Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Costs of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 45: PROPORTION OF URBAN SANITATION COSTS FINANCED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES (%)Wet pit latrine99.40.6Sanitationoptions,urban sitesSeptic tank99.50.5Centralizedw/w treatment99.40.6FinancialNon-financial0 20 40 60 80 100PercentageFIGURE 46: PROPORTION OF RURAL SANITATION COSTS FINANCED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES (%)Biogas digester88.52.88.7Double-vault composting72.3 8.818.9Cluster w/w treatment50.39.939.9Septic tank70.717.811.5Wet pit latrine90.02.57.5HouseholdNGO/donorGovernment0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage84In rural areas, household contributions for sanitation atall surveyed sites amounted to between 50.3% (clusterwastewater management) and 90% (biogas digester) ofthe overall economic cost for the sanitation improvement.Contributions from the government, NGO and other donorswere not as significant in terms of overall value in mostcases except for cluster wastewater management (10-29.3%versus 49.7%), but these contributions financed the soft interventionsthat are crucial to the project’s success, such asawareness raising, management structure improvement andtechnical support provision.Analysis shows that, at the household level, household ownersare expected to contribute substantially to the cost ofsanitation improvement. The strategy to encourage householdowners to invest their resources in sanitation is enactedthrough soft interventions, such as behavior changeactivities, external support and technical guidance, regulationenforcement, and micro-financing tools. Beyond thislevel, sanitation projects cannot expect large financial contributionsfrom households, although communities play acrucial role in the connection and payment of wastewaterand environmental sanitation fees for the system recurrentEconomic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Costs of Improved Sanitation and Hygienecosts recovery. The strategy to mobilize resources in this caseis enacted through foreign loans, grants, and other financialinitiatives to attract private sector participation.6.4 SANITATION OPTIONS BY ASSETQUINTILEThe choice of sanitation option by households, and theprice paid, is expected to vary by wealth quintile. The decisionto improve sanitation is influenced partly by the initialinvestment cost, and also the recurrent costs. Householdswith lower cash income will be more sensitive to hygieneand sanitation costs.According to the Prime Minister’s decision No. 170/2005/QD-TTg dated 8th July 2005, for the period 2006 – 2010urban households with an average monthly income of belowoVND260,000 per person are classified as ‘poor’, and belowVND200,000 per person for rural households. Manyexperts claim these figures do not reflect the real povertysituation. The current poverty standard (for the period of2011 – 2015) is below VND450,000 per person per monthin urban areas, and below VND350,000 per person permonth in rural areas. Households in Ho Chi Minh Citywith an average income of VND12,000,000 per person peryear are considered ‘poor’ during the period 2009 to 2015.FIGURE 47: PROPORTION OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS SELECTING DIFFERENT SANITATION OPTIONS, BY ASSET QUINTILEBiogas dig.DVCLWWMSeptic tankPit latrineODR4R3R2R9R7R5R4R3R7R9R7R5R4R3R2R9R7R5R4R3R2R9R5R3R20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Percentage1st quintile (poorest) 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile (richest)www.wsp.org85
Page 3:
Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17:
ForewordTarget 10 of the Millennium
Page 22 and 23:
Glossary of TermsBenefit-cost ratio
Page 24 and 25:
AcknowledgmentsThe Economics of San
Page 27 and 28:
V. National Benefits of Improved Sa
Page 29 and 30:
Table 32. Sanitation coverage, and
Page 31:
Figure 34. What factors were of mos
Page 34 and 35:
Annex Table E1. Level of satisfacti
Page 36 and 37:
Annex Table J1. Site U1 (Dong Thap,
Page 38 and 39:
PopulationSelected Development Indi
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 72 and 73: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 121: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 127: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 149 and 150: ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153: ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 166 and 167: ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
show all

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?