The Costs and Benefits of Sanitation Services in East Asia Results of the Economics of Sanitation Initiative

Transcription

1 The Costs and Benefits of Sanitation Services in East Asia Results of the Economics of Sanitation Initiative Guy Hutton, Senior Economist, WSP-EAP Stockholm World Water Week - 6 September 200

2 Emerging evidence from SE Asia compares sanitation cost/benefit Economics of Sanitation Initiative Phase 2 Preliminary results from: Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Yunnan Province (China) main components Field level CBA comparing technologies with sample >5000 HHs National surveys on tourism and business Program approach analysis This presentation focuses on the field studies: Rural and urban sites Range of technologies Monetised benefits (for CBA) and nonmonetised benefits Optimal versus actual program performance Source:Draft results. Economic assessment of sanitation services in Southeast Asia. WSP/World Bank

3 Cambodia Field Sites Banthey Meanch. Pr. Rural ( project) Siem Reap Province Rural ( projects) Kampong Thom Pr. Rural ( project) Battambang Province Rural (2 projects) Sihanoukville Town Urban ( project)

4 Indonesia Field Sites Payakumbuh Urban Tangerang Rural slum Malang Urban Lamongan Rural Banjarmasin Urban

5 Philippines Field Sites San Fernando Rural upland San Fernando Urban Coastal Dagupan City Urban coastal Taguig (Metro Manila) Urban Coastal Bayawan Rural coastal Alabel City Urban coastal

6 Tan Lap, Hanoi Luc Ngan, Bac Giang Bac Giang town, Bac Giang Vietnam Field Sites Lai Xa, Hanoi Hai Phong city Hanoi city Thieu Duong, Thanh Hoa Cua Lo town, Nghe An Bai Chay ward, Quang Ninh Phu Vang, TT-Hue Tam Ky, Quang Nam Tam Ky town, Quang Nam Son Tinh, Quang Ngai Buon Ma Thuot town, Dak Lak Xuan Loc, Dong Nai Sa Dec town, Dong Thap Vinh Long

7 Yunnan Field Sites Dali County Rural Dali Peri-Urban Urban Dali Prefectural City Urban Kunming Rural Ethnic Groups Kunming Provincial Capital; Urban Kunming City Peri-urban Qiubei Rural poor Qiubei County City Urban

8 Key messages. Sanitation is a socially profitable investment 2. Economic performance varies between technology options. Non-quantified benefits of sanitation are crucial to consider in decision making 4. There exist differences between optimal and actual economic performance 5. Economic evidence forms a crucial part of decision making

9 . Sanitation is socially profitable Rural sites 0 9 Benefit-Cost Ratio CAM dry pit CAM dry pit CAM wet pit CAM wet pit IND public IND share IND dry pit IND wet pit IND septic WWM IND septic PH share PH dry pit PH UDDT PH wetland PH septic VTN UDDT VTN pit VTN biogas VTN septic WWM VTN septic CHN public CHN pit CHN UDDT CHN biogas CHN septic WWM

10 2. Performance comparison Cambodia - rural 4 8 Benefit-Cost Ratio 2 8 Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality Health productivity Health care - Dry pit CLTS Dry pit Wet pit Wet pit 2

11 2. Performance comparison Indonesia - rural 8 7 Benefit-Cost Ratio Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality Health productivity Health care - Public (T) Shared (T/L) Dry pit (T/L) Wet pit (T/L) Septic / WWM (T/L) High costs of WWM reduces attractiveness

12 2. Performance comparison Philippines - rural 6 5 Benefit-Cost Ratio 4 2 Reuse Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality - Shared Dry pit EcoSan Constructed wetland Septic

13 2. Performance comparison China (Yunnan) - rural 0 9 Benefit-Cost Ratio Reuse Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality - Community Pit latrine UDDT Biogas Septic tank

14 2. Performance comparison Philippines - urban 6 5 Benefit-Cost Ratio 4 2 Reuse Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality Health productivity Health care - Public Shared Wet pit EcoSan Septic only Septic w. Treat Sewer w. Treat

15 2. Performance comparison Vietnam - urban 5 4 Benefit-Cost Ratio 2 Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality - Wet pit Septic only Septic w. Treat Sewer w. Treat

16 2. Performance comparison China (Yunnan) - urban 7 Benefit-Cost Ratio Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality Health productivity Health care - Community Shared Pit latrine Septic w. Treat Sewer w. Treat

17 . Non-quantified benefits Yunnan: Average satisfaction with current toilet option Toilet position Cleanliness Status Visitors Maintaining Health Conflict avoidance Convenience for children Convenience for elderly Night use of toilet Avoid rain Showering Dangerous animals Improved Unimproved

18 . Non-quantified benefits Yunnan: Proportion of important and very important reasons to get a latrine for those currently without 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 0% 20% 0% 0% Comfortable Clean Not sharing Privacy Proximity Non-pollution

19 . Non-quantified benefits Wastewater management versus no WWM 6 Benetit-Cost Ratio Access time Water treatment Water access Health mortality Health productivity Health care 0 Wet pit Septic WWM Septic Septic WWM Septic Septic WWM Wet pit Septic WWM Indonesia Philippines Vietnam China (Yunnan) Impact on water resources and environment undervalued

20 4. Program performance Optimal versus actual - rural Benefit-Cost Ratio Optimal Actual

21 4. Program performance Program costs (%) Investment costs - rural Cambodia Capital (household) Capital (NGO/donor) Capital (government) Program (NGO/donor) Program (government) Program (non-financial) 80 United States Dollars Wet Pit (ADB) Wet Pit (EU) Dry CLTS (Plan Int) Dry Pit (World Vision)

22 5. Decision making Financing needs - urban 00 = monthly GDP pc Investment Recurrent Wet pit Sewer w. Treatment Public (2) Shared () Wet pit () Septic w. Treat () Sewer w. Treat (2) Public (2) Shared () Wet pit () EcoSan () Septic only (2) Septic w. Treat (B) Sewer w. Treat () Wet pit () Septic only (4) Septic w. Treat () Sewer w. Treat () Community () Shared (2) Pit latrine () Septic w. Treat (4) Sewer w. Treat (2) Cambodia Indonesia Philippines Vietnam China (Yunnan)

23 Conclusions and recommendations. Sanitation is a socially profitable investment 2. Economic performance varies between technology options. Non-quantified benefits of sanitation are crucial to consider in decision making 4. There are differences between ideal and actual economic performance 5. Economic evidence forms a crucial part of decision making. Increased investments in sanitation are justified 2. Tools should aid local decision makers to select the right technologies. These need to be better understood and incorporated in the investment decision 4. Focus on correct selection, design and implementation of sanitation programs 5. Present economic evidence simply for decision makers; allow proper time and resources to use evidence

24 Thank You With special thanks to funding agencies, staff of WSP and consultant teams and their institutes, represented by: - Cambodia: Sok Heng Sam, EIC - Indonesia: Asep Winara, MLD - Philippines: U-Primo Rodriguez, UP - Vietnam: Viet Anh Nguyen, IESE - Yunnan: Liang Chuan, YASS