The Forgotten Sector: Sanitation and Sewerage in the Philippines

Ben Eijbergen Infrastructure Sector Coordinator World Bank Office Manila

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

Sector Overview
Health In 1996-2000 approximately 31% of illnesses monitored were attributed to waterborne sources
Fish yields reported to have declined by 30%- 5% due to sedimentation and silt pollution;

PhP3.3 billion per year in avoidable health cost

PhP17 billion lost due to degradation of fisheries environment P47 billion for avoidable losses in tourism

Aquatic ecosystem

Tourism

Decline in occupancy (e.g. Boracay island in 1997 due to high levels of coliform); Damage claims due to environmental degradation (e.g. income and livelihood)

Others

Overall economic loss due to water pollution: $1.3 billion a year

Sector Performance
Access to Sanitary Toilets, 2004
All families 86%

Upper 70% income stratum Lower 30% income stratum

Source: NSO

93%

Access rates compare favorably with neighboring countries BUT does not necessarily reflect access to satisfactory sanitation

70%

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 80 100
7

Only about 4% of the population had access to sewerage in 2000 Outside Metro Manila, access to sewerage network almost non-existent

Percent
Source: Asian Development Bank. 2004. Water in Asian Cities: Utilities Performance and Society Views. Manila.

Main Laws and Regulations

1959 1975 1976 1977 1991 National Plumbing Code Sanitation Code Water Code; establishment of NWRB National Building Code; Philippine Environmental Code Local Government Code Shifted responsibility of water supply and sanitation services to LGUs Clean Water Act
8

2004

Government Institutions Involved in Sanitation and Sewerage

DOH DENR Promotion and formulation of standards and rules and regulations on proper waste disposal 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

Market Structure of Water Service Providers

79% with access to formal levels of service 21% no access Private wells Tankered/vended water Piped supply SSIPs and/or self provision by households - 21%

Institutional fragmentation
At utility level: proliferation of provider models and their small sizes At national level: fragmentation of oversight responsibilities

44% Level 3

10% Level 2

25% Level 1

WDs PU 14% 10%

LGU/ CBO 20%

LGU/CBO - 35%

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) 2005 2015 55.58 (60%) 37.06 (40%) 92.64 (100%)

Service Coverage (in million) 2005 9.77 (20%) 17.69 (50%) 27.46 (33%) 2015 27.79 (50%) 18.53 (50%) 46.32 (50%)

Investment requirement (in PhP B) 2005 55.69 50.42 106.11 2015 158.40 52.81 211.21

Urban Rural Sub-Total

48.85 (58%) 35.37 (42%) 84.22 (100%)

Program Support

Operating Costs Urban

Operating Costs Rural

3.91
6.28

11.12
6.58

Total

130.09

256.37

12 Notes: Investment requirement was computed based on constant 2002 rates. Support activities were estimated at 13% of the Capital Cost. 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