your septic tank or swallow the consequences”

Similar documents