Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Introductionproportion of total deaths or disability-adjusted life-years(DALYs) attributable to unsafe drinking-water, inadequatesanitation and insufficient hygiene is more than 20% inchildren aged below 15 years. Phase 1 of the Economics ofSanitation Initiative (ESI) showed that water-related diseaseswere responsible for 34% of the US$780 million annualimpact of poor sanitation in Vietnam (Thang et al, 2007).The remaining 66% was contributed by impact on watersources (US$287 million), land use (US$118 million), accesstime (US$41.6 million) and tourism (US$69 million).TABLE 1: SANITATION COVERAGE (%) (HYGIENIC LATRINES ONLY) IN VIETNAM FROM 1998 TO 2007 REPORTED IN DIFFERENTDATA SOURCESEcological regionNationalNationalsurvey onHealthenvironmentalSurvey,hygiene, MOHMOH 20021998 21Surveyon living Nationalstandards of TargetHHs Programme(GSO)2004 3- 2004 4 having attaining attaining standardSurvey on environmental sanitation in ruralVietnam MOH 2007 5% HHs % latrines % latrinessanitarylatrinesstandard onconstructionon constructionand maintenanceRed River Delta 3.5 32 69.2 65 37.9 30 22.9North East27 52.510.2 3.9 2.92.438North West 4 18.6 6.2 4.5 3.3North Central Coast 6.5 33 57 56 43.8 24.3 14.1South Central Coast 11.4 21 52.2 50 49.6 20 16.1Central Highlands 1.3 12 35.3 39 13.3 10.2 7.0South East 7.2 37 71.4 62 53.8 43.3 39.1South West 4.3 12 23.9 35 26.1 21.2 19.3Vietnam 6 4.8 21.0 50.8 50 33.0 22.5 18.0HH – household1MOH-UNICEF (1998), Survey on latrines at households in rural Vietnam2MOH (2002), National Health Survey3GSO (2004). Survey on living standards of households4Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004), Report of the 5-year implementation of the NTP5Survey on environmental sanitation in rural Vietnam, MOH – UNICEF, 20076Reflects national average (weighted average of regions according to population size)FIGURE 1: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH A LATRINE, BY ECOLOGICAL REGIONMekong river deltaCentral highlandsSouth central coastNorth eastSouth eastNorth central coastNorth westRed river delta0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage of households with a latrineSource: MOH – UNICEF (2007). Report on Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Status in Rural Areas of Vietnam.2Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | IntroductionFIGURE 2: TYPES OF TOILET IN HOUSEHOLDS WHERE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS ARE METPour-flushSeptic tanksDouble pitBiogasTotal0 5 10 15 20Percent1.2 SANITATION SECTOR ISSUESThis section introduces efforts by the Vietnamese Governmentto improve sanitation, and the remaining challenges.The water and sanitation sector in Vietnam lacks mechanismsfor regular sector assessment that addresses criticalissues such as the different institutional, managerial and operationalaspects of the sector and its links to health, wellbeingand economic development. The institutions responsiblefor urban and rural water supply and sanitation do notexchange information effectively, which prevents synergy,information exchange and good coordination. There is nonational institution mandated with the important role ofcoordination and cooperation for the whole drinking waterand sanitation sector.Along with the rise in government funding for the constructionand rehabilitation of sewerage and drainagesystems and capacity building for companies overseeing theoperation and maintenance (O&M) of the systems, therehas been a significant increase in number of urban sewerageand drainage projects funded by preferential loans fromagencies. In urban areas, there have been more than 10sewerage and drainage projects with a total budget of overUS$2 billion (excluding user contributions). Over 80% ofbudget for these projects is in the form of official developmentassistance (ODA) contributions from internationalfinancial institutions like World Bank and the Asian DevelopmentBank, or from the governments of countries includingJapan, France, Denmark, Belgium and Switzerland.In rural areas, an average of between US$100 million andUS$170 million is being invested annually for water andsanitation.Combined sewerage and drainage systems with overflowchambers (CSOs) are the most common wastewater collectionsystems in urban Vietnam. These entail a lot of operationand maintenance and involve the risk of environmentalpollution. It is very expensive to upgrade existing CSO systemsto separate sewers and drains. Separate systems must bedesigned and built for new urban development areas. Themost challenging context for urban drainage is found in theflat delta areas. Large diameter and deep laying sewers requiresignificant investment to cover high construction and O&Mcosts. The coastal urban areas such as Hai Phong, Da Nang,Nha Trang and Quy Nhon are also facing such difficulties asuneven terrain, soil composition consisting mostly of sandand sandy loam, and fluctuating tidal levels.Lessons should be learned from successful sanitation projectsthat have significantly improved urban environmentalsanitation in Hanoi, Hai Phong, Buon Me Thuot, QuangNinh and many other cities.1.3 BROADER SANITATION ASPECTSSanitation covers more than providing latrines and sewagetreatment. According to Vietnam’s Unified Sanitation SectorStrategy and Action Plan (U3SAP), sanitation includessolid waste management, sludge management, and improvedsanitary practices in trade villages and in agriculture,among others. According to the Ministry of Construction(MOC), the total amount of solid waste (urban and rural)is estimated at 12.8 million tons per year, of which urbanareas (category 4 and above) produce 7.2 million per year(54%). This amount is forecast to reach 22 million tonsin 2020 (MoC website, October 2008). Some 82% of thewww.wsp.org3
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 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 91 and 92:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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?