Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Executive SummaryThe highest annual recurrent costs are required for urbanwastewater management systems (VND1,174,000 orUS$67 per household, including program costs). Annualoperation and maintenance costs for all on-site sanitationsystems in urban and rural areas, except pit latrines, were ofa similar value (VND324,000, or US$18 per household).Simple low-cost pit latrines involve fewer annual operationand maintenance costs (VND163,000, or US$9.3). Majorrecurrent costs for on-site sanitation systems were for flushingwater, toilet cleaning and sludge handling.The choice of sanitation option by households, and theprice paid, is expected to vary by wealth quintile. The richesthouseholds prefer septic tanks. No household from therichest quintile practised OD. All sanitation types werefound in the middle and lower income households. Thereare big differences among rich and poor households in thepercentages of income paid for the same type of sanitation.It takes 1.5 years for the economic benefit value to exceedthe septic tank construction costs, and households spendaround 17% of their income (or income from 9 workingweeks) on recurrent costs each year. The richest householdshave to pay only 5% of their income (an average of 2.5working weeks’ income) to pay for the construction of aseptic tank, and spend 2% of their income (1 workingweek’s income) on recurrent costs.In urban sites, the total contribution from the governmentand donors for centralized wastewater management projectswas much higher than the contribution from households(77% versus 23%). In wastewater treatment projectsin Vietnam, besides household contributions, the majorfunding still comes from overseas development assistance(grants or loans) compared to local and central governmentcontributions (56% versus 21%). In sites where sanitationimprovement was made only at household scale, contributionsfrom the households ranged from 59% to 98%.In rural sites, household contribution to sanitation costsin all surveyed sites ranged from 50% (cluster wastewatermanagement) to 90% (biogas digester). Contributionsfrom the government and other donors were less significantat less than 30%, except at one rural site (R7) wherecluster wastewater management was implemented with acontribution of 50%. In the latter case, the external contributionsfinancing soft interventions (awareness raising,management and technical support) were crucial to theproject’s success.FIGURE C: HEALTH COST SAVINGS FROM IMPROVED SANITATION OPTIONS (VND, 2009)OD to Basic San +Hygiene improvementUrban Sites,averageOD to ST +Hygiene improvementOD to WWT +Hygiene improvementOD to Basic San +Hygiene improvementOD to ST +Hygiene improvementRural Sites,averageOD to WWT +Hygiene improvementOD to DVCL +Hygiene improvementOD to Biogas Dig. +Hygiene improvementHealthcare costHealth-related productivity costsPremature mortality costs0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000(Avoided) health cost, VNDwww.wsp.orgix