Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Annex TablesProjectRationalImplementerProgram approach andactivitiesImpactsLessonsSanitation marketing project in Binh Trieu commune, Thang Binh district, Quang Nam ProvinceEnhancing environmental sanitation awareness and demand responsiveness, as well as capacitybuilding for the sanitation service provider, through sanitation marketing activities in low-income ruralcommunities in the central region, with technical and financial support from an International NGO, IDE(2003-2004). Site R5 of the current study.IDE Quang NamIEC activities and trainingWaste water mostly runs onto gardens and becomes absorbed into the soil.Although garbage collection exists, it is conducted once per week. Therefore garbage is kept insidehouses or piled in market areas, polluting the environment.Only 200 of 600 households in the project area have access to clean water. In addition, a sand plantlocated close to the residential area has negative impacts on underground water, decreasing the waterreserve for agriculture.Some 30% of households in the selected area do not have latrines, so open defecation takes place inthe forest or on sand banks. The remaining 70% of households have pit latrines or one-vault latrines.The decrease in the prevalence of diarrhea among children aged under 16 in both the experiment andcontrol groups was significant, and appears to be the result of two factors: the substantial increase inhousehold access to hygienic latrines; and the significant improvement of key hygiene practices withinthe experiment core target groups. Cluster key indicators for hygiene practices were: consistent useof sanitation facilities; improved rates of hand washing with soap; and safe excreta disposal. The coretarget groups were defined as the primary child caregivers and children under 16 years old.A reliance on external support (IDE) was crucial, as this was central to the development by privateoperators of a marketing campaign that involved significant research, the use of communicationprofessionals, and the employment of different media strategies.Perhaps the most important finding was that the increase in demand among the experiment groupwas achieved without the use of capital cost subsidies. This was accomplished through the useof locally available market innovations that suited local lifestyles, and most importantly, througheffective communication. During project implementation, rural households made more than 10,000investments in improved latrines from local, small-scale service providers at full market cost. Theuse of external subsidies for business development and promotion is often more sustainable thansubsidizing sanitation hardware, because once demand is stimulated and the market is established,suppliers take over promotion even if external funds are withdrawn. This also means that theconsumer does not have to experience a sudden price shock from unsubsidized hardware, which hasled to the collapse of many past sanitation programs. Prior to the project, IDE had encountered thisand other negative consequences of subsidizing sanitation hardware in Vietnam.Private sector providers can now continue to serve rural communities well beyond the duration periodof the project. It has been shown that masons can supply spare parts and provide post-sale servicesto existing customers, cater to the demands of new customers, and even expand their customer baseand businesses through innovative local promotional strategies.Full cost recovery also offers better hope for the sustainability of sanitation investment. Whenhouseholds consciously choose to purchase a facility representing more than 10% of their annualbudget, the likelihood that they will properly use and maintain the facility is high. It is not surprisingthat post-sale services have now emerged in the local sanitation market in the project areas.Consumers making such an important investment tend to demand increased accountability fromservice providers.122Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Annex TablesProjectRationalImplementerProgram approach andactivitiesImpactsLessonsCommunity based sanitation in Lai Xa village, Kim Chung commune, Hoai Duc district, HanoiCommunity-based environmental sanitation for a peri-urban community with technical and financialsupport from an international NGO and a local institution, 2002 – 2008. Site R7 of the current study.NGO Youth with a Mission (YWAM), Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering (IESE), HanoiUniversity of Civil Engineering.Technical options applied in Lai Xa include: solid waste management with at-source separation andcomposting of organic waste; upgrading of drainage network and household wastewater systems,decentralized low-cost wastewater treatment in community anaerobic reactors followed, for someclusters, by constructed wetlands and reuse of treated wastewater for fish farming.The village has changed its physical and social environment significantly through solid wastemanagement, sanitation and hygiene improvement efforts (See Figure 57). It is estimated that about90% of wastewater in Lai Xa is now collected by the improved, combined sewerage and drainagelines, while 25% is treated at the two low-cost treatment stations.Promotion has shown to be efficient in generating local investment and demand. The examplesreviewed lead to generation of more than twice the investment funds than a top-down subsidyapproach. Financing capacity building and human resource training is also necessary and will beprofitable in terms of improved sustainability of sanitation investment.The population’s interest in maintaining cleanliness and wastewater reuse were key factors inpromoting participation demand and willingness-to-pay for wastewater treatment. Analysis alsoshows that the hamlet and commune administrations can play an effective project-coordinating rolewhen management capacities are reinforced.As Vietnam aims to increase improvement of sanitation coverage over the coming years, a pilot effortlike the Lai Xa project demonstrates the promising option of investing in decentralized wastewatermanagement. A decentralized low-cost sanitation approach with appropriate technical options andmanagement schemes, and increased IEC investment should be promoted in future projects. Manyinfrastructure projects in Vietnam involve low efficiency and a limited IEC component. In the contextof Vietnam targeting improved sanitation with limited financial resources, the results demonstratethe efficiency of including a strong IEC component (which is often limited to high-tech centralizedinfrastructure supply) in sanitation programming.FIGURE 57: REDUCTION OF WATERBORNE DISEASE FREQUENCY IN LAI XA BETWEEN 2001 AND 2006Improvements (in %) last 5 yearsAcute respiratoryMalnutritionSkin InfectionTrachomaDengueLight stomach problemsIntestinal WormsDiarrheaSource: J. Beauséjour and A. V. Nguyen, 2007-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100Frequency reductionwww.wsp.org123
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:
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: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?