ACS12131 Service Delivery Assessment June 2015 Turning Finance into Services for the Future A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Paci c This regional synthesis report is the product of extensive collaboration and information sharing among multiple government agencies, development partners, Non-Governmental Organizations and other stakeholders in seven countries in East Asia and the Pacific where Service Delivery Assessments (SDA) for Water Supply and Sanitation were conducted, namely: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. The Task Team Leader for the Service Delivery Assessment in East Asia and the Pacific is Susanna Smets. The following World Bank staff and consultants have provided valuable contributions to this regional synthesis report for East Asia and the Pacific: Martin Albrecht, Isabel Blackett, Jeremy Colin, Penelope Dutton, Guy Hutton, U-Primo Rodriguez, and Almud Weitz. This report has been peer reviewed by World Bank staff Ousmane Dione, Sudipto Sarkar, and by Chander Badloe, UNICEF. Final acknowledgments go to country teams, who conducted and prepared the individual country reports forming the basis for this synthesis. The SDA was carried out under the guidance of the World Bank’s Wa­ ter and Sanitation Program and local partners. This ed regional work, implemented through a country-led process, draws on the experience of water and sanitation SDAs conduct­ in more than 40 countries in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. An SDA analysis has three main components: a review of past water and sanitation access, a costing model to as­ sess the adequacy of future investments, and a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service de­ livery pathways. SDA’s contribution is to answer not only whether past trends and future finance are sufficient to meet sector targets for nance is effectively turned into infrastructure and hardware but also what specific issues need to be addressed to ensure that fi­ accelerated and sustainable water supply and sanitation service delivery. The Water and Sanitation Program is a multi-donor partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice, supporting poor people in obtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the World Bank. WSP reports are published to communicate the results of WSP’s work to the development community. Some sources cited may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to worldbankwater@worldbank.org. WSP encourages the dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For more information, please visit www.wsp.org. © 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Turning Finance into Services for the Future A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific June 2015 Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Problem Statement....................................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Process..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Costing and Financial Gap Assessment................................................................................................................... 4 Scorecard of the Service Delivery Pathway............................................................................................................. 5 4. Key Finding — Access Trends and Target.................................................................................................................... 6 Progress Towards the MDGs.................................................................................................................................... 6 National Target Setting and the Post-2015 Agenda................................................................................................. 8 Required Acceleration in Access to Reach Targets............................................................................................... 12 5. Key Finding — Financial Assessment......................................................................................................................... 13 Total Investment Requirements per Subsector to Reach Targets.......................................................................... 13 Subsector Assessments of the Financing Gap for Investment Expenditure.......................................................... 15 6. Key Finding — Bottlenecks in Service Delivery and Priority Actions. ......................................................................... 19 Rural Water Supply: Bottlenecks and Priorities...................................................................................................... 20 Urban Water Supply: Bottlenecks and Priorities ................................................................................................... 20 Rural Sanitation: Bottlenecks and Priorities........................................................................................................... 22 Urban Sanitation: Bottlenecks and Priorities.......................................................................................................... 22 7. Recommendations and Lessons. ................................................................................................................................ 25 Overall Sector Wide Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 25 Lessons from the Process of Service Delivery Assessments in East Asia and the Pacific..................................... 28 Annexes Annex 1: Methodology, Input Data and Output of SDA Costing Analysis.............................................................. 32 Annex 2: SDA Costing Tool Input Data................................................................................................................... 35 Annex 3: SDA Costing Tool Outputs...................................................................................................................... 43 A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific v Summary and Key Messages • Service Delivery Assessments were carried out successfully in seven countries in East Asia and Pacific as a country-owned process led by key government agencies, and facilitated by WSP with valuable contributions of other development partners. • The Service Delivery Assessment takes a snapshot of sector reform progress and follows a subsectoral approach including i) a review of past water and sanitation access trends, ii) a costing model to assess the adequacy of anticipated future investments, and iii) a scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the service delivery pathways. Based on this diagnostic priority actions are agreed for future sector development. • The positive aspects of the SDA-process are that it i) facilitates a comprehensive and broad sector discussion, ii) allows for tailoring to country context, ii) maximizes impact when linked to ongoing country reform and/or planning process, and iv) supports regional and global monitoring of sector progress, financing gaps and outcomes. • The SDA process also poses challenges such as i) inherent tension between regional and country approach, ii) requirements to adapt it to very decentralized countries or subsectors, iii) complexity for adoption by government and reliance on external facilitation, and iv) the need to further in-depth analysis including dynamic financial modeling • In addition to country and subsector specific priority actions, the regional SDA distilled seven common priorities for sector development, providing opportunities for future cross-learning, namely: –– Improving routine sector monitoring and better tracking of financial flows –– Increasing effectiveness of public spending by leveraging private finance –– Focusing on sustainability through regulation, professionalization, and institutional incentives –– Despite an urbanizing context, addressing the existing sector investment bias for urban areas by scaling-up approaches for rural service delivery –– Enhancing diagnostics and program targeting to achieve pro-poor outcomes –– Developing long-term investment plans and sector development and financing frameworks –– Establishing and funding systematic human resources development programs • Considering other global and regional diagnostic tools and monitoring initiatives, a comprehensive review of Service Delivery Assessments in East Asia Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Africa and South Asia is recommended to look for ways to rationalize and streamline efforts • While support of development partners for sector diagnostics is critical, increased and sustained attention needs to be given to the development of robust, country-owned and locally embedded monitoring systems 1. Introduction From 2012 to 2014 Water and Sanitation Service Delivery urban water supply, as well as rural and urban sanitation. Assessments (SDA) have been carried out in seven selected It has three main components: a review of past water countries in East Asia and the Pacific region under the and sanitation access trends, a costing model to assess guidance of the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program the adequacy of anticipated future investments, and a and with valuable contributions of other development scorecard that allows diagnosis of bottlenecks along the partners, such as UNICEF, WaterAid and ADB. Countries service delivery pathways. SDA’s contribution is not only where Service Delivery Assessments were carried out are to assess whether access trends and available funding are Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Papua New Guinea, the sufficient to meet sector targets, but also to identify specific Philippines, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam, while in Myanmar, issues that should be addressed to ensure that finance is a broad joint sector assessment took place by World Bank, effectively turned into sustainable services. Bottlenecks UNICEF, ADB and JICA.1 Service delivery Assessments can occur throughout the service delivery pathway—all were implemented as a country-owned process led by key the institutions, processes, and actors that translate sector government agencies, and drew on the experience and funding into sustainable services. Individual country reports, methodology of similar assessments conducted in more underpinning this regional brief, provide full details on the than 40 countries (and states) in Africa, Latin America and results of the assessments and a set of priority actions South Asia.2 The Service Delivery Assessment follows a going forward. Country reports can be downloaded from subsectoral approach, including four subsectors: rural and www.wsp.org. 1 Although a similar Service Delivery Assessment was originally planned to take place in Myanmar, for various reasons a broad joint-sector assessment by World Bank, UNICEF, ADB and JICA was conducted in 2013-2014, which did not follow the SDA methodology. Key messages from this review have been included in the concluding section of this regional brief for completeness. 2 In Africa the initiative started under the Country Status Overview (CSO), and two rounds were conducted in 2006 and 2011. In Latin America, the process has been conducted in 2013-2014 under the MAPAS initiative (Monitoring of Country Progress in Water Supply and Sanitation), and in South Asia under the same heading Service Delivery Assessment A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 1 2. Problem Statement Box 1. General background on East Asia and the Pacific region East Asia and the Pacific is a dynamic and diverse region with countries ranging from China, the world’s second largest economy, to the Pacific Island countries, some of the world’s smallest and most remote. In 2013, the region remained the world’s growth engine, accounting for over 40% of the increase in global output. The proportion of people living in poverty in the region has steadily declined over the past 25 years. However, nearly 140 million (7%) of the region’s 2 billion people still live on less than US$1.25 a day and another 300 million (15%) live on incomes between US$1.25 and US$2.00 a day. More than 70% of the world’s natural disasters occur in this region, making it the most disaster-stricken region in the world. The region faces huge infrastructure needs and rapid urbanization. As many as 130 million people have no access to power, 180 million lack access to water supply and over 600 million lack access to adequate sanitation. Rapid migration to cities is putting pressure on service delivery and leading to large urban slums, pollution, and environmental degradation. Managing the effects of climate change and disaster risk, rapid urbanization, improving governance and institutions, and encouraging private sector-led growth to create jobs are critical to reduce poverty and build shared prosperity. Countries also need to prepare for volatility and shocks, by expanding safety nets to protect the poor and vulnerable. http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eap/overview -updated Oct 2014. While the total population in East Asia and the Pacific region done to accelerate progress and unblock bottlenecks. The amounts to over 2 billion, the selected seven countries where diagnostics are used to inform where investments are most Service Delivery Assessments were conducted account needed, what priority actions and reforms are necessary together for around 465 million, with Indonesia being the to address specific challenges in each country, and where most populous with almost 247 million and Timor-Leste the development partners can best provide assistance. At the smallest country with just over 1 million people. Figure 2.1 regional level, the SDA contributes to understanding where illustrates the rural and urban population of the selected different countries stand in terms of their funding and countries where SDA assessments were carried out.3 service delivery pathways. These findings can help frame the national, regional and international policy dialogue, For these seven countries the total number of people that especially in view of the UN General Assembly’s Post lack access to water supply is around 59 million (13%) 2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. This document and 167 million people lack access to improved sanitation aims to provide a regional synthesis of the key findings of (36%). Given the challenges in water and sanitation service the individual country assessments, as well as to capture delivery in these countries, SDA has been used as a tool regional lessons from the methodology and process, and to help governments better understand what underpins offers recommendations on how countries could best progress in water supply and sanitation and what can be continue to monitor their progress. 3 Further specific country context information can be found in the individual country reports downloadable at www.wsp.org 2 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Figure 2.1 Rural and urban populations for selected countries where Service Delivery Assessments have been carried out Urban Rural share share Myanmar Laos 6.6 Million 35% Vietnam 65% 90.8 Million Philippines 96.7 Million Thailand Cambodia 32% 14.9 Million 68% 49% 51% 20% 80% Brunei Malaysia Singapore Indonesia 246.9 Million Papua New Guinea 51% 49% 7.2 Million Timor-Leste 13% 1.1 Million 87% 29% 71% Source: population data from JMP (2014). A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 3 3. Methodology Process development of new and replacement of existing services to reach a country’s official medium to long term national The SDA analysis relies on an intensive, facilitated water and sanitation targets, or—in absence of official consultation process, with government ownership and figures—informal targets as agreed by SDA stakeholders. self-assessment at its core. In different countries, different Key inputs for the cost estimates are (i) baseline and target agencies took responsibility for leading the process: in year access rates,4 (ii) population projections, (iii) unit costs some cases national planning agencies or ministries as of different facilities, (iv) technology mix at the baseline and in Indonesia and the Philippines, but in most countries, target years, and (v) expected household contributions due to the fragmented nature of the sector, two (or more) for different technologies. Annex 1 provides a detailed line ministries were leading the diagnostics. The process description of the methodology for the costing and financial entailed extensive data gathering and a series of facilitated gap assessment. For Indonesia, the Philippines, and workshops, involving a range of government departments, Vietnam, other exercises were carried out in the past and/or agencies and utilities/service providers, representatives ongoing to estimate (sub) sector investment requirements. from ministries of planning and finance, as well as key Due to differences in the methodology, assumptions and development partners and NGOs. As much as possible, targets used, they understandably yielded different results existing sector platforms, donor fora and/ or technical and are well documented in the individual country reports.5 working groups have been used to engage stakeholders, All information and data used in the analysis was collected share interim findings and disseminate final results. from documents from government agencies, development partners, NGOs, and other organizations. In the absence of Costing and Financial Gap Assessment documents, expert judgment and consultation was used. The SDA has taken a country-led approach and thus To estimate financing gaps, required hardware investments recognizes both access data from the Joint Monitoring were then compared with average annual anticipated Program (JMP) and country-reported monitoring data, hardware investments, based on available data from when available. The costing assessment has focused on governments and development partner budgets over a estimating the annual hardware investment required for the three year period (period of 2012-2014 or in some countries 4 Baseline and target years vary country per country. 5 In the Philippines, de Vera et al. (2013) estimated the investment requirements for water supply and sanitation. Results differ as the aforementioned study (a) excluded replacement costs and the costs of level 1 (point-source) water facilities, (b) focused only on off-site treatment for sanitation, and (c) had lower target coverage rates compared to the SDA costing. For Indonesia, the WIRA study team (2012) and USDP (2012) provided alternative estimates for water supply and sanitation, respectively. Differences for WIRA (2012) are due to the target year (2014) and lower access rate. Also, investment requirements excluded replacement costs. Investment requirements for sanitation for the SDA and USDP (2012) are accidentally quite close, although differences in the level of access targets existed and replacement costs were excluded included in USDP (2012). Hydrocoseil and PMconsult (2011) provide alterative estimates of investment requirements for urban sanitation for Vietnam. Its required investments are lower than the SDA analysis due to the exclusion of replacement costs. 4 Turning Finance into Services for the Future 2013-2015). Additionally, annually required operational and maintenance/uptake, expansion of infrastructure/markets, maintenance expenditures have been estimated with the use of the service). Each building block is assessed against SDA costing model.6 three or four specific indicators which are scored from 0 to 3 and then aggregated to provide a score for that building Scorecard of the Service Delivery Pathway block between 0 and 3. The scorecard uses a simple traffic light color code to indicate building blocks that are largely in The scorecard looks at nine building blocks of the service place, acting as a driver for service delivery (score >2, green); delivery pathway, which correspond to specific functions building blocks that are a drag-on service delivery and that classified in three categories: three functions that refer to require attention (score 1-2, yellow); and building blocks that enabling conditions for putting services in place (policy are inadequate, constituting a barrier to service delivery and development, planning new undertakings, budgeting), three a priority for reform (score <1, red). The scorecard indicators functions that relate to developing the services (expenditure for East Asia and the Pacific have been modified to a certain of funds, equity in use of funds, service output), and three extent from version used in Africa and Latin America to best functions that relate to sustaining these services (facility reflect the regional context (Figure 3.1).7 Figure 3.1 Scorecard of the Service Delivery Pathway Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance/ Expansion/ Use Markets Uptake 2.24 1.53 1.09 1.74 1.24 1.56 1.30 0.83 1.44 Policy Expenditure Maintenance/Markets Planning Equity Expansion/Uptake Budget Output User Outcomes 6 The estimation of annual O&M expenditures with the SDA costing model is based on an assumption of a fixed percentage of capital investments. The required O&M amounts are simply to illustrate that these are additional costs to be born through user fees, direct household expenses and/or subsidy transfers. This note does not include a detailed discussion on O&M costs; country reports include this information. 7 The East Asia and Pacific scorecard no longer makes reference to MDGs, but to national targets. Other modifications as compared to the African scorecard are related to higher levels of services and a less donor-driven focus in the formulation (e.g. no explicit mention to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, reference to higher levels of water supply services, and sanitation services that go beyond on-site). A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 5 4. Key Findings – Access Trends and Targets Figure 4.1 Progress towards MDGs on access to improved water supply and sanitation 100% 90% Percent of the Population 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% meet target meet target meet target meet target meet target meet target meet target 20% o track o track o track o track o track o track o track 10% 0% Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea 1990/1995 2012 MDG Target Sources: JMP (2014) Notes: (a) Initial estimates for Lao PDR and Timor-Leste are for 1995 while the rest of the initial estimates are for 1990. (b) Estimates in the figure differ from those presented in the SDA country reports, which mostly used data JMP 2013 Update for year 2011. Papua New Guinea country report used JMP 2012 data for the year 2010, which are much higher than 2013 updated values, which have been revised downwards. Progress Towards the MDGs If current trends continue, Timor-Leste will also meet its water supply MDG target on or before 2015, leaving only Significant progress has been made among the seven Papua New Guinea as one of three countries globally to countries in increasing access to improved water supply. miss its target. By contrast, access to improved sanitation JMP estimates indicate that as of 2012, five countries facilities is substantially lower than access to improved have already met the Millennium Development Goals water supply for all seven countries. In Cambodia for (MDG) targets for water supply (Figure 4.1). example, in 2012 nearly twice the population had access 6 Turning Finance into Services for the Future to improved water supply (71%) as those with access to progress among the seven countries and surpassed improved sanitation (37%). Moreover, the increase in countries like the Philippines and Indonesia in the past access rates for improved sanitation has been sluggish two decades. Papua New Guinea is lagging far behind its and four countries are unlikely to meet their MDG goals neighbours in the region. Its coverage rates for 2012 were (Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste). comparable to the 1990 coverage rates of most of the The Philippines is on track, and Lao PDR and Vietnam have countries in the current analysis. For all countries, these already met their sanitation goals.8 Solely on the basis of national trends hide large disparities in access between JMP estimates, Vietnam has made the most significant rural and urban areas, as depicted in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 Disparities in access between urban and rural for improved water supply and sanitation 100 100 98 94 96 92 95 94 93 90 90 91 93 88 82 80 Percent Access to Improved Facilities 79 76 70 71 69 69 66 67 60 61 56 50 50 46 40 33 30 27 25 20 13 10 0 Cambodia Indonesia Laos Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Urban water supply Rural water supply Urban sanitation Rural sanitation Source: Source: JMP (2014) 8 It should be noted that Indonesia has seen a recent acceleration in sanitation access over the last years, and if this accelerated trend continues it might still be able to meet its MDG goals by 2015. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 7 Figure 4.3 Inequalities in access among wealth quintiles for each subsector. Urban water supply Rural water supply 98 100 91 100 99 94 100 99 99 % of population with access % of population with access 100 96 100 93 74 80 77 80 67 69 80 69 70 to improved facilities to improved facilities 57 61 60 52 60 51 51 43 40 40 20 20 0 0 te am a ia os es te am a ia os es di di es es es es n n La La bo bo n n pi pi n n -L -L et et do do ilip ilip am am or or Vi Vi In In Ph Ph m m C C Ti Ti Poorest quintile Richest quintile Poorest quintile Richest quintile Urban sanitation Rural sanitation 100 100 99 97 100 100 98 % of population with access 100 86 % of population with access 100 93 76 81 80 80 73 to improved facilities to improved facilities 62 60 60 40 43 40 34 35 40 36 34 27 27 20 20 10 6 1 0 0 a ia te am a ia os es te am os es di di es es es es n n La La bo bo n n pi pi n n -L -L et et do do ilip ilip am am or or Vi Vi In In Ph Ph m m C C Ti Ti Poorest quintile Richest quintile Poorest quintile Richest quintile Source: Demographic Health Surveys and Multiple Cluster Indicator Surveys for selected countries and years. Note: Cambodia DHS (2010); Indonesia (DHS, 2012); Laos (MICS, 2006), Philippines (DHS, 2008); Timor-Leste (DHS, 2009); Vietnam (MICS, 2010). Beneath the urban-rural disparities there are inequalities National Target Setting and the Post-2015 Agenda between the different wealth quintiles for each of the subsectors as illustrated in Figure 4.3. This figure shows Due to differences in definitions and sources of reporting that inequalities are largest within the rural subsectors, systems, access rates reported by JMP and by especially rural sanitation. However, considering higher government agencies are different for most countries. level of services such as piped water supply within the In the Philippines national sanitation progress data includes yard, inequalities between poorer and richer segments are shared facilities as improved sanitation. As of now, this much more pronounced as when reported for “improved category is not yet included as improved by the JMP, access”.9 In-depth water and sanitation poverty analysis although definitions are currently under review as part of was beyond the scope of this Service Delivery Assessment, the post-MDG discussion. Lao government data are slightly however it will be taken forward to better understand the over-reporting access for water supply as compared with inequalities in quality and level of services used by rural and JMP, but use JMP data to report on sanitation. Indonesia is urban populations. reporting lower access rates for water supply and to a lesser 9 Individual country reports have in certain cases used more up to date analysis for specific subsectors using different datasets (e.g. Cambodia Socio- Economic Survey for 2011 and Lao Social and Indicator Survey for 2011) using income quintile analysis. However, in order to compare similar quintile analysis, the tabulated data provided by JMP based on wealth quintiles has been used in this regional comparison. No data was available for Papua New Guinea. 8 Turning Finance into Services for the Future extent for sanitation than the JMP, using more stringent For the purpose of the financial gap assessment, formally criteria. Similar difference can be found for the Government adopted government targets were used. In some countries of Vietnam, where “hygienic” sanitation access is quoted however, the absence or inconsistencies of formally adopted to be lower than JMP improved sanitation in rural areas. targets and/or the desire to employ more relevant targets Government access data for Vietnam were most difficult to and timelines to the current country debate, motivated the obtain due to inconsistent definitions. For urban sanitation, use of unofficial targets agreed by stakeholders. Timor- Vietnam has shifted away from reporting on-site improved Leste preferred to use unofficial interim targets for 2020 access, and focuses its targets and reporting on access to inform medium term planning as well. In Indonesia, the to wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The SDA government has set the universal access target by 2019, process has reported both JMP and government figures and using the SDA analysis as part of the formulation of the for the financial assessment used baseline data reflecting medium-term development plan. Figure 4.4 below illustrates government reported figures. the targets that have been used in the SDA process for the purpose of costing. All country governments have formally adopted targets more ambitious than the MDGs in 2015, at least for Globally, efforts are currently underway towards defining some subsectors. These include universal access new targets post 2015, with the latest update from the goals in some cases: Timor-Leste has set universal Technical Working Group on Post 2015 Sustainable access goals for 2030, Indonesia for 2025 as per its long Development Goals recommending the following targets by term development plan, and Philippines by 2025 for water 2030 for water sanitation and hygiene (WSSCC, 2014): supply and 2028 for sanitation. Cambodia has done so for the rural water and sanitation sector only - by 2025 - i. to eliminate open defecation with the urban sector awaiting adoption of more modest ii. to achieve universal access to basic drinking water, interim targets by 2018 in the upcoming National Strategic sanitation and hygiene for households, schools and Development Plan. Lao PDR adopted universal access health facilities for the water sector by 2020, but lacks formally adopted iii. to halve the proportion of the population without targets for sanitation beyond 2015. Vietnam is awaiting access at home to safely managed drinking water and formal endorsement of the Rural Water Supply and sanitation services; and Sanitation Strategy for 2020, with more modest targets for iv. to progressively eliminate inequalities in access. rural water supply (75%) and rural sanitation (85%). Due to high levels of access, urban targets in Vietnam no longer Some countries have already incorporated selected refer to access to an improved water source but include dimensions of the potential post-2015 targets, such differentiated targets for piped water services for specific as universal access targets for Indonesia, Timor-Leste, urban zones. For urban sanitation, improved access is no Philippines and Cambodia (for rural only). Philippines longer used, and targets refer to wastewater collection and and Timor-Leste also have targets for eliminating open treatment. Papua New Guinea has realistically adopted the defecation prior to reaching universal access to improved same targets as the MDGs, however with a time horizon sanitation, by 2022 and 2017, respectively, and Indonesia of 2030. With the exception of Papua New Guinea, all is considering universal access and elimination of open countries have disaggregated targets for urban and defecation by 2019. Safely managed services (under rural areas. proposed target iii) refers to higher levels of services A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 9 that include amongst other dimensions of safe excreta explicitly addressing this issue. The proposed definitions management for sanitation and ensuring water access for the global post-2015 targets encompass a much wider within the plot of reliable quantity and quality. Vietnam, interpretation for safe excreta management than merely Lao PDR and Timor-Leste clearly specify targets for wastewater collection and treatment, including fecal sludge piped water supply in urban areas only. For sanitation, management and safe storage and pit content handling. Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam have adopted targets Disaggregation of rural and urban targets by six out of for wastewater collection and treatment, but not targets the seven countries and quintile analysis of regular survey are provided for fecal sludge management, although data will allow countries to monitor progress on eliminating sanitation policies in Indonesia and Philippines are inequality. Figure 4.4 Targets used in SDA costing exercise meet target 2020 Vietnam 2020 Timor-Leste 2028 Philippines 2025 2030 Papua New Guinea 2020 Lao 2019 Indonesia 2025 Cambodia 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Population Urban Sanitation Rural Sanitation Urban Water Supply Rural Water Supply Note: Vietnam urban sanitation target refers to wastewater collection and treatment, not on-site access. 10 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Figure 4.5 Required change to meet the targets, versus observed change, percentage points per year 7.0% Water Supply Percentage points per year 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Observed Change Required Change 9.0% Sanitation 8.0% Percentage points per year 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Observed Change Required Change Source: Author’s computations Note: For Vietnam Government estimates using government definitions were used to calculate required change. Since no government estimates are available for the initial year 1990, JMP piped water supply access has been used for the initial year 1990. This might have resulted in an overestimation of the observed change over the period 1990-2011. For rural sanitation, JMP improved data were used for the initial year and due to the stricter definition by the government for hygienic toilets, the observed change might have been overestimated. For urban sanitation, the observed and required changes refer to wastewater collection and treatment as per the target, an initial value of 0% has been used for 1990. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 11 Required Acceleration in Access to Reach Targets Simply comparing past trends to targets is obviously not enough to make a statement on the realism for achieving In order to have a sense of the scale of the challenge and the target. This analysis is sensitive to the time periods acceleration required to reach the targets stated in Figure selected for the comparison. For example, observed 4.4, a comparison is made between the required annual changes for Indonesia were based changes in access for changes in access rates and the annual changes observed 1990-2010, with 2010-2019, while recent access trends in in the last decades,10 as depicted in Figure 4.5. In most the last 2-3 years reported by government for rural water countries, required changes exceed observed changes supply suggest an acceleration of progress and attainment by far. It is only in the cases of urban water supply in of universal access for rural water supply could be within Cambodia, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, and urban sanitation reach. In addition to examining past trends, an evaluation in Cambodia and Lao PDR, and sanitation in the Philippines of countries policies, programs and planned actions and where historic trends seem to support targets used in the available funding sources available was undertaken, which SDA. On the basis of past experience, this suggests that will discussed in Chapter 5 and 6. the targets adopted by the countries are very ambitious, especially since those without access are the poorest and most disadvantaged communities, and reaching them will require a different level of effort. 10 Required rates of change are based on country targets and time horizons, as well as country baseline years, which were mostly 2010/2011, although for some countries earlier years were used based on available data. Observed changes were typically calculated over the period 1990 to baseline year, although some countries used 1995 as initial years. 12 Turning Finance into Services for the Future 5. Key Findings – Financial Assessment Total Investment Requirements per Subsector to Investment requirements are disaggregated by the expected Reach Targets source of finance: assumed households contributions and public funds, which include domestic funds and external Estimates of the capital investment requirements are needed to donor funds.11 These are then compared to anticipated meet the targets, representing hardware costs for constructing investments in order to identify subsectoral spending gaps new facilities and replacing existing facilities. However, or surpluses. An important driver for investments is the “software” costs are equally important, especially in rural number of people that will require access annually to meet all subsectors, although not accounted for in the costing model. subsectoral targets, as illustrated in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 Population requiring access to reach targets and its distribution across subsectors 100% 8% 18% 15% 21% 22% 21% Share in total requirements (%) 32% 80% 30% 38% 20% 28% 60% 44% 20% 35% 8% 18% 40% 36% 25% 25% 16% 17% 20% 45% 36% 23% 23% 27% 26% 20% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Laos Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam (1.5 M/yr) (41.1 M/yr) (0.7M/yr) Guinea (5.7 M/yr) (0.2 M/yr) (7.3 M/yr) (0.5 M/yr) Rural Water Supply Urban Water Supply Rural Sanitation Urban Sanitation in brackets: Note: In bracket: total number of people requiring access total number (millions of persons) of people requiring access (millions of persons) 11 For Philippines investments by private concessionaires are also included under public funds. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 13 Figure 5.2 Total investment required to reach targets and its distribution across subsectors 100% Share in total capital requirements (%) 19% 24% 31% 30% 28% 80% 41% 15% 5% 6% 58% 14% 60% 13% 36% 15% 36% 40% 53% 35% 39% 12% 29% 8% 20% 30% 35% 22% 22% 19% 15% 10% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam (US$211M) (US$7,503M) (US$101M) New Guinea (US$1,457M) (US$56M) (US$2,704M) (US$100M) Rural Water Supply Urban Water Supply Rural Sanitation Urban Sanitation in brackets: Note: In bracket, total required expenditures per year in million US$ total required expenditures per year in million US$ Indonesia leads the ranks with 41 million people per year, number of people requiring access across the total of followed by Vietnam with 7.3 million people per year and seven countries. the Philippines with 5.7 million people per year. Population size and ambitious universal access targets by 2019 explain As illustrated in Figure 5.2 total investment requirements the high numbers for Indonesia, while the Philippines has range from US$100 million per year in Papua New Guinea adopted longer time horizons, and Vietnam has not yet to US$7.5 billion per year in Indonesia. In Indonesia, Lao adopted universal access targets. Rural sanitation has the PDR, the Philippines, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, the largest highest share of people requiring access in Cambodia, share of investment requirement was found for urban water Timor-Leste and Vietnam and second highest share in supply. Financial requirements for urban subsectors Lao PDR and Papua New Guinea. Rural water supply has represent the highest share in all seven countries. The the highest share of people requiring access for Lao PDR urban shares in terms of investment requirements are and Papua New Guinea, and ranks second in Cambodia, disproportionally higher than the urban shares in terms Indonesia, Timor-Leste and Vietnam. Given the rural-urban of population requiring access. This “skewed” investment inequalities in access, the rural subsectors together requirement is driven largely by much higher per capita costs have the highest share of people requiring access in all for urban facilities especially if a country has set high targets countries, except for more urbanized Indonesia and the for urban wastewater collection and treatment. The opposite Philippines. Driven by the size of Indonesia, and the fact effect can be found for rural sanitation: higher rural that on-site access for sanitation is fairly high across the shares of people requiring access, but disproportionally region, urban water supply is the subsector with most lower rural shares in terms of investment requirements. 14 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Subsector Assessments of the Financing Gap for A third ratio shows domestic anticipated investment over Investment Expenditure total investment requirement, illustrating to what extent a subsector is relying on external donor funding (or to The analysis in this section uses two ratios to understand what extent a subsector is funded through a country’s the anticipated financing gap/surplus for investment own domestic budget). Figure 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 below expenditures, with ratios below 100% indicating a deficit, illustrate these ratios for the four different subsectors to using 2012-2014 average annual expenditures. The first allow cross-country and cross-subsector comparisons. ratio of total anticipated capital investment over total capital investment requirements reflects a financing deficit Rural Water Supply Financing Assessment (or surplus) in a subsector in order to reach the targets.12 Anticipated investments include both anticipated public For the rural water supply subsector, Indonesia shows a fully investment and assumed household contributions. The funded subsector15 when assumed household contributions latter has a large element of uncertainty and depends on the are included, and the subsector would remain well funded affordability constraints of households and the effectiveness even without the assumed household contributions. High of government to elicit household self-investment13 through domestic funding sources illustrate a strong commitment social mobilization and behavior change. The second ratio to the subsector in Indonesia. Indonesia’s commitment to of public investments over total investment requirement provide low-cost piped water services to rural communities illustrates the extent to which this financing gap/surplus will is backed up with government funding, and is reflected in increase if household contributions do not full materialize.14 accelerated progress over the last years. Figure 5.3 Financial gap assessment and anticipated sources of funding for rural water supply 180% 160% Percent of total required 140% capital expenditure 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Total anticipated capital expenditure Anticipated capital expenditure from the domestic (non-household) and external sources Anticipated capital expenditure from domestic (non-household) sources only 12 It should be noted that in some countries the level of anticipated expenditure was difficult to calculate due to the lack of consolidated reporting. For example sub-national spending by provinces and individual utilities surpluses in Vietnam could not be captured. Informed estimates were used in Indonesia to estimate local government spending. In the rural subsector a lot of funding is off-budget (through iNGOs) and often was incomplete as well. 13 Typically, household expenditures are expected for on-site facilities (both urban and rural), but also reflect self-investment of households in point-water sources (self-supply), as well as contributions to community-based schemes. In the urban water and wastewater sector, household contribution often refer to connection costs/in-house adjustments that households are expected to make in order to receive the service. 14 Or, in case of a surplus, to what extent the surplus will decrease and become a deficit if households do not invest 15 Although some countries, like Indonesia, show a ratio of above 100% indicating a financing surplus (including household contributions), this actually means that annual funding levels (now based on annual average from 2012-2014) will at some point in time go down once universal access targets are almost reached. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 15 Timor-Leste shows a similar picture with a fairly well- funded urban water supply subsector: Papua New funded rural water supply subsector, with high domestic Guinea, Philippines and Timor-Leste. However, country allocations and low reliance on externally financed capital reports have shown that the majority of urban investments investments. However, rural water supply in five other are concentrated in the capital city and thus considerable countries is significantly underfunded (financing gap > deficits are still expected in secondary towns and urban 50%). Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia are expecting centres. Lao PDR and Cambodia are reasonably funded, fairly high contributions of households towards rural water showing high use of external donor funding, similar to supply investments, especially for future piped water supply Vietnam and Papua New Guinea. Indonesia and Vietnam services. show severe funding constraints, although it should be noted that sub-national government and utility funding for Vietnam and Cambodia show a high reliance on external this subsector has been hard to estimate and in the case of funding sources for rural water supply. While Cambodia Vietnam could not be included due to data limitations. Also, might continue to receive assistance from development Indonesia and Vietnam have set the most ambitious partners, in Vietnam, such assistance is expected to targets for household-level piped water supply in urban decrease, and hence the Government of Vietnam would areas: 90% of urban population by 2019 for Indonesia, and have to step in with domestic investment in the subsector 85% of urban population by 2020 for Vietnam, respectively. to prevent deepening of the financing gap. Across most countries, assumed household contributions Urban Water Supply Financing Assessment to urban water supply investments are fairly low, which illustrates a public funding bias towards urban communities, Urban water supply shows a better overall funding picture, as rural communities are consistently expected to contribute as three out of seven countries seem to have a well- a higher share to investments. Figure 5.4 Financial gap assessment and anticipated sources of funding for urban water supply 180% 160% Percent of total required 140% capital expenditure 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Total anticipated capital expenditure Anticipated capital expenditure from the domestic (non-household) and external sources Anticipated capital expenditure from domestic (non-household) sources only 16 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Figure 5.5 Financial gap assessment and anticipated sources of funding for rural sanitation 120% Percent of total required 100% capital expenditure 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Total anticipated capital expenditure Anticipated capital expenditure from the domestic (non-household) and external sources Anticipated capital expenditure from domestic (non-household) sources only Rural Sanitation Financing Assessment In summary, for most countries, the high reliance on development partner funding coupled with low domestic At a first glance the rural sanitation sector might seem fairly investments in rural sanitation for incentives/subsidies and/ well funded for Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and fairly well or software poses real risks to the achievement of ambitiously funded for Vietnam. However, when looking into more detail, set targets. Rural communities are consistently expected the situation might be worse than depicted, as assumed to invest in their own facilities, often in absence of household contributions are expected to be very high public funding for promotion, behavior change, market across all the seven countries, reflecting the expectation facilitation and incentives. that this subsector is largely going to achieve the expected progress through household self-investment. In the light of existing and for most countries growing However, all countries, perhaps with the exception of inequalities, the chronic underfunding of rural sanitation Indonesia, consistently face severe budget constraints would need to be reversed if post-2015 targets are to be to fund operational and human resources for so-called pursued. “software” interventions, needed to effectively leverage and elicit household self-investment (e.g. such as for social Urban Sanitation Financing Assessment mobilization, behavior change and facilitating private sector engagement). These software budget constraints are The financial assessment for urban sanitation across seven likely resulting in an actual investment funding gap for countries poses some challenges in terms of comparison, rural sanitation across all countries. Figure 5.5 also shows as future targets are vastly different among countries. In that anticipated domestic resources for rural sanitation the costing model, countries such as Vietnam, Papua New subsidies/incentives are negligible, except for Papua New Guinea and Cambodia have adopted high targets for urban Guinea. Most countries seem to rely heavily on external households to be served through piped sewer networks development partner and NGO contributions. with centralized collection and treatment facilities. Other A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 17 countries such as Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines and place an effective system of regulations, incentives and Timor-Leste expect more modest advances in wastewater communications, such household investment may not technology to take place over time, assuming a gradual materialize, resulting in severe investment gaps across improvement and self-investment in on-site facilities, as all countries. Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are well as investments in decentralized treatment and septage currently allocating substantial domestic resources management. Across all countries, the overall funding to urban sanitation, while in Cambodia and Vietnam situation for urban sanitation is largely inadequate, and reliance on external funding for this subsector is high. also shows high reliance on household investments, In Philippines, Timor-Leste and Lao PDR, neither domestic reflecting the replacement and improvement cost funding nor development partner funding has been for on-site facilities and assumed contributions to substantially allocated, although preparatory activities are connect to sewer systems. Unless government puts in underway to improve the situation. Figure 5.6 Financial gap assessment and anticipated sources of funding for urban sanitation 120% Percent of total required 100% capital expenditure 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Cambodia Indonesia Lao Papua New Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Total anticipated capital expenditure Anticipated capital expenditure from the domestic (non-household) and external sources Anticipated capital expenditure from domestic (non-household) sources only 18 Turning Finance into Services for the Future 6. Key Findings – Bottlenecks in Service Delivery and Priority Actions Figures 6.1 to 6.4 illustrate the scorecard along the service to deepen the reform efforts already underway and delivery pathway for each of the four subsectors in the seven dedicate resources to address collective behavior countries under this regional assessment. A discussion on change to reduce open defecation. While Indonesia, each of the subsectors is provided below, including what Vietnam, and Timor-Leste compare fairly well across all actions countries have prioritized to address bottlenecks. four subsectors, no country consistently outperforms all While looking across subsectors and across countries a others in the region for every subsector. The Philippines, number of observations can be made. Lao PDR and Cambodia perform quite well for urban water supply, but show severe bottlenecks across the Urban water supply has the best-developed service other subsectors. In contrast, Papua New Guinea is delivery pathway in the region, while urban sanitation consistently underperforming in each subsector, due has the worst when services beyond on-site access largely to the overall neglect of water and sanitation in are considered. With a backdrop of poor financing and the country’s development strategy. This heterogeneous low access, the rural sanitation sector faces profound picture confirms the need to review in-depth subsectoral bottlenecks in service delivery, signalling a need performance as is done in the paragraphs below. Figure 6.1 Rural water supply scorecard across seven countries in East Asia and Pacific Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion User Outcome Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Papua New Guinea Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 19 Rural Water Supply: Bottlenecks and Priorities Timor-Leste, Indonesia and Cambodia all prioritized the clarification of the roles and responsibilities for rural scheme With the exception of Papua New Guinea, most countries in O&M, especially between central and local government the region have at least some of the enabling environment and communities themselves. Testing and establishing building blocks in place, such as rural water supply effective management models for rural water supply targets in national plans, a rural water supply policy that involve the private sector were priorities for Vietnam, and lead institutional roles assigned. However, except Timor-Leste, Lao PDR, and the Philippines, including ways for Vietnam with its National Target Program for Rural to better monitor scheme performance. In most countries, Water Supply and Sanitation, planning processes remain improving technical support systems to communities constrained by lack of coordination and joint review of or small-scale private providers and professionalizing rural water supply progress, guided by mid-term investment management through performance contracts were seen as plans. Areas of common strength across countries are the important ways to improve rural water supply sustainability. effective utilization of domestic and external budgets, as Developing such support systems at subnational levels of well as having identifiable budget spending on rural government was considered an effective model, with due water supply, although the level of funding is mostly attention to capacity development, access-to-finance inadequate. In particular, every country performs well for services, and better management of the supply chain external budget utilization, presumably due to strict donor for spare parts. Several countries prioritized improved financing rules and reporting. Common bottlenecks include regulation and monitoring systems to ensure water quality the lack of equity analysis (who benefits and who is missing of rural schemes (Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Cambodia). out from rural water supply investments). This translates into inequitable outcomes under the sustaining pillar Urban Water Supply: Bottlenecks and Priorities (especially for piped water supply services), with Papua New Guinea and Philippines even showing stagnation in overall Across the region, Lao PDR has provided the most positive access. The key issue for all countries is to tackle issues of self-assessment on urban water supply, with many of the sustainability and expansion of service provision. Few building blocks in place for an effective service delivery countries have developed operations and maintenance pathway. Provided that sufficient funding will be available, policies or know the detailed costs. Well-resourced support it is expected that positive service delivery outcomes will arrangements have yet to be established for technical, be realized in Vietnam, Timor-Leste, and the Philippines, financial and managerial support to rural water schemes as has been the case over the past decades. Lao PDR, in the region. A further bottleneck across countries is the Vietnam, Indonesia and Timor-Leste all have subsector lack of professionalized rural scheme management and the targets, policies and well defined and operationalized inability to expand services due to difficulties for operators institutional roles. These countries also have relatively to obtain finance for this expansion. high levels of budget utilization for the subsector, as well as domestic allocations (except for Lao PDR, however, Every country had as a key priority to improve the Lao PDR is successfully attracting external funding). sustainability and functionality of rural water supply Although Cambodia has made good progress in the past, schemes. Papua New Guinea intends to start off with its scorecard reflects the challenges faced in expanding an analysis of the extent of the functionality problem. reforms successfully beyond the capital city, and the 20 Turning Finance into Services for the Future financing needed to expand urban services. Apart from effectiveness of service provision. Several countries finance, other bottlenecks for urban water supply are propose to gradually increase operational and financial the lack of coordinated and longer-term investment autonomy of utilities, allowing tariffs to rise to cover planning and the absence of annual reviews of the operations and maintenance, discrete management of subsector. Although some countries have conducted human resources, and professionalization e.g. through assessments of human resources needed in the subsector, public-private partnerships. Philippines, Indonesia, Lao this has not yet translated into developing comprehensive PDR, and Vietnam prioritize access to finance for state- capacity development programs to ensure that sufficient owned enterprises and/or utilities through a variety of people are in place with the right skills. Under the developing financial products and mechanisms, including access to pillar, the scorecard shows that monitoring of outputs/ utility commercial loans, concessional finance, and/or targeted performance and water quality remains a challenge in the government transfer for less commercially viable areas. absence of fully capacitated regulators. Sustainability Timor-Leste, Cambodia, and Vietnam realize the need and expansion of services remain a key bottleneck, to do more to separate regulatory functions from with various institutional, technical and political barriers service delivery functions and Indonesia and Philippines preventing full cost recovery tariffs and the full realization prioritize further regulatory reform. Improving long- of the potential to attract private finance. term investment planning by developing coordinated multi-stakeholder five year plans for the subsector was Common priority actions to improve service delivery in highlighted across the region. Timor-Leste also specifically urban water supply include improving the regulatory prioritized integrated planning with other urban services and investment environment for utilities and the and infrastructure. Figure 6.2 Urban water supply scorecard across seven countries in East Asia and Pacific Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance Expansion User Outcome Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Papua New Guinea Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 21 Figure 6.3 Rural sanitation scorecard across seven countries in East Asia and Pacific Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance/ Expansion/ User Market Uptake Outcome Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Papua New Guinea Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Rural Sanitation: Bottlenecks and Priorities resources, implementation guidance, systematic use of behavior change methods, facilitation of private sector Vietnam, Timor-Leste and Indonesia perform better than actors and a national monitoring system. Another critical other countries in rural sanitation and hygiene promotion due bottleneck across the region is insufficient finance for to their long-term, focused efforts in the subsector. These rural sanitation, especially to fund software activities. countries all have policies, plans, targets, monitoring and Despite some progress, outcomes continue to score budget processes in place. They score well for social poorly with five out seven countries having rural access mobilization and the use of behavior change programs to improved sanitation below 50%. Equity is another drag to promote household sanitation. In contrast, Papua New on the service delivery pathway, with little programming Guinea is only recently beginning to acknowledge and actions across the countries to analyze and proactively address its rural sanitation challenge. Cambodia has a address inequalities. government-adopted national strategy to improve rural water supply, sanitation and hygiene. However, government All seven countries have similar priorities for rural is yet to issue implementation and finance guidelines sanitation and hygiene with the only difference with better articulation of the role of local government, being the maturity of existing sanitation and hygiene leaving outcomes driven by development partners and promotion programs. Developing a coordinated national NGOs. Similarly, Lao PDR and Philippines have started to sanitation and hygiene promotion program was a priority put in place elements of national rural sanitation policy and for Lao PDR, Cambodia, Philippines, and Papua New programming. However, poor scores under the developing Guinea, while scaling up and accelerating existing and sustaining pillars reflect the inadequacies in human programs was a priority for Vietnam, Indonesia, and 22 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Timor-Leste. Every country prioritized increased spending and maintenance costs and/or recover these costs on software, including increasing and improving human from users. There is little monitoring of access to and resource capacity. Capacity development was felt needed quality of services. Most countries have wastewater along the entire spectrum: a) front line workers to ensure discharge standards, however, enforcement is weak effective community facilitation skills of health workers and and no sanctions are applied for breaching regulations. sanitation promoters, b) local government staff to plan, With the exception of a few pioneering cities, plans to implement and monitor programs, and c) national level expand fecal waste management services throughout entities to effectively manage, technically support and urban areas are not well developed. The private sector monitor sanitation and hygiene programs. Five countries is not incentivized to participate in expanding fecal waste gave importance to targeting the poor for sanitation, with management services, nor are households encouraged to concrete actions articulated such as through increasing regularly empty their facilities or connect to sewer systems. private sector involvement for low-cost toilets (Vietnam), All countries report serious capacity constraints for city- targeting subsidies to vulnerable households (Timor- wide sanitation planning and implementation. Leste) and using poverty alleviation programs and/or conditional cash transfer programs to better reach the All seven countries prioritized improved fecal sludge poor (Philippines). management through better septage collection, transport, treatment, disposal, and monitoring. Urban Sanitation: Bottlenecks and Priorities For Indonesia and Vietnam, this priority included the development of partnerships and an increased role of the Positive aspects of the region’s urban sanitation service private sector. Several countries prioritized the importance delivery pathway include the presence of policies and/or of awareness raising for urban sanitation services, targets in most countries. Also, there are generally high both at the municipal and national political level, as well levels of access to improved on-site sanitation, with only as at household level, combined with improved regulations, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste having improved incentives and enforcement. The emphasis on fecal sludge access below 75%. There are serious bottlenecks in management indicates that most countries think that on- developing and sustaining urban sanitation services site sanitation will continue to be the dominant technology that include safe collection, treatment and disposal of fecal in the foreseeable future. Increased investments in waste. While there is widespread use of improved on-site networked sewerage and treatment—both centralized facilities, fecal sludge or wastewater management is and decentralized—are also prioritized in Vietnam, generally poor with not a single country collecting and Philippines, and for large and dense urban areas in Lao treating a significant proportion of the sludge produced. PDR and Cambodia, recognizing the importance of Generally, less than 10% of wastewater produced is low-cost technology. Papua New Guinea stakeholders treated, illustrating that urban sanitation remains a nascent recommended to look beyond currently developed subsector and has not kept up with urban development in high cost sewerage systems for its capital city. Another the region. Investment budgets for urban sanitation as well shared priority across countries was the need to develop as operational costs are insufficient and in several countries an integrated urban sanitation strategy, city-wide difficult to aggregate due to the decentralized nature. Few sanitation planning, accompanied by a long-term national countries know the extent of waste treatment operation investment plan and financing framework. To deliver on A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 23 the ambitious urban sanitation agenda, human resource Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Lao PDR, Indonesia, and Philippines. capacity development was a high priority in six countries This included separating the roles of service provider and including general capacity to plan and implement urban regulator, considering a combined water and wastewater sanitation projects, as well as improved technical capacity utility model, and clarifying institutional roles at local level in wastewater treatment. Clearly defining roles and by better articulating responsibilities between service responsibilities for urban sanitation was a priority for providers and households. Figure 6.4 Urban sanitation scorecard across seven countries in East Asia and Pacific Enabling Developing Sustaining Policy Planning Budget Expenditure Equity Output Maintenance/ Expansion/ User Market Uptake Outcome Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Papua New Guinea Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam 24 Turning Finance into Services for the Future 7. Recommendations and Lessons Overall Sector Wide Recommendations Taking a helicopter view across all subsectors and all • focusing on poor-inclusive service delivery and countries, the following recommendations transpired addressing inequalities through better analysis and throughout the regional service delivery assessments for targeting of subsidies/incentives to poor communities water supply and sanitation: and households • using a long-term sector investment and • increasing support for overall sector monitoring development framework to foster sector-wide through harmonized definitions and standards across approaches and review mechanism led by government fragmented mandates of various agencies involved to accelerate support in achievement of future post (even within one subsector) 2015 goals and targets • continuing improvements in the measurement and • establishing systematic human resources capacity tracking of financial flows to the various subsectors, development programs to improve local capacities especially in case of decentralized mandates, to for sustainable service delivery unearth inefficiencies and improve effectiveness of public spending (e.g. through more in-depth sector Table 7.1 summarizes some key-priority actions for the focussed public expenditure reviews) subsectors that were relevant across a sub-set of countries. • leveraging of private sector financing is needed Individual country reports are providing an in-depth through developing capacities, transparency and description of reform context, institutional framework, regulatory framework for public private partnerships challenges faced and priority actions recommended, and • increasing private household contributions through hence are not elaborated in this brief. In Myanmar the sector adequate allocation of human and financial assessment did not follow the Service Delivery Assessment resources to elicit such investments through behavior scorecard and hence has not been included in the regional change communications, complementary regulation comparison of the findings. Box 7.1 provides a summary of and appropriate incentives some of the highlights of the assessment, with full becoming • addressing the existing investment bias towards details in the Myanmar Water Sector review report (under urban areas (especially water supply) to ensure that publication), including a detailed analysis at the level of the rural populations will receive a larger share of public subsector, as well as specifically issues related to disaster resources available risk reduction and WASH in schools. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 25 Table 7.1 Summary of priority across countries for different subsector to address bottlenecks Rural Water Supply • putting in place sector-wide approaches for rural water supply, including joint planning and better monitoring systems • addressing sustainability especially through technical and management support systems for community-managed schemes • testing alternative professional management models and scaling-up these models leveraging capabilities of private sector • leveraging private finance in piped water schemes through access-to-finance support services, targeted subsidies and concessional credit • improving application and enforcement of water quality guidelines and stimulating household water treatment for point-of-use safety Urban Water Supply • development of medium and long-term strategic investment plans and financing framework • capacitating independent regulators to ensure water quality and service standards are met and tariffs are regularly reviewed • empowering autonomous utilities to charge full-cost recovery tariffs, while improving operational efficiencies (such as NRW programs) • facilitating public-private partnerships and addressing barriers for accessing commercial finance through a range if instruments (credit enhancements, targeted subsidies, investment climate) Rural Sanitation and Hygiene • better articulate the roles of local government in delivering rural sanitations services • increase financial and especially human resources for sanitation services, especially for last mile delivery at local level and software • adopt and resource program methodologies that focus on collective behavior change to stop open defecation • build capacity of front-line works for promotion, and for local governments for planning, implementation and monitoring • facilitate and encourage the role of local private sector actors in rural sanitations service delivery • develop and scale-up monitoring systems that measures outcomes and can be used for rewards and incentives • strengthen equity focus through other poverty reduction initiatives and/or targeted partial subsidies Urban Sanitation and Hygiene • beyond on-site sanitation, the sector remains in nascent shape and needs increasing investments in collection, transport, treatment and safe disposal of fecal waste • addressing institutional fragmentation through better articulating roles of various agencies and service providers (such as combined utility approach) • developing urban sanitation strategies, master plans and financing framework (low recovery of costs through user fees) • improving capacities for city-wide sanitation planning, with solutions beyond wastewater treatment • strengthening equity in outcomes and proposed investments 26 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Box 7.1 Key highlights Myanmar water, sanitation and hygiene sector assessment (2014) GENERAL FINDINGS/BOTTLENECKS • Sector lacks a comprehensive sector strategy, policies and targets. Without these, it is difficult to commit to investments, conduct sound planning and advocate for more involvement of stakeholders. • Weak sector leadership and coordination. No lead agency for the WASH sector exists, no coordination mechanism, no sector monitoring or regular reviews. Development in subsectors largely depends on the leadership strength of the government department responsible for that particular subsector. • Lack of information and data. Data collection and monitoring needs to be improved as well as appropriate criteria for classifying existing WASH facilities. • Insufficient investments. This is directly linked to missing targets and lack of sound planning. • Lack of best practices for planning, service delivery and maintenance. While a certain level of capacity is present in the government, what is missing is often knowledge of latest standards for technology or best practices of how to plan for, deliver and maintain services and infrastructure. OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD ON • Limitations present in the sector are well understood and government committed to improve the current status quo. Continuity of the WASH Task Force is an example of that commitment. • Decentralization opens up a whole range of opportunities for local service delivery and a lot can be learned from countries in the region that have undergone a similar process in the past (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines). • Basic level of human resources capacity provides the opportunity for fairly rapid scale up of new initiatives and is a critical asset for roll out of new strategies. A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 27 Lessons from the Process of Service Delivery • In particular it is important to ensure complementarity Assessments in East Asia and the Pacific between the Service Delivery Assessments and the WASH Bottleneck Assessment Tool (WASH-BAT) The implementation of the Service Delivery Assessments used by UNICEF. The WASH-BAT tool, like the SDA, in East Asia and the Pacific has resulted in the following aims to identify bottlenecks in service delivery, however, lessons which are based on feedback collected from the unit of analysis more sophisticated, allowing participants as well as facilitators of the in-country and a focus at different levels, such as national, local regional processes: government, service provider or even local community. It also includes an estimated costing and prioritization • In Latin America and Africa Service Delivery of measures identified to address the bottlenecks. In Assessments were regionally hosted through the countries where the SDA has been conducted, use African Minister’s Council on Water (AMCOW) and the of the WASH-BAT has merit for detailed analysis of a Central American Regional Forum for Water Supply specific subsector at sub-national or service provider and Sanitation (FOCARD-APS). In East Asia and the level. This is already planned for rural sanitation in Pacific engagement has been at country-level due selected provinces of Vietnam. to absence of a strong regional platform for water and sanitation. Potentially, a future regional platform • Using a regional assessment framework, the SDA in East Asia and the Pacific, linked to the Sanitation provides a good helicopter view of the water and and Water for All initiative, could provide regional sanitation sector development at country level, momentum to bring identified priority actions to the allowing for regional comparison. On the downside, attention of high-level decision makers, including the SDA does not always adequately capture the senior officials within Ministries of Finance. variety of contexts within a country and might not provide the depth of analysis wanted by subsectoral • Service Delivery Assessments are not conducted in stakeholders.16 Having said this, Indonesia has piloted isolation of other assessments and/or global or country the use of the scorecard as a framework for sector monitoring exercises. The global landscape of dialogue at provincial level. monitoring and diagnostic instruments shows that rationalization of the use of such tools deserves • The strength of the SDA is its participatory nature further attention. Complementary use, rather than providing a platform for dialogue and consensus duplication of assessment processes should be the building on critical aspects that need to be resolved in aim, to avoid assessment fatigue and duplication of the sector. The relevance of the SDA is optimized if efforts. A recently established working group under the the process and platforms that are used during the Sanitation and Water for All initiative is looking into this SDA support ongoing strategic reform and planning matter. processes in a country, as was the case in Indonesia, 16 Although this argument is most relevant to large countries, it also applies to smaller countries. For example Cambodia, where urban water supply services in the capital are excellent, but where reforms have failed to reach other cities. 28 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Philippines and Cambodia. Moreover, the SDA can further, continued use of the tools is therefore doubtful. help to increase national attention on the sector, as Development partner assistance efforts might be demonstrated in Papua New Guinea and in Lao PDR better directed to improving country-owned routine (see Box 7.2). monitoring systems, while providing on-demand assistance for more sophisticated diagnostics. Having • The SDA process was implemented as a participatory said this, the use of SDA tools at sub-national level, evidence-based self-assessment, supported by translated, tailored and adopted to sub-national facilitation, data collection and analysis. In East Asia country context is worth exploring for larger middle and the Pacific, a region with many languages, the income countries, such as Indonesia. diagnostic scorecard tool and financial costing model were found be quite complex and it might be Due to its recent completion, it is still early days to assess challenging for governments to incorporate them the full use of the SDA findings in country. However, Box 7.2 as routine instruments into ongoing monitoring illustrates a few cases how the Service Delivery Assessments processes without external facilitation. Demand for have so far contributed to the development of the sector. Box 7.2 Cases illustrating the use SDA process in East Asia and Pacific PAPUA NEW GUINEA In 2012/13, the SDA analysis was conducted as a participatory self-assessment and shed light on the neglected status of the water and sanitation sector in the country. The scorecard assessment showed the lack of policy, strategies, and unclear institutional roles, which were recognized as areas for priority action by government. This has subsequently led to the formulation of a national WASH policy in 2013/2014, which is now awaiting endorsement from government. Development partners, notably the European Union, are committed to an increased engagement in support of the new policy. INDONESIA In 2013/2014 the SDA process was conducted and directly inserted as part the development of the next five year mid-term development plan (2015-2019). The SDA analysis, and especially the costing tool, has helped the Government of Indonesia in the process of setting universal access targets at the end of the next five year planning period. LAOS In Laos, the SDA process has helped to articulate the bottlenecks in service delivery and has provided the evidence base for recently pledged commitments during the April 2014 Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting. The Government of Laos has agreed to introduce a separate budget line for water and sanitation subsectors, as well as to formulate a national WASH policy which will form the basis for national rural water and sanitation program A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 29 30 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Annexes Annex 1 Methodology, Input Data and Output of SDA Costing Analysis This annex describes the SDA costing tool. Specifically, key Complemented by assumptions regarding the potential share inputs and outputs, and their relationships are discussed. of household contributions to investments, this information is This annex also presents the values used in the financial used to generate estimates of potential investments for the analyses for Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Papua New sector. The projected investments are then compared with Guinea, Philippines, Timor-Leste and Vietnam. investment requirements in order to get a sense of whether funding in the sector is sufficient to meet targets. Conceptual model of the SDA costing tool Table A1 provides a detailed list of the input data for the The SDA costing tool is a MS Excel file that can calculate, costing tool. Table A2 lists a few intermediate variables that among other others, investment requirements and gaps assist in explaining the links between the outputs of the for rural water supply, urban water supply, rural sanitation model and the input data. and hygiene and urban sanitation and hygiene of a specific country or region. Table A3 lists the key variables generated by the costing tool. It also shows how these variables are related to the It requires data on population, access to improved facilities, inputs and intermediate variables presented in Tables and information on different sanitation and water supply A1 and A2, respectively. For example, it shows that total technologies. Information for these variables need to be capital expenditures (CAPEXTri) are the sum of new collected for base (start of the analysis) and target years, capital expenditures (CAPEXNri) and replacement capital and for each of the four sectors mentioned above. This data expenditures (CAPEXRri). It is also equal to the sum of is used to estimate annual investment requirements and the capital expenditures from the public (CAPEXPri) and maintenance and operating expenditures from the base year household (CAPEXHri) sectors. The components of capital to the target year. expenditures are in turn calculated using the inputs and intermediate variables. For example, CAPEXNri is likely to Actual and projected capital expenditures in the water be higher if the cost of the different technologies (crij) and supply and sanitation sector by government, donors and, the increase in the population that will be covered by these where available, other organizations in the years immediately technologies (gpri) is larger. preceding and after the base year are also collected. 32 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Table A1 Input data for the costing tool Variable Unit Symbol Base year: by region (r) and sector (i) a b Calender year ybri Target year: by region (r) and sector (i) Calender year ytri Population in the base year: by region (r) Number of persons pbr Population in the base year: by region (r) Number of persons ptr Proportion of the population with access to improved facilities in the base year (current access rate): by region (r) and sector (i) Proportion sbri Proportion of the population with access to improved facilities by the target year (target access rate): by region (r) and sector (i) Proportion stri Proportion of the population with access to specific technologies in the base year: by technology (j)c, sector (i) and region (r) Proportion qbrij NB. as population with access to improved facilities Proportion of the population with access to specific technologies in the target year: by technology (j), sector (i) and region (r) Proportion qtrij NB. as population with access to improved facilities Cost per capita of technologies: by technology (j), region (r) and sector (i) US$/person crij Lifespan of technologies: by technology (j), region (r) and sector (i) Years nrij Expected proportion of investments contributed by households: by technology (j), region (r) and sector (i) Proportion hrij Actual and projected investments by government agencies: by region (r) and sector (i) US$ gri Actual and projected investments by donors and other development partners: by region (r), sector (i), and domestic institution/ US$ capandrid project (d) Actual and projected investments by other institutions (excluding households): by region (r), sector (i), and external institution/ US$ capanerie project (e) Capital expenditures required to meet targets: Others US$ capexori Notes: a Regions (r) = {rural, urban} b Sectors (i) = {water supply, sanitation and hygiene} c Technologies(j) vary by region and sector. For example, technologies in rural water supply may include piped water supply and different types of wells. Table A2 Selected intermediate data Variable Symbol Formula Number of years between the target year and the base year gyri gyri = ytri - ybri Population with access to technology j in the base year abrij abrij = qbrij * sbri * pbr Population with access to technology j in the base year atrij atrij = qtrij * stri * ptr Increase in the population with access to technology j between the base and target year atbrij If atrij > abrij, then atbrij = atrij - abrij.Otherwise, atbrij = 0. Replacement value of base year capital stock: by region, sector and technology rvrij rvrij = pbr * sbri * qbrij * crij a See Table A1 for the description of the symbols in this column A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 33 Table A3 Outputs of the costing tool Relationship to input or intermediate data Variable (units in parenthesis) Symbol Positive a Negative b Population requiring access to improved facilities: by region and sector (number of persons) PRAri atbrij gyri New capital expenditures required to meet targets: by region and sector (US$) CAPEXNri crij, atbrij gyri Replacement capital expenditures required to meet targets: by region and sector (US$) CAPEXRri rvrij, crij, atbrij gyri, nrij Required capital expenditures: Households (US$) CAPEXHri hrij, rvrij, crij, atbrij gyri, nrij Required capital expenditures to meet targets: Total (US$) CAPEXTri CAPEXNri, CAPEXRri, –– CAPEXTri = CAPEXNri + CAPEXRri + capexori capexori Required capital expenditures: Publicc (US$) CAPEXPri CAPEXTri CAPEXHri –– Calculated as a residual –– CAPEXPri = CAPEXTri - CAPEXHri Anticipated capital expenditures: Total (US$) CAPANTri CAPANPri, CAPANHri –– CAPANTri = CAPANPri + CAPANHri Anticipated capital expenditures: Public (US$) CAPANPri CAPANDri, CAPANEri –– CAPANPri = CAPANDri + CAPANEri Anticipated capital expenditures: Domestic (US$) CAPANDri capandrid Anticipated capital expenditures: External (US$) CAPANEri capanerie Anticipated capital expenditures: Households (US$) CAPANHri CAPEXHri, (CAPANPri/ CAPEXHri)c Financing (US$) n/a CAPANTri CAPEXTri –– CAPANTri - CAPEXTri a Variables in this column are positively related to the output variable. In other words, a higher value of the input leads to a higher value of the output. b Variables in this column are negatively related to the output variable. In other words, a higher value of the input leads to a lower value of the output. c In the costing tool, “public” refers to all sectors except households. d (CAPANPri/CAPEXHri) is used to make CAPANHri smaller than CAPEXHri if there is “under-investment” in the public sector. 34 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Annex 2 SDA Costing Tool Input Data Tables B1 to B4 show the input data used for each sector and country. Table B1 Input data for rural water supply Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Year for analysis Base year 2012 2011 2011 2010 2008 2011 2011 Target year 2025 2019 2020 2030 2025 2020 2020 (regional) population (million persons) Base year 11.3 116.5 4.6 6.0 46.5 0.8 60.9 Target year 11.4 112.4 5.1 9.1 57.0 1.0 53.1 Access to improved facilities (% of regional population) Base year 66% 58% 63% 33% 86% 60% 94% Target year 100% 100% 100% 66% 100% 80% 75% Distribution of facilities at the base year (% of population) Piped to dwelling/premises 5% 5% 8% 3% 23% 16% 3% Public tap 0% 3% 19% 10% 8% 24% 0% Tubewell/Borehole 48% 15% 19% 0% 32% 3% 14% Protected dug well/spring 13% 29% 18% 13% 22% 16% 13% Rainwater collection 0% 5% 0% 7% 1% 1% 6% Unimproved 34% 42% 37% 67% 14% 40% 63% A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 35 Table B1 Input data for rural water supply (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Distribution of facilities at the target year (% of population) Piped to dwelling/premises 8% 58% 15% 0% 45% 22% 15% Public tap 0% 5% 35% 38% 13% 42% 4% Tubewell/Borehole 72% 5% 35% 0% 33% 4% 24% Protected dug well/spring 20% 29% 15% 8% 8% 11% 22% Rainwater collection 0% 3% 0% 20% 0% 1% 11% Unimproved 0% 0% 0% 34% 0% 20% 25% Unit cost of facilities (US$ per person) Note: Year in which prices are quoted 2012 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Piped to dwelling/premises 35 40 75 82 128 190 140 Public tap - 4 25 8 28 140 100 Tubewell/Borehole 21 40 45 - 27 190 72 Protected dug well/spring 16 22 30 91 19 35 47 Rainwater collection - 40 - 90 19 34 50 Life span of facilities (years) Piped to dwelling/premises 15 30 15 20 25 9 20 Public tap - 30 15 10 8 9 20 Tubewell/Borehole 10 5 10 - 6 8 10 Protected dug well/spring 10 5 10 17 10 10 5 Rainwater collection 5 4 - 18 10 10 5 Note: “-“ .. not included/provided 36 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Table B2 Input data for urban water supply Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Year for analysis Base year 2012 2011 2011 2010 2008 2011 2011 Target year 2025 2019 2020 2030 2025 2020 2020 (Regional) population (million persons) Base year 3.1 119.8 1.8 0.9 43.8 0.3 25.4 Target year 6.1 146.0 2.5 1.5 63.4 0.5 43.4 Access to improved facilities (% of regional population) Base year 94% 52% 83% 87% 94% 93% 58% Target year 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 85% Distribution of facilities at the base year (% of population) Piped to dwelling/premises 70% 14% 60% 58% 59% 43% 76% Public tap 0% 5% 7% 14% 5% 25% 0% Tubewell/Borehole 17% 15% 12% 0% 22% 16% 0% Protected dug well/spring 7% 19% 4% 3% 7% 9% 0% Rainwater collection 1% 0% 0% 12% 1% 0% 0% Other improved 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% Unimproved 6% 48% 17% 13% 6% 7% 0% Distribution of facilities at the target year (% of population) Piped to dwelling/premises 90% 90% 80% 84% 71% 70% 85% Public tap 0% 5% 0% 9% 8% 13% 0% Tubewell/Borehole 6% 0% 15% 0% 20% 10% 0% Protected dug well/spring 4% 5% 5% 0% 2% 7% 0% Rainwater collection 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other improved 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% Unimproved 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 37 Table B2 Input data for urban water supply (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Unit cost of facilities (US$ per person) Note: Year in which prices are quoted 2012 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Piped to dwelling/premises 117 181 138 82 89 379 244 Public tap - 91 25 9 28 140 - Tubewell/Borehole 21 160 45 - 27 190 - Protected dug well/spring 16 56 30 74 19 - - Rainwater collection 16 21 - 90 19 - - Life span of facilities (years) Piped to dwelling/premises 25 30 20 20 25 20 20 Public tap - 30 25 10 8 9 - Tubewell/Borehole 10 5 10 - 6 8 - Protected dug well/spring 10 5 10 15 10 - - Rainwater collection 5 4 - 18 10 - - Note: “-“ .. not included/provided 38 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Table B3 Input data for rural sanitation Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Year for analysis Base year 2012 2011 2011 2010 2008 2011 2011 Target year 2025 2019 2020 2030 2025 2020 2020 (Regional) population (million persons) Base year 11.3 116.5 4.6 6.0 46.5 0.8 60.9 Target year 11.4 112.4 5.1 9.1 59.1 1.0 53.1 Access to improved facilities (% of regional population) Base year 25% 39% 48% 41% 79% 27% 67% Target year 100% 100% 80% 68% 100% 68% 85% Distribution of facilities at the base year (% of population) Pour-flush to sewers 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% Pour flush to septic tank/pit 24% 27% 47% 4% 56% 6% 15% Shared 0% 12% 0% 1% 15% 0% 17% Other improved 1% 0% 1% 36% 5% 21% 23% Unimproved 75% 61% 52% 59% 22% 73% 45% Distribution of facilities at the target year (% of population) Pour-flush to sewers 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% Pour flush to septic tank/pit 95% 80% 78% 8% 70% 38% 51% Shared 0% 20% 0% 1% 22% 0% 13% Other improved 3% 0% 2% 58% 4% 30% 21% Unimproved 0% 0% 20% 32% 0% 32% 15% Unit cost of facilities (US$ per person) Note: Year in which prices are quoted 2012 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Pour-flush to sewers 60 - - - 57 - - Pour flush to septic tank/pit 20 31 23 39 27 21 75 Shared - 10 - 27 25 - 25 Other improved 5 - 4 15 11 13 25 A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 39 Table B3 Input data for rural sanitation (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Life span of facilities (years) Pour-flush to sewers 10 - - - 25 - Pour flush to septic tank/pit 9 20 25 25 13 10 20 Shared - 20 - 17 11 - 10 Other improved 3 - 3 10 5 3 5 Note: “-“ .. not included/provided 40 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Table B4 Input data for urban sanitation Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Year for analysis Base year 2012 2011 2011 2010 2008 2011 2011 Target year 2025 2019 2020 2030 2025 2020 2020 (Regional) population (million persons) Base year 3.1 119.8 1.8 0.9 43.8 0.3 27.1 Target year 6.1 146.0 2.5 1.5 67.7 0.5 43.4 Access to improved facilities (% of regional population) Base year 82% 73% 87% 71% 94% 68% 10% Target year 100% 100% 100% 84% 100% 93% 45% Distribution of facilities at the base year (% of population) Pour-flush to sewers 41% 0% 4% 15% 3% 0% 10% Pour flush to septic tank/pit 40% 62% 82% 32% 74% 20% 0% Shared 0% 9% 0% 7% 17% 0% 0% Other improved 1% 1% 1% 17% 1% 48% 90% Unimproved 17% 27% 13% 29% 6% 32% 0% Distribution of facilities at the target year (% of population) Pour-flush to sewers 50% 6% 15% 59% 20% 9% 45% Pour flush to septic tank/pit 49% 80% 85% 17% 80% 65% 0% Shared 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other improved 1% 14% 0% 8% 0% 19% 55% Unimproved 0% 0% 0% 16% 0% 7% 0% A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 41 Table B4 Input data for urban sanitation (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Unit cost of facilities (US$ per person) Note: Year in which prices are quoted 2012 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Pour-flush to sewers 250 426 150 899 250 1,807 375 Pour flush to septic tank/pit 45 55 36 45 25 21 - Shared - 18 - 27 27 - - Other improved 5 294 4 15 12 12 - Life span of facilities (years) Pour-flush to sewers 35 20 25 25 25 20 20 Pour flush to septic tank/pit 15 20 20 25 13 15 - Shared - 20 - 17 11 - - Other improved 3 20 3 10 5 5 - Note: “-“ .. not included/provided 42 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Annex 3 SDA Costing Tool Outputs Table C shows some of the key outputs for each sector and country Table C Selected results from the costing tool Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Population requiring access in order to meet target (000 persons/year) Rural water supply 302 9,283 250 218 1,343 41 1,919 Urban water supply 260 14,637 124 41 1,410 24 1,823 Rural sanitation 658 8,380 209 184 1,171 53 2,008 Urban sanitation 275 8,791 104 41 1,811 34 1,546 Required capital expenditures : Totala (million US$/year) Rural water supply 32 772 30 22 324 19 520 Urban water supply 60 3,975 37 8 514 20 1,042 Rural sanitation 33 414 15 12 182 3 372 Urban sanitation 86 2,341 19 58 437 13 771 New capital expenditures required to meet targets (million US$/year) Rural water supply 6 328 11 8 91 6 174 Urban water supply 30 2,629 15 3 150 9 444 Rural sanitation 13 236 4 4 33 1 151 Urban sanitation 40 1,061 8 35 186 10 580 A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 43 Table C Selected results from the costing tool (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Replacement capital expenditures required to meet targets (million US$/year) Rural water supply 25 444 20 15 233 13 346 Urban water supply 30 1,346 22 5 364 11 598 Rural sanitation 19 178 11 9 150 2 221 Urban sanitation 37 721 10 23 218 3 191 Other capital expenditures required to meet targets (million US$/year) Rural water supply - - - - - - - Urban water supply - - - - - - - Rural sanitation - - - - - - - Urban sanitation 9 560 1 - 33 1 - Required capital expenditures: Public (million US$/year) Rural water supply 24 315 22 20 189 16 211 Urban water supply 53 2,868 33 7 315 16 1,042 Rural sanitation 3 4 1 3 12 0 63 Urban sanitation 71 1,439 8 49 274 12 771 Required capital expenditures: Households (million US$/year) Rural water supply 2 457 9 2 135 4 309 Urban water supply 3 1,107 3 2 199 4 - Rural sanitation 24 410 14 9 171 3 308 Urban sanitation 1 902 11 9 163 2 - Anticipated capital expenditures: External sources (million US$/year) Rural water supply 5 58 2 2 3 2 36 Urban water supply 22 25 18 10 4 4 100 Rural sanitation 3 29 0 0 0 - 16 Urban sanitation 4 28 1 11 11 - 164 44 Turning Finance into Services for the Future Table C Selected results from the costing tool (continued) Papua New Item Cambodia Indonesia Laos Philippines Timor-Leste Vietnam Guinea Anticipated capital expenditures: Domestic sources (million US$/year) Rural water supply 1 733 4 7 29 13 29 Urban water supply 2 747 2 2 302 11 43 Rural sanitation 0 39 - 3 1 0 10 Urban sanitation 2 400 0 15 284 5 41 Anticipated capital expenditures: Households (million US$/year) Rural water supply 2 457 2 1 23 4 95 Urban water supply 3 298 2 2 194 3 - Rural sanitation 24 410 2 9 20 1 127 Urban sanitation 1 439 2 5 163 1 - Anticipated capital expenditures: Totalb,c (million US$/year) Rural water supply 8 1,248 9 9 55 18 160 Urban water supply 27 1,069 22 14 500 18 143 Rural sanitation 27 479 2 12 21 1 153 Urban sanitation 7 866 4 30 458 5 205 Financingd (million US$.year) Rural water supply (24) 476 (22) (13) (269) (1) (360) Urban water supply (33) (2,906) (15) 5 (14) (2) (898) Rural sanitation (6) 65 (12) 0 (162) (2) (219) Urban sanitation (79) (1,475) (15) (28) 21 (8) (565) a Required capital expenditures: total = new capital expenditures + replacement capital expenditures + other capital expenditures = required capital expenditures: public + required capital expenditures: households b Anticipated capital expenditures: public = anticipated capital expenditures: domestic + anticipated capital expenditures: external c Anticipated capital expenditures: total = anticipated capital expenditures: public + anticipated public expenditures: households d Financing = anticipated capital expenditures: total – required public expenditures: total A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 45 References De Vera, A., O. Roque, R. Dela Torre, and D. Palomar. 2013. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council Philippines—Strategy Update and Implementation Plan: (WSSCC). 2014. WASH POST-2015: Proposed Targets and Developing the Institutional Framework for the Water Supply Indicators for Drinking-Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Water and Sanitation Sector and Identifying Investment Plans and Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Targets and Indicators Programs. Working paper. Washington, DC: World Bank Post-2015 Factsheet. Comprehensive Recommendations, Group. updated April 2014. Geneva: WSSCC. Hydroconseil and PEMconsult. 2011. Sanitation WHO/UNIICEF. 2014. Progress on Drinking-Water and Management for Urban Areas in Vietnam. Final report Sanitation. Joint Monitoring Programme Update 2014. submitted to the World Bank and AusAID. Geneva: World Health Organization, and New York: UNICEF. Urban Sanitation Development Program (USDP). 2012. National Sanitation Demand Assessment 2012. Draft report. Further Reading USDP. Country reports for Service Delivery Assessment for Water Water Investment Roadmap Assistance (WIRA) Study Supply and Sanitation for Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Team. 2012. Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap 2011– Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. 2014. World Bank, Ministry of Public Works, and Water 2014. Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank. Partnership Program. Available at www.wsp.org 46 Turning Finance into Services for the Future A Regional Synthesis of the Service Delivery Assessments for Water Supply and Sanitation in East Asia and the Pacific 47 48 Turning Finance into Services for the Future The original had problem with text extraction. pdftotext Unable to extract text.