Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Executive Summaryxiinatural socio-economic conditions. An explicit assessmentof the options should be made, for example: a combinedsewerage and drainage versus a separate system; centralizedversus decentralized sanitation schemes; conventional versushigh-tech or low-cost technological options; or a combinationof these.Neglecting a tertiary sewerage and drainage network is acommon issue in urban sanitation projects. A combinedsewerage and drainage network is common in urban areasof Vietnam, often leading to system overloads and/or watersource pollution. As well as examining financial sustainability,lessons from the technical operations of new urban sanitationsystems should be studied. The sanitation optionsanalyzed in this study are: separate small-bore sewerage;decentralized or centralized low-cost wastewater treatmentoptions in baffled septic tank with anaerobic filter (BAS-TAF); constructed wetland and waste stabilization pondsin Buon Ma Thuot city (Dak Lak province), Cho Moi andCho Ra towns (Bac Kan province) and Bai Chay touristarea (Quang Ninh province); and wastewater reuse in BuonMa Thuot city (Dak Lak province).Rural sanitation: In the coming years, targets for rural sanitationshould be more precisely specified in terms of thequantity and quality of sanitary structures. Greater investmentis needed with an emphasis on sanitary planning andselection of technologies. Even though a major share of theinvestment in sanitation is coming from households, incentivesfor household investment into sanitary latrines, solidwaste management and improved drainage are still limited.Marketing activities and the promotion of sanitationin association with the application of preferential financialmechanisms are crucial, such as appropriate credit models,and more efficient sanitation and hygiene awareness risingprograms.Until now, there have been extremely limited applicationsof effective solutions for liquid and solid waste managementin rural areas, particularly in handicraft villages. Some successfulmodels have been observed using decentralized anaerobic(biogas) digesters in pig farms. Besides householdtoilet improvement, a pilot effort such as the Lai Xa projectdemonstrates the promising option of investing in decentralizedwastewater management. A decentralized low-costsanitation approach with appropriate technical options andmanagement schemes, together with information, educationand communication (IEC) and behavior change activities,should be promoted in future projects. A solid wastecomponent should be integrated into the project vision.Biogas projects: Considerable success has also been achievedfrom individual biogas plant construction and electricitygeneration for livestock breeding farms. Economic andenvironmental sanitation benefits have been observed andconfirmed by the farmers. Key points for achieving successin the biogas program were: a clear vision and the support ofprovincial and district authorities; appropriate selection ofbiogas technology; adequate technical training provided toset up a team of qualified and motivated local technicians;and a quality control system to help establish the trust ofthe livestock community in the biogas facility. Besides thecommon practice of slurry utilization, the adequate posttreatmentof biogas products (both liquid and solid phase)needs further consideration. More efforts should be madeby central and local governments to disseminate cleanerproduction methods, resource recovery and other greenfarming technologies and equipment to farmers. Technicalguidance and oriented marketing activities should be set upwith the involvement of different players.Solid waste management: The main current method of solidwaste disposal is landfill. However, more sustainable wastetreatment and disposal methods should be further considered.The 3R project shows a very promising concept, butit requires a number of developments to be realized on theground. There are different models of cooperatives, privateenterprises, and “equitized” enterprises providing solid wastecollection, transportation, treatment and disposal in urban,rural and industrial areas. Waste service companies needmore support to improve their performance.F. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe economic performance of sanitation and hygieneprojects is favorable throughout the country. Hygiene improvementactivities and sanitation improvement effortsrealize the highest BCR values. The actual performanceof sanitation programs is often lower than ideal performance,as indicated by the non-use of toilets and the continuedpollution of the environment, indicating that attentionneeds to be paid to the determinants of non-performance.Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Executive SummaryThe study findings emphasize the importance of selectingthe right sanitation option when moving up the sanitationladder to upgrade to a system that is financially sustainable.It also indicates the need to consider other, non-quantifiedbenefits that are not included in the benefit-cost ratios. Thestudy recommendations are:Recommendation 1: Intensify efforts to increase accessto basic improved sanitation in rural areas and improvedwastewater management in urban areas. Despitethe progress of the country in meeting the MDG target forsanitation, there remains a sizeable number of rural peoplestill using unimproved sanitation facilities; furthermore,only a small proportion of urban wastewater is treated adequately.As a result, the estimated economic burden ofpoor sanitation in the country remains high. This suggeststhe need for more investment in improved sanitation andwaste management facilities. Such investments are essentialto reducing the costs that poor sanitation imposes onhealth, water for drinking and other uses, tourism, businessoperations, and the overall quality of life. This investmentmay also stimulate economic activity in markets thatprovide inputs to the sanitation sector, as well as those thatutilize human excreta or solid waste for productive activities.The benefit of each US$ invested in sanitation andhygiene improvement ranges from US$1.4 to US$9.4 inurban areas, and from US$2.7 to US$11.7 in rural areas.Sources of investment funds to the sanitation and hygienesector should be strengthened and diversified, while interventionsby the public sector and development banksshould be targeted to maximize their developmental benefits,aiming especially to increase access and uptake amongpoor and vulnerable households.Recommendation 2: Sanitation planning should carefullyconsider the performance of alternative technologyoptions and delivery approaches to maximize programefficiency. Proper planning processes would avoid inefficientinvestment in sanitation systems that are not financiallysustainable or are inadequate for the population’sneeds and require later upgrading. The broader economiccosts and benefits, as well as direct financial requirementsand impacts, should be considered as part of technologyand program delivery selection. Technology selection andproject design should take into account life-cycle costs, thefuture construction price increases, the specific conditionswww.wsp.orgof target sites and the opportunities and limitations relatedto sanitation programs. Decision makers at all levels shouldbe encouraged to select those technologies and designs thatnot only successfully capture the financial and economicbenefits of sanitation, but also at an affordable cost in eachspecific context. The reuse of treated wastewater and sludgein agriculture would bring significant benefits to the integratedsanitation system. Safe and efficient resource recoveryshould be targeted in sanitation projects, especially inareas where funds are most limited.Based on the results of this and other studies, guidelinesshould be drawn up for technology options and programdelivery approaches for different geographical, demographicand socio-economic settings in Vietnam. To enable improvedplanning at decentralized level, capacities and skillsin planning, design and contracting by local authoritiesshould be built and mobilized. To increase program efficiency,lower-cost and standard designs that incorporateimproved environmental features should be made availableto design teams. Vietnamese environmental standards needto be better developed to enable the planning of sustainablesanitation options.Recommendation 3: A manageable monitoring andevaluation (M&E) framework should be designed forsanitation programs – a framework that defines how tomeasure the relevant impacts of sanitation options comprehensively.Sanitation program managers and implementersand government staff need to better understandthe efficiency of sanitation programs. This will enable themto fine-tune ongoing programs under implementation,and to conduct ex-post evaluation for better design andimplementation of future sanitation programs. OutcomeorientedM&E is a relatively new concept in Vietnam and itneeds to be introduced in a way that matches national systemsand processes. It is necessary to develop an adequateinformation mechanism and database, as well as M&E anda reporting system for the water and sanitation sector. Furthermore,users need to be sensitized and trained appropriatelyin the proposed M&E systems.Recommendation 4: Stimulate and allow the private sectorto be part of the solution. There are significant opportunitiesfor sanitation markets in Vietnam, in which theprivate sector is well placed to play a major role. Besidesxiii
Page 3: Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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 46 and 47: III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 60: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 64 and 65:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153:
ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
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?