Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

The Forgotten Sector:

Sanitation and
Sewerage in the
Philippines
Ben Eijbergen
Infrastructure Sector Coordinator
World Bank Office Manila

The Forgotten Sector:


Sanitation and Sewerage
in the Philippines

Sector overview and performance

Policy and institutional framework

Market structure of water service providers

Investment needs and financing

Main issues

Recommendations
2

Sector Overview

Sanitation interventions (usually


construction of facilities such as latrines)
that improve management of excreta; onsite facilities such as toilets and septic
tanks

Sewerage the entire system of


wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal; pipe networks to off-site
treatment and disposal

Sanitation and sewerage investment


usually lumped with water supply
3

Sector Overview

Indiscriminate disposal of wastewater is one


main reason for degradation of water quality

Adverse effects:
Health: Spread of disease-causing bacteria &
viruses
Aquatic ecosystem: Decline in fishery production
due to pollution
Aesthetics: Poor quality of water makes water unfit
for recreation
4

Sector Overview
Health

In 1996-2000 approximately 31%


of illnesses monitored were
attributed to waterborne sources

PhP3.3 billion
per year in
avoidable
health cost

Aquatic
ecosyste
m

Fish yields reported to have


declined by 30%- 5% due to
sedimentation and silt pollution;

PhP17 billion
lost due to
degradation of
fisheries
environment

Tourism

Decline in occupancy (e.g.


Boracay island in 1997 due to
high levels of coliform);

P47 billion for


avoidable
losses in
tourism

Others

Damage claims due to


environmental degradation (e.g.
Overall income
economic
loss
due to water pollution: $1.3 billion a 5year
and
livelihood)

Sector Performance
Access to Sanitary Toilets,
2004
Access rates
All families
86%
compare favorably
with neighboring
countries
Upper 70%
93%
income
stratum

Lower 30%
income
stratum
Source: NSO

70%

BUT does not


necessarily reflect
access to
satisfactory
sanitation
6

Sector
Performance
Sewerage Access, Selected Asian Cities,
2001/2002

Only about 4%
of the population
had access to
sewerage in
2000

Outside Metro
Manila, access
to sewerage
network almost
non-existent

Percent
Source: Asian Development Bank. 2004. Water in Asian Cities: Utilities Performance and Society Views. Manila.

Main Laws and


Regulations
1959 National Plumbing Code
1975 Sanitation Code
1976 Water Code; establishment of NWRB
1977 National Building Code;
Philippine Environmental Code
1991 Local Government Code
Shifted responsibility of water supply
and sanitation services to LGUs
2004 Clean Water Act
8

Government Institutions
Involved in
Sanitation and Sewerage
DOH

Promotion and formulation of standards and


rules and regulations on proper waste
disposal

DENR Regulation of effluent quality and quantity


MWSS Provision of sewerage systems in Metro
Manila through MWCI and MWSI
LWUA Development of water districts to plan and
implement municipal sewage or sewerage
systems
LGUs Enforcement of anti-pollution regulation
from domestic wastewater; provision of
sanitation services

Market Structure of
Water Service Providers

Institutional
fragmentation
At utility level:
proliferation of
provider models
and their small
sizes
At national level:
fragmentation of
oversight
responsibilities

Legend:
CBO = community-based organization
LGU = local government unit
PUs = private operators
SSIP = small-scale independent provider
WDs = local water districts

Level 1 = a protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but

Level 2 =
Level 3 =

without a distribution system


a piped system with communal faucets
a piped system with individual household taps

10

Investment Needs and


Financing
Annual Average Investment in
Water Supply vs. Sanitation and Sewerage

Source: C. Ancheta (2000), WPEP: Urban and Sanitation - 3 Years of Experience and Lessons

11

Investment Needs and


Financing
Coverag
e Area

Population
(in million)

Service Coverage
(in million)

Investment
requirement
(in PhP B)

2005

2015

2005

2015

2005

2015

Urban

48.85
(58%)

55.58
(60%)

9.77
(20%)

27.79
(50%)

55.69

158.40

Rural

35.37
(42%)

37.06
(40%)

17.69
(50%)

18.53
(50%)

50.42

52.81

SubTotal

84.22
(100%)

92.64
(100%)

27.46
(33%)

46.32
(50%)

106.11

211.21

Operating Costs Urban

3.91

11.12

Operating Costs Rural

6.28

6.58

130.09

256.37

Program Support

Total

Notes: Investment requirement was computed based on constant 2002 rates. Support activities were estimated at 13% of the Capital Cost.
Source: ADB, 2001

12

Main Issues

Lack of leadership; no identified lead


authority on sanitation

Low priority given by the National


Government and LGUs

Low demand due to inadequate


information on appropriate sanitation
practices

Underinvestment and lack of financing


13

Recommendations

Reinforce public awareness-building measures


regarding the impacts of inadequate S&S

Review and clarify accountability for planning,


construction, operation and regulation of S&S
infrastructure

Assist LGUs and local utilities develop


strategies and plans for sanitation
improvement

Allocate funding from the government to


provide incentives for LGUs and utilities in
sewerage investments
14